I Did What I Loved and Nearly Destroyed Myself | Hacker News Reader

I Did What I Loved and Nearly Destroyed Myself

codebelay.com

79 pointsbarce69 comments

I would honestly love to spend my days having sex, drinking coffee, reading, writing and more sex – with travel and several residences on the Mediterranean coast of Spain and Costa Rica (Pacific side), thrown in.

I lived in such a way for nearly two years without the residences but with travel to London and Rome. The sad, sad truth of it is that there is no money at the end of it, and I ended up very much in debt and almost bankrupt.

Um, when people say 'do what you love', they typically mean 'do WORK that you love', not do any old freaking thing you please, without regard for how to pay the bills.

Maybe I missed something in the article?

Drinking, having sex and writing can all be done for profit... It appears he missed the part where your day job has to pay the bills.

Yes, but when you, oh, have sex for money, you usually aren't doing it for your pleasure but for theirs. And most hookers don't enjoy it, not at all, and are frequently not in it by choice. There are some that do enjoy it and are there by choice, but they are the exception, not the norm.

Sorry, I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I think I'm trying to agree with you and doing it badly. :-/

Yes, but when you, oh, have sex for money, you usually aren't doing it for your pleasure but for theirs.

So what you're saying is when you start doing it as a job, it takes the fun away?

Wait, were you trying to make an observation unique to prostitution? I'm pretty sure that applies to any job ;)

So what you're saying is when you start doing it as a job, it takes the fun away? Wait, were you trying to make an observation unique to prostitution? I'm pretty sure that applies to any job ;)

I assume you meant that tongue in cheek, but for the record anyway:

A) The thing "unique" to prostitution is the high degree (in terms of both frequency and severity) of force used to make people prostitutes against their will.

B) Not everyone stops liking something once they get paid for it.

C) I have read a biography of a prostitute who did get into The Life by choice, did enjoy it and all that. One thing she indicated was that clients often had trouble accepting it that she genuinely enjoyed it and were often kind of embarrassed that she achieved orgasm with them.

D) I think the difference is that sex is "supposed to be" enjoyable -- evolution designed it that way so we would be lured into reproducing in spite of the hardships and such that genuinely entails -- and work isn't usually something people assume you "should" simply enjoy. That's part of why people have to actually give advice that "you should do what you love" or "follow your bliss": Because "work" is more synonymous for most people with "drudgery" than with "pleasure".

Peace.

I'm pretty sure it applies more to some jobs then others. I know you're being facetious but the main difference between prostitution and sex is that sex is generally with people you want to have sex with and prostitution is not. The difference isn't just that you're doing it for money so it suddenly becomes boring, although that can probably happen with some jobs.

He basically says kicking back & relaxing and having lots of sex was his lifestyle for a couple of years.

There's really nothing wrong with that, as such. You (we) are just envious of him if it's actually true. Unless the girls weren't hot, of course. Then we're OK.

I'm not real big on envy. I'm pretty good at getting my own needs met. I've met Players.* I think it's overrated as a lifestyle. They typically don't know how to love, they just know how to get laid, and meeting someone who treats them like a human being (instead of a piece of meat) seems to frequently change their priorities. So, really, I'm okay with who I am and where I'm at in life. And I have no idea what would cause you to infer I'm jealous/envious.

Peace.

* Not to suggest the author is a Player.

> I'm pretty good at getting my own needs met.

Considering where we are, that's quite unlikely. It's possible, of course.

> I've met Players.* I think it's overrated as a lifestyle. They typically don't know how to love, they just know how to get laid, and meeting someone who treats them like a human being (instead of a piece of meat) seems to frequently change their priorities.

You can't claim you wouldn't want to be able to have sex with lots and lots of hot girls whenever you want to, and it's logical that a player would (eventually?) find someone to really be with.

> And I have no idea what would cause you to infer I'm jealous/envious.

Human nature? (and the recurring patterns in my own behaviour and feelings as another human)

You can't claim you wouldn't want to be able to have sex with lots and lots of hot girls whenever you want to,

Actually, I can because I'm a heterosexual female. And I really have no problem attracting male attention and never have.

Peace.

> Actually, I can because I'm a heterosexual female.

Well then it doesn't make sense to say you have no trouble getting your needs met. If you're a female, you'd have to be fat/ugly not to.

> And I really have no problem attracting male attention and never have.

Apparently you're neither fat nor ugly then. Your lack of problems doesn't mean you're somehow "good" at attracting men though.

