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.
> 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.
One of the most important, time-tested values is one of responsibility and honor. That means doing the right thing with the power that you do have, both by yourself and by others, even if it hurts you. We each are responsible for the environment (natural and man-made) that we inhabit, and to that extent it is our duty to help others and ourselves.
We have been given many, many resources at our disposal, and we bear the responsibility to use them well. Too often in our society we shirk that responsibility with the excuse "well, its not our problem".
But I am only motivated to help individuals. I don't plan to change societies, I don't plan to help social groups, invade countries, dictate some policies, doctrines, because that is what someone can mean "by taking care of the world".
I began to have a profound mistrust and dislike for activists, ideologues, social warriors, fighters for "a good cause" and revolutionaries. Their actions are usually finalized through loss of freedoms and blood baths.
> We have been given many, many resources at our disposal, and we bear the responsibility to use them well.
You should use "I" rather than "we" and I would agree. I've been given the gift of life in my children and I do everything for them. Fortunately I have resources to spare and try to take care of my family and neighbors as well, and I suggest you do the same.
This might be unfair, but I'd summarise what you said as "living a charitable life, but only for people within 50km of your house", and I think it's fairly obvious that "living a charitable life, mostly for people within 50km of your house, but also you give $50 a month to an international charity and you try to generate a bit less carbon dioxide" is better for the world, better for you because you don't have to harden your heart, and wouldn't harm most people's ability to look after themselves.
I agree that it's possible to be too neurotic about this and do what Sam Bankman-Fried did. It's also possible to be a little better than average at caring for the world without much cost to yourself. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the latter.
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.
> 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.
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).
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.
> "I was in the Air Force a while, and they had what they call 'policing the area,' and I think that’s a pretty good thing to go by. If everyone just takes care of their own area, then we won’t have any problems. Be here. Be present. Wherever you are, be there. And look around you, and see what needs to be changed."
-Willie Nelson
12 year old asking her friend can have a social media account but she can't. TV, food habits, bedtime, etc. Not our problem. Also applies to cleaning up what's around you. The alternative is paralysis and not cleaning up anything.
I've seen images of pro-environment demonstrations that just trash their immediate surroundings while pretending to be concerned about the global state of pollution.
> I've seen images of pro-environment demonstrations that just trash their immediate surroundings while pretending to be concerned about the global state of pollution.
Most especially be aware of others' happiness or misery, along with our own heart's intentions and actions and how they affect both others and ourselves. Our sense of inner peace is dependent on how our karma radiates back into our heart from how we have affected others. This is the most sublime rule of the universe: you reap what you sow, for good or ill.
Cultivate universal compassion and then shine its beneficient light on as many people as you can with real effortful service.
That is the purest heading for our moral compass, and it's always our choice both what we choose to do and how to course correct our ideals, attitudes, and behaviors.
We ALL need to self-reflect and -evolve for the majority of our life, slogging through mistake after failure after falling short of the mark, learning humility and perseverance and mercy for others who need even more grace than we do.
"Love is the astrolabe of God's mysteries." --Rumi
Ancient populations like the Romans had the concept of numens, deus loci, and gods of nature that were responsible for the world, were venerated and people who devoted them to these deities did their part to help the world. Being a good host (i.e. the rapport with the Other) was also always a key duty, so much that it is Zeus/Jupiter who presided to it.
It was always part of the farmer's job to take care of nature and their fields. It was part of the nobility jobs to develop their territories. It is only in modern times, with mechanized agriculture and nation states, that these personal duties got lost. Also, if we widen our attention to include aboriginal people, taking care of the world is quite central to their world view.
Even modern environmentalists thought and acted locally until very recently.
Now "the world" can only mean the entire planet as a a whole. It's a frame of reference that most people have never really had. It's only in modern times (space race) that we started to think of the planet as a place and within those times it's only in very recent times when we have started to think of taking care of this planet.
This is something I think a lot of "do-gooders" miss. We're only in a position to do better because we took care of ourselves. It's a prerequisite. The flip side of that is taking do good (for the planet, for society e.g.) to an extreme where that becomes the only focus while letting everything else go south. We can take care of the planet only if we have the economical means to do so. We can help others only because we have enough to be able to do so. Environmentalism taken to the extreme says we should dismantle our economy because because it destroys the planet, however in the process of dismantling our economy we are taking away all the tools we have as well. If we're all poor the environment is going to do worse. People will go back to burning wood to keep themselves warm instead of e.g. using solar or nuclear power. We can have freedom only by having a culture and environment where that doesn't equate to chaos. Taken to an extreme "freedom" is chaos.
The other way of putting this is the well known saying: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> the road to hell is paved with good intentions... including—or especially yours
The stakes for quietism are high.
The definition you quote is basically the late Stoic definition of virtue. While very decent, it's notably pre-Christian.
Pretty sure that Zoroastrianism has that kind of thing, as central tenets.
I am not convinced that's certain. At best, we can tell that those cultures were outcompeted by others, but the healthy human cells are outcompeted by cancer as well. Additionally, I'd say that throughout most of the human history taking care of the world in the modern sense was not an existential matter because we had much more room for error.
OP is mistaking those values which reproduce themselves well with values which are Good. Upholding tradition is a particularly brutal example; its ethical consequences are entirely variable depending on what traditions are being upheld. The one thing that it does succeed in doing is reproducing the same social structure which, among other things, will raise new people to believe in upholding tradition. Those values which lead to their adoption by new people will stick, and those values which don’t are weeded out of the population. OP sees the mixed bag of values that result from this process and cherishes them as the word of god.
If you as say a father always put your own wellbeing (or some other definition of self-interest) first, then you're going to be a pretty lousy father. But you shouldn't ignore yourself. It's all about striking a balance, and in the end this balance simply aims toward the common good.
It doesn't make sense to say that because sometimes a naive, "greedy" strive toward the common good doesn't work then the principle is false.
You can carve real basis for the common good and other metaphysical principles. One such basis is that, metaphysically, the supreme valuation of the self is on very shaky ground. The self, although very important conceptually, doesn't stand up as an ultimate metaphysical basis, because we are really dynamic results of a whole network of interactions that includes not only whatever happens in our brains, but the whole cosmos -- there's no absolute boundary between yourself and others, and everything is always fundamentally changing. You from today is different from yesterday, and significantly different from many years ago. The common good is much more metaphysically defensible. That's why most metaphysical traditions (religions, usually) almost universally put the common good (sometimes enacted by God) above all else -- it really makes the most sense imo[1]. Again, you shouldn't be naive about it, and in practice and in most cases it makes sense to first take basic care of yourself, "keeping your house", and then go help others, but this is more a guideline, heuristic and reminder (specially important to give for radical altruists, but common sense for most people I think).
But really if yourself is your actual fundamental priority, I think you will act very poorly. Although even in that case there are good strategic reasons to be cooperative (people thinking you are evil or egoistical will already turn around many people and compromise relationships and cooperation opportunities).
