Over the last 6 years, I've been living this kind of life, half of which was intentional and the other half a work of circumstances. I'd work for like 3 or 4 months and make as much as I can from that job and live frugally, then live off the savings for 3 or 4 months and when about broke look for another odd job.
quite literally.<p><a href="http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/do...</a><p><i>This does not mean that, from the objective point of view, human work cannot and must not be rated and qualified in any way. It only means that the primary basis of tbe value of work is man himself, who is its subject.<p>This leads immediately to a very important conclusion of an ethical nature: however true it may be that man is destined for work and called to it, in the first place work is "for man" and not man "for work".<p>Through this conclusion one rightly comes to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the objective one. Given this way of understanding things, and presupposing that different sorts of work that people do can have greater or lesser objective value, let us try nevertheless to show that each sort is judged above all by the measure of the dignity of the subject of work, that is to say the person, the individual who carries it out. On the other hand: independently of the work that every man does, and presupposing that this work constitutes a purpose-at times a very demanding one-of his activity, this purpose does not possess a definitive meaning in itself.<p>In fact, in the final analysis it is always man who is the purpose of the work, whatever work it is that is done by man-even if the common scale of values rates it as the merest "service", as the most monotonous even the most alienating work.</i>
I recently found this subreddit which is kind of related: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/</a><p>I'm not identifying with it very much, but it's interesting.
> “Lying flat is my sophistic movement,” Mr. Luo wrote, tipping his hat to Diogenes the Cynic, a Greek philosopher who is said to have lived inside a barrel to criticize the excesses of Athenian aristocrats. On Chinese social media, Mr. Luo’s manifesto, and his assertion that he has a “right to choose a slow lifestyle” of reading, exercising and doing odd jobs to get by, quickly went viral. Sympathizers shared versions of a belief that is gaining global resonance: Work has become intolerable. Rest is resistance.<p>I don't understand why this is controversial. If someone wants to get by on odd jobs and spend their time reading, exercising, and relaxing, why should anyone have a problem with that? Mr. Luo seems to understand the consequences of the lifestyle he's chosen, and he's willing to accept them. Likewise, the woman who doesn't want a career is free not to have one, assuming she is willing to accept the consequences of her actions.
Does the title imply some sort if 'true' idol exists?<p>The thing to pursue in life is joy. Some find joy in their work.<p>An idol in our society is materialism, 'the joy of stuff'.<p>Materialism is not the same as capitalism, any more than the body is the mind.<p>However, there are misguided people who'd lead others to conflate materialism and capitalism if possible.
Does the NY Times even print non editorial news anymore? I can't even remember the last time I saw something posted from them that was investigative journalism.<p>This feels like a bad magazine article