So let’s take a philosopher who works by thinking and feeling. And this by thinking, feeling and doing other things he’s increasing his labor potential. What am I missing?
…the actual labour? Philosophers aren’t paid to just sit around thinking, it’s only once they put the labour into publishing their thoughts that they get paid (possibly).
I mean you’re just arguing that thinking is labour for a philosopher. The statement remains correct. The philosopher is encouraged to think about publishable things instead of just for the freedom of thinking.
Yeah, if they’re not doing some other form of labour. I really feel like you might need to spend more time thinking on the meaning of the quote if you’re wasting time trying to find gotchas where things that can potentially be done just for pleasure are being turned into labour.
I went as far as reading it in original to make sure the meaning wasn’t lost in translation but my questions remain unanswered.
The quote I think operates on assumption that there’s a direct correlation between time spent labouring and financial outcome. In capitalist world we have here, this correlation does not exist universally. it’s still possible to engage creatively, express yourself and be paid for it. Not for everyone, but still possible.
Not a waste of capital though?
Labour is a form of capital.
So let’s take a philosopher who works by thinking and feeling. And this by thinking, feeling and doing other things he’s increasing his labor potential. What am I missing?
…the actual labour? Philosophers aren’t paid to just sit around thinking, it’s only once they put the labour into publishing their thoughts that they get paid (possibly).
Right but the moment of publishing is the last stepin the long, tedious thinking and analysis process. Without it there will be nothing to publish.
Anyways, absolutist statements hold no water, other news at 11.
I mean you’re just arguing that thinking is labour for a philosopher. The statement remains correct. The philosopher is encouraged to think about publishable things instead of just for the freedom of thinking.
Stretching the other way, painter who’s not painting is wasting capital?
Yeah, if they’re not doing some other form of labour. I really feel like you might need to spend more time thinking on the meaning of the quote if you’re wasting time trying to find gotchas where things that can potentially be done just for pleasure are being turned into labour.
I went as far as reading it in original to make sure the meaning wasn’t lost in translation but my questions remain unanswered.
The quote I think operates on assumption that there’s a direct correlation between time spent labouring and financial outcome. In capitalist world we have here, this correlation does not exist universally. it’s still possible to engage creatively, express yourself and be paid for it. Not for everyone, but still possible.