[1] If you don't buy this metaphysical formulation, there's an (I believe) ultimately equivalent formulation that may be easier to accept: the fact that you "Could exist/could have been born as another person". If in some metaphysical sense you could have been born as that poor person that needs assistance, doesn't it make sense to help her, which logically implies that if you were in their shoes you would be helped?
>> You should be wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just, uphold tradition, and serve the public interest
I completely agree.
Being "wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just, uphold tradition, and serve the public interest" is something related to you, something that you can change about you, something that you can choose to be without producing harm.
"Taking care of the world" is not about you and your actions anymore. It's about the others. It's the path of resentful ideologues, revolutionaries and murderers.
Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Kim Ir-Sen, Pol Pot tried to "take care of the world."
Should they tried to "be wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just, uphold tradition, and serve the public interest" and leave the world be, the world would have been in a much better place.
Under most circumstances, in most societies, I wouldn’t expect a subscriber of this value system to eliminate slavery.
Edit: I’ll clarify in advance. Our ideas of wisdom, bravery, honesty, temperacy, justice and tradition most clearly, and the public interest are all defined and shaped by our society. We’re quite sensitive to temperance towards alcohol, but not so much towards sugar in our (American) society. It’s brave to fight in a war for your country, until you realize you’re aggressing upon another for resources your people don’t need, at which point the brave thing to do is to refuse to fight and protest the war, but what about the vast majority of soldiers kept from that realization to ensure that they remain good fighters? Bravery becomes a carrot and a stick with which society controls the individual rather than an ethic by which the individual has a virtuous impact upon society. To counter this process I would, to start, suggest an ethic that includes a strong skepticism towards the status quo rather than an interest in upholding tradition.
No, tradition is ways of living that have stood the test of time. They might not be perfect, but the idea that you can just reinvent all that stuff and do it better than tradition is the kind of thing that the Greek word "hubris" was invented for.
Also, upholding tradition doesn't mean being blindly enslaved to it. Part of the reason traditions got that way is that people adapted them when things changed.
I get my hair cut every month because my family instilled the tradition of grooming. But for the kind of people I've encountered who want to "uphold tradition", I'm "corrupting" tradition because I don't get a "traditional" man's haircut (aka a typical cut from their window of reference).
Humans uphold tradition by default, we don't really need a reminder to do it and we certainly don't need a reminder to uphold someone else's idea of tradition.
I don't see pg saying that in the article under discussion. so this criticism, however justified it might be in some cases, doesn't seem to me to be relevant here.
> Humans uphold tradition by default
True, but defaults can be overridden. And culture often tries to do that. See below.
> we don't really need a reminder to do it
In our current culture, where our so-called "elites" do indeed believe that they can reinvent society from scratch, and have been busily destroying traditions for decades in the process, I think we can indeed benefit from such a reminder.
Hubris is about not knowing your place with regard to those above you (the Greek pantheon) and the inevitability of the reckoning when the gods decide to put you forcefully and often brutally back in (their opinion of) your place. Implying that someone wanting to do what they think is right is both naive and deserves divine retribution is a nasty take indeed.
This "do what you're told", "don't make waves", and "let others handle government/systems/things outside of your zone" sounds an awful lot like the walrus and the carpenter to me.
Change them when it makes sense to change them, bearing in mind that the way they are now has stood the test of time.
> letting "the right" group of people tell us which traditions are the right ones
I said no such thing. The people who decide when traditions need to be changed are the ones who are living them.
> Hubris is about not knowing your place with regard to those above you
And in my use of that as a metaphor, the traditions themselves are the things "above you".
> Implying that someone wanting to do what they think is right is both naive and deserves divine retribution
Someone who is giving a "hard pass" to tradition, as the poster I responded to did, is going way beyond "do what they think is right", since they clearly have not actually thought at all about what traditions are and why they exist.
> This "do what you're told", "don't make waves", and "let others handle government/systems/things outside of your zone"
Is nothing like what I said. You're attacking a straw man.
People who have everything they need will make up a story where you deserve your troubles to avoid facing their own vulnerability.
It's easy to assign what you just described to character traits that the given people happen to have regardless of their economical stance. Yet, thinking about it a bit, being nice when poor is just a life strategy that makes sense. Not only that one's precarious situation (of any kind) attracts a lot of vulnerability, it also attracts a lot of dependency on pretty much everyone's good grace. Being anything but nice by default means undermining one's success. There is not much to gain by being hostile when poor. When one gets to be rich (in relation to others) however, the game changes. People want things and it makes sense to direct their attention and energy on other people that (ideally) do have what they want or (at least) may assist them with getting what they want. And, many people would like to cut corners and resort to dirty tricks in doing so. It's not that hard to imagine what that rich folk has to face in relation with other ambitious and not so scrupulous individuals, what a winning strategy in this case would look like, and why it makes sense to become the default behavior.
The other thing about folks without means, is that they know what it’s like, to have needs. A lot of folks with means, are pretty used to having the skids greased, and not needing stuff from others.
I think humans are social animals, and we’re generally wired for empathy. When we can see, in others, that which we see in ourselves, it helps us to feel more connected.
I’m not a particularly competitive person. That’s actually a deliberate posture. When I “win” something, that means someone else loses, and I’m not so comfortable with that.
The reasons partly have to do with being raised overseas, and experiencing grinding poverty in others. It really made a mark on me.
An evangelical and an atheist will probably disagree about the helpfulness of spreading the gospel, for example.
most people believe they do good and care about other people.
A lot of people are not Christian, nor belong to any other religion, but have a vague belief in a God and many of those do believe good people go to heaven. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism
At my age, it’s kind of vital to have a Purpose, so there’s that…
Maybe 80% of the people are good people and 0.1% of people are responsible for most of the world’s misery.
The worst lies we tell are most often the ones we tell ourselves.
It's just like the low-achieving over-confident folks of Dunning-Kruger: they don't really care about the truth, they're satisfied just believing they're an expert. The real experts take a far different tac, one of humility and intense, honest work.
"Nothing is more important than compassion and only the truth is its equal."
Do you also love these kinds of people?
So, at least for me, it's a long slog through the morass of my life full of idiotic bad habits of attitude and behavior. No, these vices must be dilligently picked off one by one, whack-a-mole style, using our mind and practices. As we progress, we must develop our humility towards those a bit further back on the progression or even stalled before the starting block, remembering that we all started out from zero when we first decided to take the path of love.
Our struggles with our ego result in either developing a demeaning, self-righteous persecution of others via false pride (thus nipping our nascent spiritual progression in the bud, if not our ill-gotten confidence), or developing a humble gratitude to the universe and its Creator for helping us overcome that vicious beast and our weakness in confronting and defeating its many dimensions of vice, one after the seemingly endless series of others.
We must either humbly submit to kindness, gratitude, and patience or suffer defeat at the hands of an ego gone mad with ignorant power.