Actually you should have other (evolutionary) problems: such as finding the right man, who will have the long relationship with you (for evolutionary purposes: long enough to help you support rise your kids)

Actually, I was thinking 'porn star' rather than prostitute, which makes the replies go on a different track than intended. While I'm sure the whole 'not as much fun when done for a job' thing still applies, it does so for different reasons.

I have actually had the opposite experience in my job as a software developer, though. I wanted to keep programming as a hobby, but eventually needed a career. I've found that I enjoy it even more than when it was just a hobby. There's more to it, I get to do it for longer, other people bring me ideas that I get to figure out how to implement... It's very rewarding.

I'm also odd in that I've enjoyed every job I've ever had, and miss some aspect of it, if not the whole job. I wouldn't give up my current job to go back, but they will always have a fond place in my memories. My experience is that most people can't say that about a single job, let alone all of them.

I used to wonder about this. There are skills that require hard work and brains. Some people seem to find themselves "in their element" when they are mastering or using these skills (Roger Federer, for example). Some of those skills pay, and some don't. It seems to me like what you love in your life is largely driven by chance, and if your passion happens to be something that will not pay your bills, you are just unlucky, and will be left to do stuff you do not love as much.

It sounds like this is obvious, but I've heard "be whatever you want to be but be the best" a lot, and it used to sound like an obviously good idea.

Maybe those who are lucky enough find that doing what they love brings happiness and money, and think they have found the answer to umm.. everything?

I'm not convinced that it is as simple as you indicate. I think there are opportunities to make money at things you love, even things that aren't typically lucrative. Most writers and painters are "starving artists" but then you have the JK Rowling's of the world who made big bucks at it. No, not everyone can do that. And, no, the answer is not as simple and straight forward for some people as for others. I have certainly wrestled with that fact personally -- I have long done things I believe in/love and not yet found a way to make them lucrative. I don't think that means it won't ever be lucrative. But, no, the answer for me has not been simple and straight forward.

Still, I have no fantasies that merely pursuing self indulgence is likely to get me there. Again: Maybe I missed something in the article, but it sounds to me like that is what the author basically did.

Peace.

Hi, I didn't really expect this great of a response and am working on replying where I can. I'm humbled. The piece is first and foremost a polemic. In order to get Google juice many bloggers present an "if you build it, they will come story." I really believed the same thing about my writing at the time (2002-2003). However, there was a change I was missing. If I had focused more on being a better blogger (SEO, SEM, writing from a provocative passionate point of view) instead of being a better writer, I think I would have made it career-wise. I'm not passionately, "3 months into a relationship" in love with coding but am happily married to it. Thanks for reading!

The way you present it, everyone has one thing they enjoy and it's a crap shoot whether it's marketable.

I do not agree with this viewpoint. I have so many things that I enjoy doing... I find it very difficult to believe people are born with the capacity to enjoy only one thing.

Those who find themselves out of work because they chose to pursue a tenuous line of work are in that position because they chose, for whatever reason, to pursue that particular work- not because it's the only thing in the world they can enjoy.

Lastly, on the subject of luck, I subscribe to an old adage; "Luck favors the prepared".

I have incidental stuff I also enjoy now and then, but only one calling, and I consider myself lucky that it's writing code (and that the market value of my work has increased so much in twenty years) rather than something like http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/100000-toothpicks-u.... Some people have a deep-seated need to do things society hardly values at all, and terrible advice like "follow your bliss and money will take care of itself" would only compound their tragedy. I think the key is to find the smallest gap between what you need to do and what our civilization wants from you, because that gap will be the measure of your dissatisfaction.

He should have added "dopamine release is an aim in itself"

you say that like dopamine is a bad thing

Only when it causes an addiction. Good and bad are relative

I can find at least 10 Silicon Valley startups featured in hn with that approach (do any freaking thing you please, without regard to paying the bills) to creating value. Valleywag, how I miss you! Thanks for the comment.

The ability to pursue your dreams is a luxury of the modern age. Generations of people have lived and died working as poor farmers, doing what they needed to to support their families. (Many hundreds of millions of poor people still live their lives doing so.) "Do what you love" is overrated advice: "find a way to love what you do" is better.

> The ability to pursue your dreams is a luxury of the modern age.

Yes it is, to a degree, like many things that are important to us today. But I fail to see how that supposedly devalues the concept. How is the agrarian age now considered the blueprint for what a good life supposedly looks like? I for one very much prefer the here and now.

And more to the point, "do what you love" can save you from squandering that very luxury.

I think many of us were handed down an old ethic of sacrificing your dreams to pay the bills that may or may not apply to our own lives.

