You can say I’m a pretty successful philosopher - haven’t worked in 2 years - been soul searching. I’ve decided it’s time for me to produce.
Would you work somewhere solely for the money? If it’s not one’s true purpose and he is not really adding value in his life (other than financial gain) should one accept that or continue to search?
You cannot feed your mind if your body is not fed. Get a job use it as a stepping stone to get where you want to be. Work just for the money just for now, have a goal and follow it. Otherwise, well what use is philosophy to a growling stomach or a frozen body???
That depends on multiple factors, essentially, as others have inferred to, the level of need, but also the moral dilemma vs. ego greed, stress value vs. monetary gain, or in general one could sum this up as, risk vs. reward in weigh of money vs. desire other than money.
I was watching Match of the Day (football highlights) not too long ago and the manager of one of the struggling teams was giving a post match interview, a match in which they lost; he says it is his philosophy to play attractive football. The commentator afterwards retorted, “philosophy is a nice word but here’s a better one, survival!”. I think that was the most profound thing I’ve ever witnessed in sport .
Sure, one can work somewhere solely for the money. What we “do” for a living is not who we are.
We can also “be” who we are at any job. At the same time, the rest of our life and hours is also about who we are.
Finding one’s “true purpose” can take a lifetime and there are many times our “true purpose” can change, it does not have to be “fixed”.
Enjoy your search…it is all about the journey. Your true purpose I would say, unless you are extremely blessed, is never usually what makes the money for you.
If not working is a sign of successful philosophy I’d be with you if I didn’t already have you beat…
Money does not begin to pay anyone for the loss of time, which is life; and so we must always enjoy what we do to earn the money if it will be at all worth while. I did not read it, but I think it was Spinosa that pointed out that masters have more power but less meaning, my words, and slaves have more meaning and less power, and it is because when they produce they reproduce themselves, or put another way, when they create they recreate themselves in what they create… So if you don’t like it, don’t do it because the money will never ever be enough…
75k of what??? Money is only a form, and like all forms, a form of relationship, and what against morals, is for realtionships??? Do you think yu can destroy the meaning of one form and keep meaning in another??? To me, morality is a high value form and money is a low value form, and since money has no meaning except the meaning people, all people, give to it, it seems a little daft to put the money ahead of the people who are essential to its meaning…
I should have been more specific. For $75,000 USD per year, I would work for a company that pollutes the environment, even though polluting the environment (at least to a great degree) goes against my morals. My theory is, if I don’t take the job, someone else will and I am making a little under half of that amount now, so I would be stupid not to.
Another example was telemarketing. I did work at a telemarketing place as a telephone sales representative and then as a supervisor. Soliciting people during dinner would probably go against my morals, but I really needed the money at the time.
An example of something I would not do for money is be an assassin. Unless, of course, I could choose who I was to complete a, “hit,” on or pick from a list or something. Although, I wouldn’t kill a parent or a child for any amount of money regardless of who they were.