The greatest medicine and sustenance for surmounting such formidable obstacles in the ego is compassionate service to mankind, asking nothing in return, and consulting often with the Source for help, appreciation, and inspiration.
To those who haven't begun the journey yet, we must only offer our compassionate, kind help in the best way possible, with gentle touches of wisdom. That is the best way to testify to God's love we are to carry to one and all in our every intention, thought, emotion, word, and deed, purifying them incrementally over time. These are called by some "the fruits of the spirit", and are mentioned in this NT quote:
"You will know them by their fruits."
People can say whatever they want, but the truth of everyone's life shows more and more clearly upon our face as our years of living accumulate, and also in our tone of voice and content of our utterances, but most importantly in our desires and treatment of society's least valued members.
That why Rumi said, "You have no idea how little we care about what people say."
Is it more like a calling? a spiritual consolation?
I’m a longtime member of an organization that is about helping others. It’s not something that I go into detail about, at the level of press, radio or films.
Also, selfishly, I really enjoy this kind of work; especially at a craftsman level. It’s nice to have an excuse to do it.
This is the most fundamental law of the human universe, and we all live under its iron fist as its gears grind our life's chosen actions' butterfly wingbeats back into us in perfect harmony with the frequency we emanated out into others, consonant or dissonant, loving or selfish, kind or cruel, generous or callous.
In addition, there are amplifiers and attenuators for both the positive and negative, especially at the narrow ends of our potentials' bell curve, so we best be careful how we wield our free will and the energy we possess to affect the world.
Ignoring this law does not change a person's situation, just their foundation for how they construct their custom decision-tree methodology of preference and habit, thus establishing their inertias and ability to self-reflect. This is because we are free to ignore the truth, just as we are fully free to be the biggest narcissistic asshole we can be given our station in life.
To boot, we're all doing this within multiple layers of our cultures' inertias that contribute to our perspective, once again, as per our choices.
Within it all, at the very center, is the most precious and perilous gift in the universe: our free will, mind, and body co-existing tripartite on this beautiful planet Earth.
Some people do things because they like doing those things…
If that's the case, that means there's something in it for you, enjoyment.
Lovingly serving others' happiness is a part of the asymmetric dynamics of the human universe, only accessible and operant in the world of free will and the ability to learn and manifest right from wrong, love from callous disregard or even cruelty, creation or destruction.
Peace be with you, though I hardly need say that to someone who already understands peace beyond what most can comprehend. Thanks for having your boots on the ground.
This is a thousands years old apparent dichotomy between rich evil people and good poor people.
But the reality is not like that. Rich can be good and poor can be evil. The same person can be good in some moments and evil in others.
Depicting the world in only two colors, black and white, paints a false image of the reality.
I know people hate complexity, but we shouldn't try to oversimplify things.
Refute that...
You could also say that power corrupts, money brings power therefore money corrupts.
You'd only really get an answer looking at trends and statistics. In my personal experience, people who have been through hardship develop empathy. They can become rich afterwards or stay poor, but most people tend to keep that empathy.
I have a saying (among others from my dad) that captures a similar idea: “Make things, and be good.”
A loaf of bread is good for a person who is starving, but less good to someone with celiac disease. A bowl or rice is more good to a starving person with celiac than a loaf of bread, etc.
so no: things relate to each other and in this relation, they can be objectively bad (bad to the object subjected to its effects). Things don't exist without the effects their existence exerts. Rephrased: the question of their goodness is, commonly, a question of fitness.
[0] Saying "prioritised" instead of "good", because "creating good new things" is tautologically, uninterestingly "good".
In what sense?
History hasn't finished. There's more things today than there were yesterday, and there will be more things tomorrow than there are today.
If you stop making new things because you think there's already enough things, you're just confining yourself to the world as it exists today. Do you think the world has finished? Do you think it can't be improved?
If you want to build the world of tomorrow you're going to have to make some of the things that exist tomorrow that don't exist today.
And once you've accepted that you need to make new things, I don't think it's much of a leap to accept that it's good to make good new things.
It might be a new philosophy, message, movement, technology, space, gathering, poem, or otherwise.
If something is so hard to do, for political reasons, it might be time to try something new. The goal might be the same, but maybe a new approach will yield better results.
[0] This is a small escape hatch for "what if one can only create new things" or "actual cure for cancer".
One good thing about new ideas is that it becomes an enabler for everyone else who are not working on new ideas. Similar to how technology democratises peoples abilities.
If political realities prevent us from solving problems, then we can either change the political realities or create new solutions. Individuals generally can't change political realities, but they can create good new things that work around them. So it is good advice.
There isn't really a technical solution to the problem of political instability.
> If the tools and techniques needed to efficiently grow food are cheap and widely available, farmers in politically unstable areas can simply grow their own food without a dependence on far away agribusiness.
You posit political instability as a problem but your solution doesn't address it. Thinking that, in a politically unstable environment, it would be simple to grow food if only you had better tools and techniques is naive. If the political environment was stable people would be able to feed themselves even without newest tools and techniques.
https://charlieharrington.com/create-wonderful-things-be-goo...
My only complaint: I remember it was hard to make it fit on my bookshelf :)
- global warming - antibiotic resistance - environmental contamination - food quality diminishing - explosive increase in chronic disease, especially in young people - extinction of most other species - fertility problems - declining birth rates - poly-pharmacy becoming normal - now things related to energy consumption with AI and cryptocurrency - huge decline in social behaviors across the population
Just seems like for every new advancement we're making new chronic issues that are barely incentivized at all for being managed and alleviated
Tens and tens of billions are spent to generate cute pics instead of same tech applied to radiology, diseases cure, etc.
Technology is vital to a functioning society.
There's certainly more debate to be had whether various bits of modern technology are net positive or net negative, but even still I personally believe modern technology is mostly neutral to very good for humanity in a vacuum and it is other forces like modern capitalism that bend it toward being harmful.
eg. Social media is very clearly having a net negative impact on modern society, but I don't believe that would still be true if it wasn't driven by algorithms created to maximize ad revenue above all other concerns.
And obviously there is some inherent coupling of modern technology and capitalism that isn't avoidable, but I don't think capitalism on its own is wholly bad, its the slavish cult-like worship of it as the only way to do things that causes it to be so destructive.
How?
Is the internet a net positive or net negative thing? How about Social Media? Is it maybe even more complex such that we can't tally up positive/negative "points" and a term like "net positive" doesn't even make sense for these things?
— Paul Virilio
If you make, say, an ovulation app designed to feed user data to companies so they can fire pregnant workers before the company is required to give leave or other benefits, that's bad. Get it? You are not so incapable of distinguishing these things as you feign here. Pretending that everything is a neutral tool that might be misused for bad is child-like. Stop doing that.
Here's a bit of an oversimplification: - is what you made useful to anyone? If it's not, no one will use it so it doesn't matter. - does what you made help people be more productive or less productive? - does it help improve people's health or degrade it? - does it give people what they want in the short term at the cost of harming them in the long term? - does it help some people while actively harming others? - does it help people but harm the environment or other creatures?