It's not about devaluing the concept, it's about people have survived for millions of years doing what they very much did not love; while it's great if you can manage it, doing what you do not love won't kill you and for most it's a damn sight better than starvation.

So, be realistic, and don't expect to feed yourself collecting stamps because it's what you love- but if you really love woodworking, by all means you can try to be a carpenter.

That's not quite true. It's not because of the "modern age", but because of the "great countries" known as the Developed World.

In the Pharaohs age, there were people working as Farmers, but there were scientists too. There were also traders, and there were the possibility to become rich doing what you love (Example: prototyping a Pyramid). Certainly, this is not possible for everyone, but that's the case even today.

If there is a difference, it's in the Internet. I don't live in a Developed country, but I have a considerable set of options with the Internet.

History is not my forte, but I'm pretty sure that back then your birth determined what you were going to be.

Yup. If you examine history, you'll find that you didn't get rich being, say, a mathematician or scientist. You had to be rich to be a mathematician or scientist.

There's plenty of people throughout history who can do exactly what they want and make money doing so. They have talent or are extremely lucky. Likely both, though.

Sometimes you are just genetically gifted, like Jon "Bones" Jones who just started fighting in mixed martial arts professionally two years ago and is now the light heavyweight champion at 23. Or, singers like Adele or Amy Winehouse: exceedingly young singers with booming, soulful voices that surpass Gospel soloists who have practiced for their entire lives. Or, writers like Michael Chabon who can win Pulitzer prizes by their third novel and can write decidedly literary works that go on to become worldwide bestsellers.

If you don't have any latent talent, you can't do whatever you want effortlessly.

So, the first thing is, "be talented". Since most of us aren't, we have to dig a little deeper and suffer a little more. So, we can't go and have sex with strangers all day and then boozily toss off a flawless chapter of the Great American Novel or whip up that Instagr.am killer overnight.

Most of us aren't Michael Jordan; we're Horace Grant, or John Paxson. We can't be the team, but we can be part of the greatness. Only you can realize your strengths and limitations. But don't be fooled: If you don't have the talent, it takes alot of hustle to do exactly what you love.

The thing is though we don't what many of those people actually wanted, we assume. We assume since they are so good at that, they got to be loving it, but maybe Amy Winehouse would love to be a science fiction author yet she has no talent and picked the easy way out, we just don't know.

I don't want to pick on your particular example but Michael Jordan is known to be insanely practising. He didn't even made to high school ball team the first time around, he practiced that year and got in the next one. Granted he's talented but there's massive amount hard-work behind it. He clearly loved it otherwise presumably he wouldn't spend years on practising.

So following your dreams is not about having talent about something, that talent might not be related with what you love. It's about what your dream is (world domination?) and having background + talent + possibility + luck + determination and so many other stuff like that.

You can't always have what you want but you can get closer.

I think he's missing the point. "Do what you love" does not mean "do whatever the fuck pleases you, not caring about consequences and reality."

Rather, it means: Find a career and lifestyle that is intellectually and emotionally fulfilling and make the best of it.

It is just not the case that there is a sustainable career out there for every kind of passion. Non-academic philosophy doesn't pay, coding pays.

Academic philosophy barely pays as well.

Being an academic can pay, though not necessarily well. Being a philosopher however, is widely considered an affliction that prevents one from achieving much in the way of success in academia. Questions regarding eternal verities and what you are really saying when you say 'this' are distractions from the true business of the modern academic; ensuring that the most prestigious publishing is yours and that any perishing happening near your department is happening to someone else.

It's about how much you love it, right? If you love it more than life style, that's good enough. If you love your life style more than you love philosophy, then that's another story.

I understand that there might be other complications like family, people dependant on you etc. But it all boils down to what you love and how much you love.

I agree he's missing the point.

"Do what you love" might be better put: Make your money doing something related to what you're most passionate about.

So if you're into sex, coffee, reading, writing and travelling - write a hedonists travelling blog while you're doing it. Or move to Costa Rica and open an online boutique store where you sell only the finest local coffee to other aficionados. Or coffee and books about sex. Or create a community site (see Ravelry) where people who share your passions can mingle.

I think the idea is that doing something that feeds your passion is a reward in of itself. And because you're passionate about it you will enjoy to putting more effort in and thus have greater chance being successful.

I have a degree in philosophy. I spent my undergraduate learning complex rules of logic, heuristics, semiotics, and language. It fit directly into being a better programmer and a better entrepreneur.

The ability to read dry treatises on moral or political theory is a good indicator that one is capable of dealing with the more complex aspects of development. (though I tended to ignore iterative structures initially thinking through the code far too much)

In reading the op's account, I think he did not really love philosophy. He is a sophist. He loves exactly the idea of his idea of being a philosopher.

