Hacker News Reader

I've been studying a lot of Buddhism as of late. One thing it has taught me in the Middle Way. In short, it means do nothing in excess, which includes doing nothing at all.

This balanced view leads to me to believe you, Paul, and "hustle culture" that's all over YouTube are both right and wrong. I've come to live by a simple system...

Try to do fulfilling work that's meaningful to future generations, whilst also putting back into society as much positive value as you can versus what you consume.

So far, this has led me to the model of, "Learn a skill, give a skill". The term "give" can be exchanged for "sell" depending on the receiver. This has led me to learn complex skills and problem solving (consuming from society), and then giving back in the form of books, videos, mentoring, and more (putting back) so that others can learn from my experience.

At the end of the day though, who really knows? :-)

Reading this, I had an epiphany just now.

What you’ve shared is essentially Dharma. Or giving back from a sense of duty, or as a matter of principle.

Interestingly, Karma preaches: if you give to those in need, you will receive in return when you’re in need.

Although the motivations are different in both teachings (Buddhism vs. Hinduism, with carrot vs. stick if you will), they have the same effect - to reach an equilibrium in society.

Edited: For clarity

That's right. For me, it's essentially living a Bodhisattva life.

I see this simple version of Karma talked about quite often in the general public and it's pretty far from my understanding of Karma in Buddhism.

Karma is a consequence of Dependent Origination - basically that things arise dependent on other things, and there is nothing that's outside of the law of cause and effet (hence no eternal, unchanging, eternally happy Self, which is the type of Self, or soul/atta(pali)/atman(sanskrit) the Buddha was talking about).

Karma means your intentional thoughts and actions all have consequences.

If you give to those in need, that ripples through the world and yeah, you're more likely to get good things because you're building a good life. There's no need for a "cosmic justice" that will weigh what you did and give you the exact same amount when you're in a similar situation. You have more probability of receiving help (cause you've got friends now), but you might still be unlucky and don't receive any help.

That's on the material level but it goes further than that - by acting and thinking wholesomely, less based on your own craving and delusion, you're cultivating a mind that's less likely to act based on craving and delusion. It's simple cause and effect again, and it depends much less on external conditions since it's internal.

(Now the word Karma is used differently in different tradition, so the general idea of "cosmic retribution" might be what it refers too in some of those. When I understood more this version of Karma it made a whole lot more sense, so I'm sharing that here.)

I found this article by Culadasa really enlightening on the topic: https://s3.amazonaws.com/dharmatreasure/20130322--what-the-b...

I agree with the sentiment and that of grandparent. But I take issue with the notion of fulfillment. I think we ought to strive to do things that drain us. You can't fulfill yourself continuously. You can't learn if your head is full. We have this 'my heart if full' turn of phrase that makes the next sentence confusing, but you can't love if your heart is full (of things you hold on to).

Same thing with trying to leave a legacy, or trying to make an impact. If you decide some thing or another is a goal, with the best altruistic reasoning, you're still first choosing something to hold on to, and then putting effort into attaching more and more to that.

We need to perform life because we are living beings. We go through the acts of nourishment and socialization because we are at that stage, being people on Earth. But seeking any personally chosen result or goal is self delusion. Letting go of what I think is the right thing, and pouring myself into my life, as I interact with others and gain opportunities to listen to them, work alongside them, decide together what to do and do it. I am alive because the universe pours into me. I need to pour forth. That's how things flow through their natural progression.

You speak mostly of not getting attached. Which is mostly a method not to build negative karma in Buddhism and build positive karma. But positive karma is not a goal in itself in Buddhism, realization is.

The Madhyamaka way, translated to the great middle way, mostly refers to combining freedom & meaning from emptiness. Meaning things are neither real, nor or they an illusion. Therefore the middle.

This is because understanding emptiness often leads to nihilism: "nothing really matters". The opposite seeing things as real, instead of acknowledging everything is changing, often leads to suffering: if laptop breaks, relationships end etc. Both are true and both are false.

The goal of madhymaka is to explain middle way between those and also practical how that leads to freedom, joy and meaning in every moment of life.

In the end the goal of Buddhism is not to change outer conditions but to get to a state were hapiness is experienced regardless of outer experiences.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka

Interesting that Aristotle's Ethics also speaks about this. Good and bad are not at the ends of a scale, but good is in the middle, and bad either side. From what I understand it, excess of anything, even something normally regarded as "good" would result in bad things. Yea, I'm not very eloquent here, but you get the idea

> In the end the goal of Buddhism is not to change outer conditions but to get to a state were hapiness is experienced regardless of outer experiences.