Etc.
Most failure comes from not getting past the first question. These are easy questions to ask but very hard to answer. Most startup founders make up answers and then go nowhere and waste a bunch of time/money. Even smart people doing their best fall into this trap. Our system isn't good at developing people to be good at empathizing at scale. When people try to empathize at scale they over-generalize to the point of near meaninglessness.
So, these posts err.. essays.. of his are pieces of abstract textual art that arrive here to be interpreted by commenters and also for admiration and mandatory vc adulation (maybe)?
Or maybe since he is rich now and is influential in making other people rich, lots of them actually, he gets to post whatever it is and also gets to make them gain traction. Yeah, this makes sense. Of course.
Or maybe I am from the crowd that doesn't understand modern art of making money at all; obviously.
He's not doing this for clout or internet points. He's not just writing whatever. pg works very hard on his writing and some of his earlier stuff is excellent. Maybe his next essay will be a banger. Or maybe pg doesn't have any good essays in him anymore. In any case, I respect his willingness to keep at it despite how widely his essays get mocked. It's not easy to put yourself out there.
“Create something new”… ok great insight, thanks PG, I guess this is some big strategic plan to increase the number YC applicants?
It really reads like some abstract art form that one is staring at and has to figure out the “deeper” meaning of. The problem is, there is no deep meaning there.
Nowadays, I skim PG articles when they hit HN, for maybe roughly 3 reasons:
1. To see if there's anything interesting to me.
2. Curiosity about what the writing says about him, or what he might be doing. (Why did he choose this topic, how is he thinking, what messages is he trying to send, why, does this hint at some other actions he's taking with his influence and resources, etc.)
3. As background for skimming HN comments. (Mainly, what's the gist of the sentiment of various HN demographics, when prompted by the PG post. Lately, I think my intent is mostly hopeful or curious, not seeking out something to be angry about.)
Nowadays, I find myself skipping lunch every other day - out of forgetfulness.
I skim them to figure out which direction the wind is blowing for our technocrat overlords. The last article of his I read a few weeks ago was completely mask-off, also around the same time as the Zuckerberg "bring back masculine energy" interview. This essay feels softened, almost hedging in the same vein as the "How do you do, fellow kids?" meme.
Billionaires are interesting people, and I can't help but wonder how the next decade will be for them and the countries where they hold the bulk of their wealth.
The first thought I had after reading the thesis of the essay is that some people don't make new things but instead maintain important things. I'm more of a builder and if wager pg considers himself one, and I assume the majority of authentic HN users are builders. However I suspect the majority of people are maintainers.
Nurses, electricians, emergency dispatchers, firefighters, mechanics, etc.
We all depend on many complex systems working in order for our lives to not fall apart. Our homes, electricity, running water, soap manufacturing, etc. Choosing to be someone who makes sure these systems keep working is a good thing to do and deserves respect and appreciation. Someday AI may do all this stuff, but someday AI may build all the new things too...
So my response to this specific essay: PG, your answer is incomplete and biased towards your own values. ikigai does a better job of answering this question already, why not build on it? Also thanks for your writing, don't stop.
My biased answer to the question: - do lots of different things and stay curious, and with enough time, effort and luck you will find something you're good at, enjoy, the world wants, and will reward you with all the resources you need and then some. Just keep doing different things and being curious until you get there.
One last thought: Is PG publishing less robust essays in hopes that people will be more compelled to comment and discuss them, bringing together the best ideas on the topic? Something like "the best way to get a question answered on the internet is to post the wrong answer" or however that goes...
Today, I feel we have far too much of a focus on "business" and all my nieces and nephew are studying some sort of business focus in their university degrees. I feel it such a waste. If everyone in the world learns to only make businesses (ignoring that a degree is not required for that), who is going to build. If everyone becomes a maker, who is going to support all the non-maker roles.
There are many people for whom their job is not their craft. They're focus - much as PGs now is, is the raising of their family, guiding their children to become good people, showing love, etc etc.
Some may argue this is "making", but that's maybe a different argument.
Your last thought is an interesting one, I hadn't heard the quote before.
A dichotomy like "builder"/"maintainer" just doesn't make sense to me anymore.
Let's take software as example:
- Is someone that pushes their project from version 1.2.1 to 1.4.7 a "builder"?
- Are Linux contributors "builders"?
- Is someone porting CLI Y to rust a "builder"?
- Is someone that wraps a GenAI LLM into a web app a "builder"?
- Is someone in offensive security a "builder" of something?
...or let's ask it differently:
- Is performance optimization "maintenance"?
- Is the fix that prevents a user of your software from accomplishing their task "maintenance"?
- Is the work on a solid infrastructure, one that brings your time to resolution (TTR) closer to zero, the work of a "maintainer"?
- Is a dependency upgrade in your project the work of a "maintainer"?
Everybody builds and maintains all the time, and every artifact once built is in need of maintenance. Technological advancements will always be a collective effort through some form of feedback. Whether you're (re-)building something frequently [0] or advancing through maintenance [1], both are just categories of equal practice.
[0]: https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/how-japan-makes-houses...
You only listed examples that relate to creating software. I'm sure the PG essay didn't mean to restrict all possibilities of what people could do to just creating software.
On one end the distinction is clear to me.
A security guard maintains the security of a facility. A nurse maintains the health and well being of patients. A janitor maintains the cleanliness of a facility.
Once you start bringing repairs into the scope of maintenance I can understand the distinction being blurry. I'd draw the line where a repair restores functionality to a previous state without any material improvments (to functionality or longevity). If there is a material improvments to the previously optimal state it's augmentation and therefore building.
To me the distinction is whether you are restoring functionality that previously worked and then stopped, or are you creating new functionality. I would also extend the notion of functionality to include what people perceive as value. So new art that makes someone feel something would be creation. A therapist that helps someone restore their emotional wellbeing is maintenance.
My subjective anecdotal observations are that some people seem more wired for maintenance and some more wired for building and like with any attribute some are wired for both or neither. They are independent attributes that are not mutually exclusive.
So I disagree that there is no distinction, but I agree they are not mutually exclusive.
All this is kind of beside my original point though, which is that it seems like PG left maintenance out of his proposed value system.
Good maintenance prevents something from stopping to work in the first place. I'd frame maintenance as someone's care and effort to put up with something (Bernard Moitessier and "built to be low-maintenance" from my linked article [1] comes to mind), so I'm in strong disagreement with your distinction as stated.
Maintenance, unlike building, is a task that will inevitably occur, but it's the question if you want to put up with it and how you're doing it. Building while ignoring maintenance is just complete negligence, and if you want to allow yourself and others to be negligent, I repaired quite a bit already to understand that fixing stuff can require quite a lot of unforeseen (re-)building. I honestly think this mindset was appropriate 10-30 years ago, but doesn't sit well in our current climate anymore, whether politically, economically nor otherwise.