Some great people in business are philosophers (training in philosophy). One example is Soros. So clearly, it is not philosophy that is keeping him down.

But true philosophers have a love of ideas, not particularly a better life. The idea of a screwed up life but a vivid intellectual one is clearly the norm. Though, true philosophers and poets do tend to be rich (showing that once needs are met, one has time to turn to richer thoughts).

Though, true philosophers and poets do tend to be rich (showing that once needs are met, one has time to turn to richer thoughts).

That sounds a lot like there are no true Scotsman. Or perhaps it is better interpreted to mean only the truly wealthy can be true philosophers and poets. That may be the case...

When I was a young kid, I remember that we used to ask each other "what's your favourite color?" a lot. At the time, this question used to panic me. I mean, red's pretty neat, but then so's blue. Yellow's nice, and so on. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that one sees that it's an artificially narrow question. A child would make that mistake, but not an adult, right?

Well, that's how I see the "do what you love," argument manifesting here. The things that define your true passions aren't going to be the dreams that you dreamed as a child, or as a teenager. You are always developing as an individual, and the things that you love are capable of redefining themselves. One thing that I hear time and time again is that "X" is fun until you have to do it for a living; that's not doing what you love, that's clinging to a bad mistake. You can do what you love by finding something you enjoy and by applying love, there's no mystical "true love" of careers that is imposed from on high.

Hmm, what I just wrote was properly glib, wasn't it?

I totally agree. I love the "favorite color" example too, and I still feel the same panic nowadays - what a crap example of a security question!

I enjoy the feeling of developing expertise, and I can thrive even when tasked with something that isn't very sexy on the outside -- as long as I own the task, take responsibility for the outcome, and am able to find nontrivial issues to tackle along the way.

I agree with your points, but ironically they're not the case for me.

I do have a favourite colour, bright magenta (I do worry that it's stereotypical of me, being gay, but I certainly never made a concious choice, and I'm not someone who makes my sexuality obvious to people, so... hopeflly a coincidence).

As to the thing you love.. well actually there's quite a few, right now I really love my job. but the thing I always wanted to do was music, from a young age. From 9-13 I actually was a professional singer in a very good choir (professional meaning being paid well, a couple of recordings a year, many international concerts), and despite having been there and done that, it's still what I would really love to do for the rest of my life. Love doesn't always have an expiry date.

Not glib, just personal experience :)

"How many coders do you know love philosophy?"

I'm sure there's tons of us. The author and myself, for two. pg's original degree was in philosophy. I don't know how much coding Neal Stephenson does, but being the author of both Cryptonomicon and Anathem suggests he has at least a deep interest in both. William Gibson seems to have similar interests.

There has to be more. I view philosophy and programming as such closely-linked fields, both resting upon the construction of mental schemas that are logically consistent. Back me up, here.

Agreed. I am a coder and philosophy was my first love.

I also code and I love philosophy. It was not my major, luckily my love for computers seemed to have been just as strong, and I picked CS which is something that pays the bills.

I wouldn't say I 'love' philosophy, but it has always interested me. Pondering how and why are essential tools for both professions.

I really should stop and read some serious philosophers' books.

I view "do what you love" / "find your bliss" from the other side. Given programmers A and B, of equal ability, where A loves programming and B is just in it for the paycheck, I expect A to be more successful. Not for magical karmic reasons, but because they'll put more in more study, more effort, and more hours toward the magic 10k.

Love isn't all though; it's possible to really enjoy coding but be a terrible programmer. Love won't fix that.

Why would someone enjoy coding if he/she were terrible at it? Do you have a specific example in mind?

Yes, I'm thinking of some mad-scientist types I've met who spin out WTF-worthy code on a daily basis. They love computers and programming, and can get workable output eventually, but it's terrible code.

Destroyed yourself? It sounds like you got in debt, that's hardly a life threatening condition.

Good point. And my guess is he's a hell of a lot wiser for it.

"Do what you love, but be responsible" might be more reasonable for this guy.

I'm sure that hanging out on the beach and devoting your days to sex, reading and other entertaining things is appealing to many, but unless you're a trust fund baby, it's unlikely to work out. And even then, you'll get sick of it.

This is a pretty terrible argument for a guy whose main passion in life is philosophy.

Indeed. If you're into philosophy I figure you'd first define better what "do what you love" is supposed to mean before writing anything else.