I would argue not trying to change the outer conditions is an extreme view, which is a notion rejected in Buddhism ;-)

Some things can be changed, like keeping your environment clean. You can, of course, simply find happiness regardless of the state it's in - clean or filthy - but you're kidding yourself, and only yourself, if you believe you won't be happier if it is clean(er). Therefore, you can find (more) happiness by changing the environment you're _but_ also excepting that it will get dirty again, requiring you to clean it again.

All this being said, neither of us is right or wrong. That's sort of the point.

I agree, and I think this conflict is actually visible within the essay. One particular parenthetical jumped out at me:

> So avoid the kind of distraction that pushes your work out of the top spot, or you'll waste this valuable type of thinking on the distraction instead. (Exception: Don't avoid love.)

PG never explains why love is an exception. Perhaps he thought it was obvious. I disagree.

I agree that familial love is important to the overall human experience. But this isn't an essay on how to live a fulfilling life, it's an essay on "how to do great work," for a so-called "very ambitious" person who wants to achieve "great work" at any cost. In this context, familial love is no less of a distraction than anything else. History is littered with eccentric artists who prioritized their work above any human interaction, and achieved fame for it.

So why does PG say not to avoid love? I believe it's because deep down, he realizes that "great work" isn't the most important thing in life—but he isn't quite aware enough to acknowledge it.

I don't think this essay ever actually made the value judgment that doing "great work" is "the most important thing in life" or even a good thing in life. Did I miss that part? I read it as, "for better or worse, some people are driven to do great work, here are some techniques to accomplish that". I think it's true, right?, that such people do exist, whether that is good or bad for them.

I suppose I know enough of his history to know that he would make that value judgment, but I read this particular essay as being fairly agnostic about it, leaving it up to the reader.

It's true that I'm mostly responding to tone. But again: if this is just a guide for people who want a certain lifestyle, for better or worse, why the warning to not avoid love? I think it speaks to an unresolved conflict.

The parenthetical shouldn't be there if PG really does want this to be a no-judgement how-to guide. Love is distracting, for better or worse.

Playing devil's advocate a bit, imagining an argument that definitely wasn't made in the essay itself, and which I don't necessarily think is right: It's possible that he meant that love seems like a distraction like others, but is actually critical in some way for doing great work. There are both kinds of stories out there, both those whose loving partnership was clearly critical to their work, and those who were isolated and loveless (but maybe would have been even more successful if it were not so?).

But I do tend to agree with you that if it is "how to pursue great work at all cost", then singling out love as the only distraction worth keeping is contradictory to that thesis.

It is lonely doing hard work without some attaboys. Being some famous techie that people refer to you in droves by only your first name, or publishing a highly referenced paper, or exiting a startup with millions are great attaboys. But you sort of need to risk working hard and getting no cash and no attaboys. I think passion (that dirty word!) is needed to drive you to do the moonshot thing.

I often think we are a bee colony. We need lots of people trying ambitious stuff but few will get that attaboy kick. We need failures (otherwise everyone is not ambitious enough).

I think "passion" just isn't the best word for it. I much prefer (and relate to) the use of "curiosity" instead in this essay.

I have also followed a similar trajectory to you. My early 20's I wanted to do something 'great'. But my ambition was what Paul identified in this post as the type that precedes experience. As a result, I became restless, agitated if I thought I wasn't pursuing the right things, competitive.

That is slowly disappearing from me, for the better. Now I just try to focus on doing things as well as I can. I don't worry about what to do, because really that will flow from your intuition. Just do what you want to do. Maybe it'll be great, maybe not, but you can't force greatness.

I'm inclined to agree with you about whether this is the best path to a good life.

But I also don't think the essay actually does romanticize "great work". I read it as, "if you are the kind of person who naturally has this kind of ambition, this essay will speak to you, and if you aren't that kind of person, it won't". That is, I think it's necessary for you to be that kind of person, in order to read the essay as a romanticism. And clearly you have that in you, as your anecdote about piano demonstrates. And even though you have concluded that this is not a good facet of your personality, it's hard to truly shake it.

Personally, this plight really speaks to me (and I'm sorry if I'm just projecting that onto you...). When I really think about it, the happiest most chill times in my life and career are when I've just been plugging away doing useful and well-compensated work, but definitely not "great work" in the essay's sense. I have told myself many times to just do that and do fun and enriching things with my friends and family and be content with that. But it never fails, I always get the nag eventually, to be more ambitious, to try to do work that is more impactful, more "great". So this essay spoke to me, because of that trait I seem to have, even if I'm totally unconvinced that it is the best path to a good life.