> I would also extend the notion of functionality to include what people perceive as value. So new art that makes someone feel something would be creation.
I wanted to avoid bringing art into this discussion because art exists purely by maintaining a dialog about it. Artifacts need to be created first, sure, but as soon as they're published they'll just become excerpts to advance in that dialog (hopefully), and there's still the artist/viewer dichotomy in the perception of value and its affiliation of feelings. Making those pieces parts of art history requires maintenance, and that's the same collective effort as with technology.
> it seems like PG left maintenance out of his proposed value system.
Seems like we're spot on.
Leaning on "new" so hard as part of the "good" just reduces to, "Make new-new things that aren't by every objective measure bad and see if it works out in hindsight".
It would be helpful if we understood what good and bad mean to him.
Do you have a source for this that I can read up on?
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/07/20
"thoughts by a billionaire. self-praising. spiritually enriching. sophisticated. 'high' value"
"thoughts by a commoner. critical. base. self-deluding juvenile hack work. 'low' value"
"thoughts by a billionaire about how critics are delusional and self-important. Sophisticated irony. philosophically challenging. 'high' value"
"suppose I say the author is giving himself a pass for the companies he funds?"
"sophomoric. intellectually sterile. 'low' value"
Reminds me of my own "ai art", The Marlboro Man riding a chrome blow up dog.
"sophomoric. intellectually sterile. 'low' value"
I dislike the way this is framed and I think the rule/exception are inverted. Certainly, building the jet engine or microprocessor is a big uplift on all boats, but the chances you pull one of these out of the hat are pretty low.
I spent a good chunk of my career attempting to build things that I thought were amazing. It took a lot of drama and disappointment to discover that helping other people means meeting them where they are at right now, not where I want them to be.
At a time when it seems like so many pursuits or activities or things to make are overshadowed by " but won't there be a model in the next 6 months that can just do this itself?", not to mention all the other present world uncertainties...
Well, it would be nice to hear more thought as to how to focus one's energies.
(I have my own thoughts on this of course, but what I'm really advocating / hoping for is more strong takes on the question.)
Then you've got 6 months to cement your place in history as one of the last humans ever to have accomplished that thing before AI could do it. Hurry!
(More generally, even if you don't care about AI: if you think you might want to do something, then depending on your age you've got maybe 50 years to do it before you've squandered your opportunity. Hurry!)
Asking for a friend
How well has Y Combinator done at upholding this principle with the companies it funds?
A "good" motivation doesn’t guarantee a good outcome, nor does a bad outcome ensure a good one.
Intuitively, I'd have thought "making good new things" would be a tactic to helping people and/or taking care of the world.
If I ask him "What new good thing should I make?" surely his answer has to be, "Make something people want," right??
I'm not even sure the new things are "good" unless people want them, or if new things aren't making the world better in some way.
pg notes in the last paragraph that there's "often" a lot of overlap between making good new things, helping people, and helping the world, but it seems like even pg is forgetting his own motto…?
Smile, be kind and have compassion, don't judge others unfairly, do what is good and right, say only good things of others, and don't remain silent or inactive in the face of true injustice or cruelty. Respect all life. This is the human challenge and journey.
To this I would also add in these difficult times… Understand that much of what we are told is opinion rather than fact. Our own formed opinions and views based on them should be considered potentially unreliable and should be questioned.
Understand people. With all the talk in the news about the current Disney Snow White, got out the DVD for the old Disney Cinderella: Yup, have learned enough about people to see that the many plot events are not just incidental for the drama but examples of deep fundamentals about people. In particular understand what's important for good family formation.
Understand human societies, e.g., cultures, religions, economies, politics, war and peace.
Understand academics: E.g., a lot of academics that has done research that results in good tools to enable "Make good new things" has deep contempt for doing that.
Understand, say, math, physical science, biology, medical science, nature, technology, fine arts.
> I mean new things in a very general sense. Newton's physics was a good new thing. Indeed, the first version of this principle was to have good new ideas. But that didn't seem general enough: it didn't include making art or music, for example, except insofar as they embody new ideas.
This is partly because modern conceptual art is about concepts so it's very easy for it to be overtaken by a political or critical message as the concept.
Disappointment is irrelevant. It's the choice that matters in the context of this article and discussion and pretending that there is no choice is cowardice.
What is interesting is if you read Chandler's Wikipedia entry it has a quote on how he talked about pulp fiction being formulaic and attempts to break free of the formula were trounced but if you didn't try you'd have been a hopeless hack.
This is fascinating in comparison that PGs formulism appears to be a self-styled self-help (?) essay. Is PG stuck or trying to break free? He certainly has an audience. To what quality should we ascribe his writing?
Make something amazing is not an insight.
What we should do is not "make good new things" but "maintain things that work and improve upon it".
We have too many people that WANT to make new things. Ideally good, but when so many people value NEW things we obfuscate what good means.
Maintaining thing that works includes everything: it makes you learn something,(how can you maintain something you don't understand?) often structured and you stand on a giants shoulder. Since it have been maintained so far, most likely it's also valuable. But also, most likely it can be improved upon.
I think PGs essay here actually go against his previous post of "Great Work". In this essay he mention art needs to be new/unique but usually art (and fashion) is cyclic; they reuse and rehash old ideas all the time. And even in science, such as Einstein and Newton, they usually just IMPROVE on the existing understanding, although in a major way.
Is newness essential? Not really in the modern attention based economy of 2025. Newness chasers are often similar to clout chasers. More noise there and you'll end up surrounding yourself with style over substance kind of people.
Seriously? People have done horrible things in the name of "progress". For example, shipping slaves from another continent to make good new things.
What not to do (just as important)- Suck. Be nosy, passive aggressive, judgmental or hateful. Allow yourself to be duped because you're to lazy to seek out information.
I urge you not to take these opinions as facts. Originality is admirable, but it is not "your potential", "proof of great thoughts", or "the most impressive thing you can do".
The answer to the question: What to do? is not "Make new things", but rather begins with a simple question: In what context?
The idea of dividing people into two categories: 1) those who "take care of people and the world", and those who 2) "make good new things", is harmful.
This is what makes silicon valley is so amazing. It's filled with those who want to make good new things, who aren't afraid of looking awkward. This type of culture is actually quite weird. In most other places, you'd be dissuaded by conventional wisdom, or "who-do-you-think-you-are-isms".
It's crazy you think this is even remotely unique to SV. Broad swaths of the country (referred to as "flyover" by coastal people) are fully employed in the production of new things that are essential to the survival of the human race.
Just, for some reason, you think "new things" is just bleep bloop and not moo oink.
Read his entire body of work if you want deep thought, thorough research and definitive opinions.
Why? Who can say? One would have to ask them, and that wouldn't work anyhow.
I don't know why people flagged this, but I often had the impression that PG's content ends up on the front page because he's PG, not because it's particularly interesting or noteworthy. Maybe the people flagging it feel similar.
