←back to thread

What to Do

(paulgraham.com)
274 points npalli | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.473s | source
Show context
ChrisMarshallNY ◴[] No.43526580[source]
> One should help people, and take care of the world. Those two are obvious.

From what I encounter, almost daily, I don't think everyone is on the same page, on that; especially amongst folks of means.

I have seen people without a pot to piss in, treat others -even complete strangers- with respect, love, caring, and patience, and folks with a lot of money, treat others most barbarously; especially when they consider those "others," to be folks that don't have the capability to hit back or stand up for themselves.

As to what I do, I've been working to provide free software development to organizations that help each other, for a long time. It's usually worked out, but it is definitely a labor of love. The rewards aren't especially concrete. I'll never get an award, never make any money at it, and many of the folks that I have helped, have been fairly curt in their response.

I do it anyway.

replies(10): >>43526766 #>>43526896 #>>43527013 #>>43527306 #>>43528083 #>>43528300 #>>43529701 #>>43530624 #>>43532239 #>>43532290 #
bko ◴[] No.43527306[source]
I'm one of those people that doesn't think we should try to "take care of the world". I prefer the older, time tested answer of what to do:

> You should be wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just, uphold tradition, and serve the public interest

As noted in the essay, this idea of "taking care of the world" is relatively new. PG claims it's because only now we can take care of the world, but I think it's just a naive idea that doesn't stand the test of time. I'm sure its not novel idea, and many others had thought of it and tried to implement some version of it in their society. But because it hasn't become cannon in any group or culture, it's a bad idea in that it doesn't produce human flourishing. Whereas ideas around wisdom, bravery, honesty, etc have replicated throughout cultures and led to everything we cherish

The idea is that you cannot take care of the world if you can't take care of yourself. So at first you must be these things. Ironically the most empathetic people I have met that purport to care most about "the world" are often the most dysfunctional people - substance abuse, medications, no strong family ties, anxiety, neuroticism, etc. These aren't people we should try to emulate.

Only when you have your house in order can you attempt to help others. Start with the people immediately around you. People you know and love and that know and love you. If you've ever dealt with a family member with a serious problem, you'll see how difficult for you to help them. Now imagine helping a friend, then casual acquaintance, then stranger finally a stranger on the other side of the world.

We should have humility as to what kind of impact we can have on the world and look inward to those around us where we can have the most impact. Otherwise you might as well wipe out hundreds of thousands of people and spend trillions of dollars spreading democracy in the middle east.

replies(13): >>43527370 #>>43527864 #>>43528352 #>>43528642 #>>43528762 #>>43528834 #>>43529503 #>>43530092 #>>43531395 #>>43532303 #>>43532693 #>>43532706 #>>43539762 #
mjlawson ◴[] No.43528762[source]
It's rather telling that you group substance abuse together with rather common and generally benign human conditions such as anxiety and neuroticism, and I find that your rather heavy-handed generalizations of people's capacity to help others based on their conditions and indeed their trauma dilutes your point.

It's as if you wish us to say, "I've figured everything out, let me show you the way." I don't find that particularly reassuring, and it's not exactly the kind of humility that I think you want to convey.

If your bar to helping others is ending all suffering within yourself, then I'm afraid we're all going to be living a very lonely existence if we followed your lead.

Now, I think your larger point is that folks in crisis should tend to that crisis, which I think anyone who has taken a plane ride would understand. Apply the mask on yourself first. But to extend that analogy, you can have a broken hand, or even a broken heart and still be able to help your neighbor.

replies(1): >>43532690 #
LawrenceKerr ◴[] No.43532690[source]
You are right that he is making some heavy-handed generalizations, but then again, he is replying to the OP making a very populist generalization about people with wealth as well, as if he has figured everything out - and OP isn't getting any flack for that. It may be the difference between American culture / "the new rich" vs. European culture, but my experience with people with great material wealth is very different and not easily generalizable.

> If your bar to helping others is ending all suffering within yourself, then I'm afraid we're all going to be living a very lonely existence if we followed your lead.

Logically that does not make any sense. If everyone is able to relieve themselves of their own suffering (no one else can anyway, in an ultimate sense), which includes loneliness, then there would be no more suffering. This is a Buddhist mindset that seems kind of harsh at first, but it's a reality people benefit from once they accept it: you must become your own savior. And once you are in good place, even just mentally, it becomes very natural and easy to help out others.

Problems only start when people reject this idea, and think they have all the answers to all the problems, and start enforcing their beliefs on others using violence - which is a trend we're seeing more & more these days.

replies(1): >>43533422 #
ChrisMarshallNY ◴[] No.43533422[source]
> but my experience with people with great material wealth is very different and not easily generalizable.

Same here, just FYI. There's a reason that I couched it in terms of "I have seen..."

I know multimillionaire high-school dropouts, and dirt-poor people with multiple advanced degrees from Ivy-league universities.

But the community of which I'm a member, stresses the importance of getting our own house in order, before looking to others, so people with means can do a lot of good (or harm).

replies(1): >>43546217 #
1. theGnuMe ◴[] No.43546217[source]
Ah yes the Jordan Peterson movement. A very individualistic take on life. It's also hypercritical in that an opinion doesn't matter unless you are already in order. Who defines order and out of order though? Well he does.. or really only one thing could. Wealth. People forget that you can be part of a community and find yourself without it being a cult.
replies(1): >>43548087 #
2. ChrisMarshallNY ◴[] No.43548087[source]
> the Jordan Peterson movement

Who? Not familiar with that... looks it up ... Oh. No. Not that. Actually, about as far from that, as you can get.

Cult, schmult. Been called worse. Whatever creams your Twinkie. Our Fellowship basically has nothing to do with wealth, personal philosophy, or social standing. It's about helping each other out of some bad situations, and it's fairly common to have people from all walks of life, rubbing shoulders.