Also, I think that implicit in this kind of reasoning is the sense that "what I love" is a static thing that isn't going to change a lot over time. It may be the case that, like the author, I love philosophy at the moment, but maybe in two or three years, my interests will have moved on to something else. Feelings can be fleeting things. By the time you are in a position to do what you love, you might love something else.

But, at the same time, I tend to think we are in a little bit more in control of what we love than is sometimes supposed. Even if I don't love what I am doing right now, I think it is possible to think about it differently, to recontextualize it, to find ways to convince myself that it is important / significant/ etc. Feeling can be like a game that you play with yourself, but you can influence yourself with thoughts like "I don't have to feel this way about X".

My point is, I think it is better to find a viable work/lifestyle and learn to love it than to let your feelings determine how you live. My opinion, anyway. This probably won't work for everyone.

"How many coders do you know love philosophy?"

several... I don't think that's as uncommon as the author thinks

IMHO, both sides of the argument are valid. Both Money and Passion are important.

Hugh MacLeod has a great perspective on this:

THE SEX & CASH THEORY: "The creative person basically has two kinds of jobs: One is the sexy, creative kind. Second is the kind that pays the bills. Sometimes the task in hand covers both bases, but not often. This tense duality will always play center stage. It will never be transcended."

A good example is Phil, a NY photographer friend of mine. He does really wild stuff for the indie magazines- it pays nothing, but it allows him to build his portfolio. Then he’ll go off and shoot some catalogues for a while. Nothing too exciting, but it pays the bills.

Source: http://gapingvoid.com/ie

I get confused when I come across things like "Do what you love."

I believe that there is always a degree of serependity when it comes to discovering what you love doing. You enjoy doing something, you do it more - eventually you "love" it.

I was not a fan of my job (I am a developer) at first. But it paid the bills and it presented an intellectual challenge. I worked at it, became familiar with tools and patterns of the profession, and now I "love" it.

So did doing something that I did not love destroy me (when I was first staring out). No. Does doing something that I love (my job now) destroy me? No. Clearly if you do something that is not sustainable given your means, you will be in trouble. I do not see how "loving" the thing in question comes into play.

EDIT: spelling

Destroyed yourself? Sounds like you recovered. Plus:

“Once you have traveled, the voyage never ends, but is played out over and over again in the quiestest chambers. The mind can never break off from the journey.” – Pat Conroy

My degree is in Computer Science. I fell in love with philosophy - political, spiritual and economics - when I was in my final year. My grades took a hit because I was convinced that I was in the wrong major. It took the quiet words of my thesis advisor to point out that I loved philosophy because my CS major had trained and opened my mind to become fertile ground.

At the end, he told me to focus on the road, not the destination and focus on taking steps rather than running ahead blindly. It was the best advice I have ever received.

Well. I think the author got it wrong. He made me suspicious, so I checked the article he pointed to

A mission. I wanted to work on something I loved so much that I would do it even if I wasn’t getting paid. I had already spent countless hours in my spare time doing front-end development with Ruby on Rails for free, so opportunities to do that with people I liked and a product I loved would fit this requirement.

What the Author means, is that if you can do X for $200/hour, but you prefer doing Y for $40/hour, then do Y.

That is what I took away from the article as well.

I spent my last few years in Common Lisp, and although I learned a lot, it strayed me a bit from the more boring coding, boring as in real world one. Unfortunately I'm not that smart to apply that learned knowledge with the language anywhere I want (nor do I have the character to persuade people to use it).

I'm trying to become more and more agnostic when comes to languages, platforms, anything - it's probably not healthy either (losing focus), but my daily job keeps my focus (tools game development).

I am a pragmatist; people ought to take jobs that pay their bills, take majors that will let them pay their bills.

If what you love doesn't pay the bills: sorry bub, pay yer bills.

People misunderstand the whole 'do what you love' philosophy. They think that you just go about doing whatever seems interesting. The truth is that you have to 'do'. If you like philosophy, then write a book, talk about it, give a theory. 'Do something about it'.

So from the post "doing what you love" was sex and getting in debt. No wonder you nearly "destroyed" yourself.

Follow your bliss as a human being. If you have a calling in being a great scientist, fine, otherwise you can still follow your bliss in the most boring (apparently) job in the world.

Joseph Campbell kicks ass. You need to center your shit together and mature.

I'm a coder, entrepreneur, and huge philosophy fan. I think many people similar to me (IE people here) also love philosophy as well all enjoy thinking, logic, and problem solving, the epitome of philosophy.

There're quite a few of us. One of my coworkers was a philosophy major in college, I flirted with doing a philosophy major but couldn't quite make the course schedule work out, and I think PG was a philosophy major.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com