Want to do something good, Paul? Do everything in your power to stem the bleed of encroaching fascism and neo-reactionaryism. Put your reputation and wallet on the line. Be a leader. Otherwise, you’re just posting platitudes while one of the world’s great democracies dies an agonizing death by the hands of your peers.
Are you saying we shouldn't take his seriously? We shouldn't take him literally? We should give him a pass for writing axiomatic drivel with nothing concrete or thoughtful in it?
Protests are usually found outside the gates, not in the lounge while sipping on the complimentary coffee.
That's rich coming from pg. Is he really in a position to dispense this valuable advice? Did he ever look back at his contributions to this world through this prism? Does he consider the impacts of friends he has, platforms he uses and promotes, posts he writes, on lives of other people? Does he think just withdrawing from new decisions made by (the thing) is enough to wash his hands from all the negative impacts such decisions cause? People tend to attribute good outcomes to their own contributions and hand wave bad ones to forces outside their control, and this article is a great case in point for this phenomena.
1. theoria concerns acts that aim at knowledge, understanding, and wisdom; the aim is truth for its own sake
2. praxis concerns acts performed for their own sake; these are the primary subject of ethics, the practical philosophy
3. poiesis concerns acts of production where the end is distinct from the act that produces it as an effect
Paul claims that "[t]he most impressive thing humans can do is to think. It may be the most impressive thing that can be done". I agree that "thinking", or precisely the capacity for intentionality, abstraction of concepts, and the ability to reason about them (to which I would add the capacity to choose between apprehended alternatives) is, indeed, the most impressive and indeed most distinctive thing human beings are capable of. These constitute our rationality. However, what is the highest expression of this capacity? Paul claims that "the best kind of thinking, or more precisely the best proof that one has thought well, is to make good new things". This is confusing, as "the best kind of thinking" and "the best proof one has thought well" are talking about two different things. It's not clear what exactly the point here is in relation to the prior claim. Are we talking about the best kind of thinking or the best proof of having though well? And what about it?
"So what should one do? One should help people, and take care of the world. Those two are obvious. [...] Taking care of people and the world are shoulds in the sense that they're one's duty, but making good new things is a should in the sense that this is how to live to one's full potential."
Paul says such things are "duties" and that they are "obvious". Perhaps they are, in some sense, or perhaps these are hazy cultural attitudes he has absorbed that may not be obvious elsewhere, whether true or not. But what is the basis for such duties? What is their explanation? What is the basis of the good? Of morality? Of the normative (the "shoulds")?
The reason I harp on this point is because had Paul had a basic grasp of something like virtue ethics, he would have found that human nature is the foundation and basis for the objective good and thus for objective morality. He would have found the key that could systematically reconcile and explain and relate all these seemingly arbitrary "shoulds" he lists. He would have a basis for evaluating the place of theoria, praxis, and poiesis in the context of human nature, the good life, and the end of human life (its ultimate good).
We could then answer questions like "what is the best expression of human rationality?" Is it production as in poiesis? Or praxis? Or perhaps theoria? I claim it is theoria, and this does nothing to diminish the importance and the good of praxis or poiesis. They simply are not the highest expression of human rationality. They play supporting roles methodologically (and this is where Paul's comment about "proof of one has thought well" can enter the discussion), but they are not the end.
"There was a long stretch where in some parts of the world the answer became "Serve God," but in practice it was still considered good to be wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just, uphold tradition, and serve the public interest. [...] for example by saying, as some Christians have, that it's one's duty to make the most of one's God-given gifts. But this seems one of those casuistries people invented to evade the stern requirements of religion: you could spend time studying math instead of praying or performing acts of charity because otherwise you were rejecting a gift God had given you."
Why is "serving God" construed as distinct from "wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just" and so on? Why can't these be part of what it means to "serve God"? Why are we setting them in opposition as if they were in competition with one another rather than one and the same thing? Apparently, Paul is unaware of the parable of the talents in Matthew's gospel, or the five tasks given Mankind in Genesis by which Mankind better participates in the life of the Trinity, let alone the metaphysical "obviousness" of this being the case. The demonstrated grasp of "religion" in general (if we may even speak of it in general in any meaningful way) and "Christianity" in particular leave much to be desired, to put it mildly. I feel as if I'm reading the superficial tropes of a lazy observer rather than a sound grasp of the basics.
If anything, as Stanley Jaki among others argue, the reason why we saw an explosion of sustained scientific progress and techne in the West is because it follows from Christian principles, like the notion that all of the created order is inherently and totally intelligible (I would claim best expressed in John 1:1); that human beings are capable of grasping this intelligible reality (rooted, I would say, in the Imago Dei); the notion of the logos spermatikos; the distinction between creator (first causality) and created (second causality); the notion that human beings are "co-creators" (or "sub-creators", to use Tolkien's term) cooperating with God in the work of creation; and so on. These provide strong motivations to pursue this kind of work in a sustained and intense fashion. If you don't believe that the world is rational, that human beings can understand it, that it is somehow evil to investigate it, that religious texts are the only source of human knowledge (or even epistemically primary), that such texts can contradict truths known by unaided reason, that effort is futile and pointless, then you're not going to accomplish much.
"But there's nothing in it about taking care of the world or making new things, and that's a bit worrying, because it seems like this question should be a timeless one. [...] Obviously people only started to care about that once it became clear we could ruin it."
Obviously? I seem to recall Genesis giving men the authority of stewardship over the earth. I don't think the ancients doubted they could ruin the earth (ask a farmer), even if they did not know the scale at which we could eventually do so, but then this is not a matter of having or lacking said care, but a matter of prudential application of care.
"The traditional answers were answers to a slightly different question. They were answers to the question of how to be, rather than what to do."
Doing is act and being is act. Doing has as its ultimate end being, or else it is unintelligible. They are not opposed.
"Archimedes knew that he was the first to prove that a sphere has 2/3 the volume of the smallest enclosing cylinder and was very pleased about it. But you don't find ancient writers urging their readers to emulate him. They regarded him more as a prodigy than a model. [...] his contemporaries would have found it strange to treat as a distinct group, because the vein of people making new things ran at right angles to the social hierarchy."
I don't know what this means. He maintained relations with other scholars. Some scholars and philosophers ran their own schools (Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, etc), some did not.
This is so not true, that I'd like to point the author, and people who think in a similar vein, to a very enjoyable podcast on the history of philosophy, namely the "History of Philosophy without any Gaps" [1].
Hopefully this will persuade you that there are many ways to think about what to do with the life that was given to you. Pick two random Greek philosophers and they would probably take opposing standpoints. And if Confucius might say that you should be wise, I guess that Lao Tse would promptly disagree.
Our Western culture has largely been shaped by Christian values, yet when I observe the ideas of the obscenely wealthy, I can only lament how little those values seem to be understood or embodied.