And I don't think this is universal. I think nearly everyone I know would instead read this essay as "that sounds exhausting and terrible" and, as the essay alludes to at the end, would not make it very deep into it.

But yeah, striving to do the kind of "great work" that this essay is talking about is certainly not what I want for my children... The best outcome is succeeding after a huge life-impacting amount of work, and the more likely outcome is constant nagging doubt without any pot of gold at the end.

Thanks for zooming out and sharing these questions that challenge pg’s assumption from the beginning. I felt caught in the essay’s ethos and throngs the moment I started reading. This helps me pause

> The work that you do will be great work if you have a reason for doing it other than "I want to do something great."

I've always had an issue with the word "great". Who defines greatness? How will I know that I've achieved greatness in whatever work I'm doing at any particular time.

For work, I know when my work is great because co-workers and managers praise it: "nice fix", "some really good insights here", etc.

Beyond work - there's a whole bunch of egos and social politics that get tangled into the whole "what is great" thing:

- "Great poem"? Depends entirely on who is on the competition judging panel or what mood the magazine editor is in when they read your submission.

- "Great novel"? You've got to get it published first before the reviewers can cast their judgments, and to get it published you need to convince people that this is a great novel for the specific reason that it will make them some money when they publish it.

- "Great JS library"? People need to know it exists - and then how do you measure its greatness? In my view great DevEx and minimal issues raised in GitHub are just as important (if not more important) than the elegance and speed of the code itself.

Nowadays I judge the greatness of my varied passion projects by how well they please me. I am a harsh judge of myself: the days when I manage to draft a poem that leaves me stunned with wonder when I review it a few weeks later (for all poems should be left to ferment for a few weeks before review) is how I measure greatness. It's a rare occurence, but wondrous when it happens!

> For work, I know when my work is great because co-workers and managers praise it: "nice fix", "some really good insights here", etc.

They only said nice and good though not great. I would say if your CEO came down and said that's awesome, then it's great work. (for you)

As for me, I don't think too much about word semantics. No advice can be given or taken if you take each word apart. We will just keep arguing about details and miss the point.

It depends how much you value/respect your co-workers. In a high level team “good insight” can mean “great work”. I am not saying you disagree with this, but you may have made assumptions about the parent’s team and his relation to it. Conversely, a “great work” from a CEO can mean nothing to a person

Completely agreed. Media excessively romanticizes compulsive workers.

Not to mention to the 5am hustle. Only people who get up at 5am and smash out their book for the first three hours of the day, before starting work, are winners... /s

> Develop a habit of working on your own projects.

work shouldn't always imply working for your employer. Without that implication I'm ok with romanticising a compulsive worker, creating something is an ambition we should all strive for

I agree. To your point, I feel the most useful questions we ought to ask are the ones that push us to understand our deepest selves: the desires, insecurities, fears that dictate why we do what we do.

Without that deeper understanding, we're more easily trapped into following someone else's / the collective culture's programming of our minds - which likely doesn't prioritize our own individual well-being.

And ofc this is a lifelong journey. I can't imagine waking up anytime soon thinking I understand what happens in the deepest recesses of my mind, but without having a reasonable sense of the deeper motivations, it's easy to read this essay by PG and feel a craving to "do great work" without understanding why or the impact this craving can have on your wellbeing.

> Ambition is still an admirable trait to have because, among other things, it demonstrates that you have curiosity and a love for life.

Thanks for a very beautiful response in general. I particularly liked this formulation. Ambition is not the (proper) end; curiosity and a love for life are ends in and of themselves. My personal experience -- I wonder if others feel the same -- is that working on a "big problem" or "something" great is far too abstract a motivation.

This comment reminded me so much of the movie Whiplash. If you haven’t seen it, it’s worth a watch, given your history.

If great people didn't exist we are all doomed

Not all people who do great work are great people. In fact, I suspect a negative correlation.

For a current example, see Elon Musk. Even here on a relatively level-headed hacking forum, any discussion of Musk will turn into poo-flinging between fanboys that worship him and haters who deny that success of his companies has anything to do with him.

Great person does not imply good person. My comment was about great people

Interesting. "Great person" is tough to design.

I wonder if you might have found it more fulfilling if you had received some psychological help with all the harshness on yourself.

As somebody who has struggled with similar issues, oftentimes the psychological help you need is to de-emphasize the ambition and success. You have to act against the expectation and dreams of greatness, and instead focus on your present state and appreciating that. It's not impossible to do great work and be happy, but it's very easy to let your dreams consume you.