Item — HN Reader

I appreciate the author's perspective, but my approach in life has been based largely on two biblical verses that I memorized in childhood. Those are 1) "Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters" (Colossians 3:23) and 2) "Do you see someone skilled in their work? They will serve before kings; they will not serve before officials of low rank" (Proverbs 22:29).

These two verses come to my mind often and have formed the basis of how I approach nearly everything in life both work and hobby. I feel the pursuit of excellence is a thing both for work and life in general.

On the Internet, everything is my work. I do not have some benefactor job outside of what I do.

For my hobbies and sports, I approach everything with diligence and care.

I hope to raise my children to do likewise.

2 comments

I like the overall message of the two passages, promoting hard work and valuing skill. But I dont like that both passages emphasize working for someone else. I agree with OP's sentiment of working for yourself, even if that means producing no income at all and learning your skills in a self-motivated manner as a hobby.

> But I dont like that both passages emphasize working for someone else.

Yeah. I was reading GP's interesting thoughts and was thinking: "At least I already got the part about not working for human masters right"!

We are always serving someone or something.

For many, money is their master. Or prestige is their master. Or self image is their master. Or personal desires are their master. Since this thread quoted bible, I will point out Jesus said (it is rendered in red letters) that "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money" (Matthew 6:24).

Anyway, I am not trying to hijack this thread and sermonize or anything. Just tying up a loose end that forms a important basis for how I personally have grown to understand the world.

This is truly lovely. Whether you're faithful or not, the wisdom of these lines resonates to this day. Thanks for sharing.

I find it to be inflexible and also wrong in my personal experience. It’s like saying you can’t love two people at the same time, or have balance and nuance in your life

> "Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. "

I really wish I understood the original language for this because both sides of this or sound essentially synonymous to me, so I don't really get the "either" part of it.

Great question! I am not an ancient greek scholar, but it could be a way to add emphasis. Like how “Truly, truly” was used to emphasize.

I think it's much simpler. It could be a misapplication of the "don't repeat words" rule.

No one can have ↑↑. Either ↓↑ or ↑↓.

Seemed like a good test for ChatGPT!

In these texts, the words used are:

• μισήσει (misei): will hate

• ἀγαπήσει (agapēsei): will love

• ἀνθέξεται (anthexetai): will be devoted to, hold to, or cling to

• καταφρονήσει (kataphronēsei): will despise or look down upon

These Greek terms reflect a range of emotions and attachments similar to their English counterparts. The term ἀνθέξεται implies a sense of holding on or support, perhaps with a sense of duty or obligation, while καταφρονήσει suggests a more intellectual or volitional form of disdain or disregard, compared to the direct and potent emotional charge of μισήσει (hate) and ἀγαπήσει (love).

I think either way you are trying to appease the superego. For secular people the superego is the Tribe (capital T). For religious people they have their God(s). Our brain is hardwired to care how we're looked at. The superego has their demands and they are similarly implacable no matter who you are. But at least with religion it's kinda clear what God wants.

The only way you can do what the author suggests, to do it for yourself, is if you have all your needs met already. Otherwise, you'd feel that making art is a bit of a waste of time, or you'd rationalize it by making it about status somehow.