The author of the podcast does indeed have a PhD in philosophy, but Paul Graham does not. The latter holds a PhD in computer science.
But what are the good new things? The new part is pretty clear, as in something that wasn't done before. But what does the adjective "good" mean when applied to "new things"?
The author says you should make sure "new things you make don't net harm people or the world."
I'd argue that the world has no meaning without people, so not "net harming people" is what he can mean. But how can one know if things will produce net harm or not? I think we can even quantify after the fact if discovering gunpowder or dynamite is producing net harm or not. We can't decide if discovery of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion is producing a net harm or not.
Of course, for some "things" it's easy to say if they produce a net harm or not, i.e. producing a biological weapon or a vaccine.
And what if the result of our struggle, be it a scientific endeavor or not, while "new" and certainty not harmful doesn't produce any impact whatsoever? Maybe we come up with something that will be usable in a few years, a few decades, e few hundreds of years years or never.
So, should be there an impact? Shouldn't we strive to produce something that is not only not harmful but useful?
I think that we should give some more thought about the "good" part.
But this text is so escapist... I am ashamed to have read it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Is_to_Blame%3F
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F_(novel)
This suggests we need a fourth principle: "Cultivate discernment about goodness." Not merely as an afterthought, but as an essential companion to creation. Such discernment acknowledges that innovation contains both medicine and poison in the same vessel—and that our capacity to create has outpaced our ability to foresee consequences. And perhaps equally important is recognizing that meaningful contribution isn't always about creating anew, but often about cultivating what already exists: preserving, interpreting, and transmitting knowledge and practices in ways that transform both the cultivator and what is cultivated.
Yet Graham's framing—"What should one do?"—contains a deeper limitation. It positions ethics as an individual pursuit in an age where our greatest challenges are fundamentally collective. "What should one do?" seems personal, but in our connected world, doesn't the answer depend increasingly on what seven billion others are doing? When more people than ever can create or cultivate, our challenge becomes coordinating this massive, parallel work toward flourishing rather than conflict and destruction.
These principles aren't merely personal guideposts but the architecture for civilization's operating system. They point toward our central challenge: how to organize creativity and cultivation at planetary scale; how to balance the brilliant chaos of individual and organizational impetus with the steady hand of collective welfare. This balance requires new forms of governance that can channel our pursuits toward shared flourishing—neither controlling too tightly nor letting things run wild. It calls for institutions that learn and adapt as quickly as the world changes. And it asks us to embrace both freedom of pursuit and responsibility to others, seeing them as two sides of the same coin in a world where what you bring forth may shape my future.
The question isn't just what should I do, but what should we become?
Even if it were GPT-generated, why do you say it as if that's a bad thing? I thought this forum was gushing about how great AI is!
(Preferably involving as little repetition as possible.)
It's not as if one can control these things just by setting rules or asking nicely! The most we can do is influence things around the edges a little.
I absolutely agree
If poll is taken, I think vast majority HN user won't prefer any AI generated comment.
These comments honestly just mock readers.
Agreed! At the same time, there's a lot of content on here about AI, including AI-based content generation.
So, if HN users don't like being subjected to AI-generated content, why would they be OK with promoting AI, including foisting AI-based content upon others? Seems unfair, not to mention self-contradictory.
>These comments honestly just mock readers.
I looked through that poster's comment history and they seem to be participating in good faith.
People are also not great at identifying AI-generated content. (There was an experiment about AI-generated graphic art on ACX not too long ago, I assume the situation with text to be no different.)
And there's a style of "normative" English which the language models "know" by default (because they learned it from human-authored content). But nothing prevents humans from still writing in that style, and indeed many people think that this is how they writing should look in order to get their post across. (My parent comment was a joke about how readers do prioritize style over substance, and are pretty bad at identifying substance they don't already have at least some familiarity with.)
So, if that comment turned out to not be GPT-generated, you've just mocked someone for trying to share their thoughts in that way which (in their opinion) would be most accessible to others. How does that help anyone?
Now I only wonder what kind of depth we missed out on from this accusation taking the forefront of my post's underlying thread.
Happy International Lying Day!
I love that. Once people realize how difficult it is to fully understand the ethical implications of one's actions, they often arrive at the defeatist conclusion that it simply doesn't matter, that there is no real difference between good and bad.
I love the idea of "cultivating discernment about goodness" because it produces agency and accountability.
> The most impressive thing humans can do is to think. It may be the most impressive thing that can be done.
Something like this has been a marker for humanism since Pico della Mirandolla's famous "Oration on the Dignity of Man," for sure, if not Aristotle before that. But there is another viewpoint and set of frameworks that privileges the sociality and capacity for working together of humans. Isn't it, at least arguably, more impressive what we can build only together, rather than what any one of us has thought up at a given time? Ideas feel destined, individuals are products of their time; if I am not going to manifest some creative idea, it seems inevitable someone else will eventually. With the individual, it could always be otherwise, e.g., all the Einsteins who die in sweatshops, etc.
But what could not be otherwise is the brute force and cunning of people in general. Its much easier to replace a single CEO than it is an entire workforce.
I am not trying to be too damning, there are certainly worse formulations out there, and perhaps this is all a matter of emphasis. I also don't expect a guy like Paul Graham to be anything other than this kind of individualist; there is some necessary investment into the ego in order to live in the world he does, its fine. There is just the tinge of disappointment for me that this is still where we are at, when the world has such a surplus of ideas and deficit in solidarity.
Not just that: it overturned existing power structures.
In particular, it democratized information in a never-before-seen way, and opened the door to universal literacy.
To many, many people, these in themselves would have seemed like the opposite of "good things". Even today, there are a great many people who believe strongly in the importance of top-down power structures and restricted information flow—and back in Gutenberg's day, there would have been many more, if only because that was what was common then.
And I believe this only enhances your primary point—that we need to "cultivate discernment about goodness". We need to not merely think about what is good for us, but what is good for all, and be honest with ourselves about those things.
But I think creative destruction is a net good, and I'd argue that micro-dosing on revolutions is essential for dynamism and social mobility.
It's a 1500 word essay that says absolutely nothing at all.
That and people who hero-worship him for his role in YC and some of his other previous business and/or technical work and assume everything he does is valuable because of that.
You don't have to have made a movie to recognize a bad movie.
You don't have to have built a car to recognize a poorly designed car.
You don't have to have written a song to recognize unlistenable garbage.
Wittgenstein, Rousseau, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno, Foucault, Ryle, Montaigne, Maggie Nelson, Didion, Bertrand Russel, Jean Paul Sartre, Roland Barthes, Niklas Luhmann, Norbert Wiener, Hienz von Forester, Hans Georg Gadamer, Juergen Habermas, Rebeca Solnit...
And these are just the few people that came to mind off the cuff. If I bothered to look I could probably give you more.
These tech luminaries act as though no philosophy or significant social analysis or cultural criticism has happened in the west since Plato and Cicero, but it's simply...entirely untrue. There's a wealth of deep, enriching philosophical heritage to explore, and I think these bozos don't engage with it because they are either too lazy (much easier to read translations of the classics) too disingenuous (much easier to base your sophistry on material that is so old as to not be contested) , or too self righteous (they already possess the one truth birthed directly by the divine cells of their brains because they like the lisp programming language and worked at yahoo, so why bother to interact with the thought of others in a serious way?) to bother. Not to mention, they don't dare engage with the highly complex dedicated academic studies of the classics anyway. I doubt pg has done little more than read a modern translation of Cicero. Probably not even Leob, probably Penguin Random House. But hey, those ignorant of the gold vein will happily lop up pewter.
Regarding pg, I think what happens is when people get rich they think that gives them deep philosophical insight into things. It's not just tech people, I think the same thing happened to Ray Dalio, for instance.
Regardless of potential faults in pg's writings, which are indeed more collected thoughts than essays. And I don't even agree with this one, creating should be left to those capable of doing it well (which means at least some degree of perfectionism, developed aesthetic sense and inspiration) and those rarely need external encouragement. The others should cultivate their virtue and maintain an iron will within a steel body, the world (both individuals and as a whole) would certainly benefit much more from this.
Bertrand Russel (along with Whitehead) and Wittgenstein are both crucial figures in the resurgence of logical research and the development of modern mathematics. Norbert Wiener, beyond his more philosophical reflections on the integration of machines into society, made significant advances in signal processing. Rousseau is one of the founding figures of modern political thought and the concept of right.
Create all the drivel you want, I don't have a problem with that. What I do think, however, is that when you are in a position of influence like pg, you have some amount of responsibility to publish works that are well researched and scientific to the extent that they can be. Scientific in the philosophical context often means work that engages in some meaningful way with tradition, or that at the very least lays out logical argument.
I would accept the stance that perhaps pg is just publishing personal musing here, and it is the fault of his audience to take them as seriously as they do, but if that's the case I feel even more strongly that reasonable and responsible people who have studied these traditions should argue against these claims and urge others to desire and seek more.
About Russel and Wittgenstein, I obviously wasn't saying anything about their contributions to hard science. Rousseau is indeed one of the more down-to-earth thinkers listed (though his noble savage remains one of the best jokes I've ever read about).
I'll be honest with you, I think pg's writings are hard to criticize because I think they're more often "right" than not, at heart. Sure, you can criticize the lazy style that clearly doesn't aspire to be scholarly, or the broad generalizations and hand-waving (in fact, every article gets it), but arguing against the core theses isn't as easy. Though I think this one isn't one of his best days, heh.
I'd agree that not all 20th cen Philosophy is worth reading (there's a reason I didn't bring up Derrida or Lacan, for instance) but I find "meaningless word salad" accusations levied against the critical theory of the Frankfurt school and Habermas, and Foucault's work much harder to justify (I haven't read the sokal book in a while, but I don't think these thinkers were really a focus of the critique—it was more so the thought of derrida et al that followed on their heels). The Frankfurt school is sometimes a bit melodramatic and rhetorical, but their thought collectively actually does contain substantive argumentation and elaborates significant concepts that were important in establishing a critical reorientation in the new political and technological systems of the modern world, and, I think does what philosophy should: namely get us to question our own preconceptions, our social environments, and what kind of existence we should strive to achieve for self and other (in fact, Marcuse is one of the few philosophers to argue firmly for the positive beneficiary potential of technology—many of the more renowned philosophers on technology are usually far more pessimistic about its prospects, even stemming back to Socrates as rendered by Plato). The same goes for Foucault—his arguments and overall technique and program are worthy of respect, even if some of the people that adopt his ideas are overzealous and far less nuanced than he was (the debate between him and chomsky is great for instance, because they both have radically different approaches and perspectives but both get at some essential truths)
I'd say that the solidity of many of pg's theses stems from the fact that they aren't actually developed—to use this one as an example, it basically amounts to: "what should one do? make things that yield net good". That's great and all, but for this to have any real potency or meaning we'd have to elaborate what good actually means here, and it is in that analysis where actual philosophizing begins and where an empty platitude can become an actual thought worth sharing. Unfortunately, I don't think, as others seem to think, that pg is some deep thinker that is portraying deep insight "simply"—he is essentially just not a deep thinker at all. If you read any of his works with a critical eye you will note that he completely buys into the prevailing social and economic organization of the world, and that he is, in this sense, a fish who is quite happy to leave the water it swims in unexamined. He does not even really try to justify this acceptance—it is simply taken as a prior that this mode of organization must be acceptable (I assume because it made him rich and continues to make him money) and he feels no need to even justify it with any seriousness, acumen, or depth of research—at best he offers tautologies that rely on undefined terms (e.g. like we have here with "the good") for their "universal wisdom and truth". His writing is so narrowly focused on individualism that it fails to become critical. We are not isolated atoms operating in hermetically sealed tanks—any serious examination of how to live requires questioning whether or not the prevailing social conditions require modification. The only level of engagement pg has in this arena that I've seen is essentially to just try to convince people to found startups—what sparkling insight! It is this lack of critical perspective that makes much of his work worthless, in my view, yet he acts and presents his writing as though his philosophical learning is on the level of the ancients. He desperately wants to present and style himself as a learned man of letters without having actually seriously engaged with the literary tradition in any real sense (or at least he presents basically no evidence of this). Not to mention the downright harmful ideological crap he spews:
> The other reason I wouldn't want to define any thresholds is that we don't need them. The kind of people who make good new things don't need rules to keep them honest.
It's hard to read this as anything but a thinly veiled argument that people in the particular industry that makes him money should be subject to no oversight by default. He takes a jab at "the Victorians" for centering their lives around monotheism but then asks readers to take it on faith that the individuals that he might personally adjudge to be the makers of good things are de facto in the right and trustworthy. It's just laughably uncritical, uninteresting, and unscientific writing that basically always boils down to a cherry-picking argument from authority, N=1 style reasoning, egotism, and the myth of isolated "genius".
It seems these sorts of things happened more in the 1980s, when we had lower inequality - middle class post-teens could pretend to study while actually learning something in their free time.
Now students are burdened with debt before they even get started, and have too many part time gig jobs to attend lectures, or mope around the campus having random conversations that challenge their ideas.
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
Disappointing response.
Though last one shouldn’t be surprising as it was endorsed by YC 10+ years ago.
Hence - people are now much more critical of him.
Looking forward to showing HN one day.
The novelty is important, because, tautologically, if your are just copying others, you are still a side character in their story. However, I do not think this should be read as, "create the next unicorn startup". I think it is rather a principle to live by. Like for example, if you have three job offers, go for the one that allows you to build something new, rather than the one where your task is to manage a legacy product. Or for example, let's say you move to a new city and you are a bit disappointed with the activities that are available for your kids. You can either try to convince your kids to attend the available activities or you can try to organize a new after school club.