Hacker News Reader

Agreed - you do feel dirty after reading this. Also waiting for the other shoe to drop and here it is in the byline:

   David Brooks is an Op-Ed columnist and the author, most recently, of The Road to 
   Character, from which this essay is adapted.

I love the stern paternalism of an OpEd piece designed to sell a book - a book that I suspect has no more thought content than the OpEd piece.

I hate the NYT as much as I used to love it - Brooks, Kristof, Dowd and the rest. The morally bankrupt schooling us on morals.

Funny the focus on 'eulogy virtues' - reminds me of a (hopefully not misquoted) epigram of the philosopher Lukacs before he became a Stalinist... "Life is not Living"

Preparing your life to make a good eulogy is exactly the problem. Dorothy Day did not live and act with one eye on what the NYT would write in her obit when she passed.

Who speaks badly at someone's funeral? There is an old taboo or at least superstition against "speaking ill of the dead". Today it is at least considered bad form.

And who really cares about your eulogy? Brecht 3-penny song "Ballad of the Pleasant Life" - MacHeath warns that if you live a virtuous life and you will be:

"mingling with the greats - but you are dead"

and goes on to add his preference:

"The bulging pockets make an easy life"

We are 'expendable' it is that insight that should be in front of us all the time. Morality like Brooks discusses it is a luxury to be savored with something overpriced and 80 proof and perhaps a cigar. It is not a living thing.

If you think the author is saying the #1 reason to be a good person is so that you'll get a nice memorable eulogy, you have dramatically misread the piece.

Right: The author is saying things so you'll buy his book.

In the big picture you're expendable. But in the lives of certain people, you are not. Things like being humble, being full of love, establishing and maintain relationships do help one feel fulfilled.

One thing that definitely does not help is casting these things as moments and not processes. We strive to be better at our jobs each day, why not at our character? A bucket list is probably not a good comparison. Being of character is a process, not a list of events.

Lastly, I think we should try to be people of character not only because it's fulfilling, but because it's good for society. (I'm not saying you're particularly against character, but this is still a good point to bring up.) A good example of this is avoiding gratuitous negativity on Hacker News. It encourages better conversations and can be grounded in humility.

It is certainly a big part of life - being well liked. Not feeling like you're expendable in terms of your family/friends is quite important.

The thing about 'character' is that it's empty words. See, you 'think' we should 'try to be people of character.'

'It's good for society.' All of these ideas are empty ideas.

Nobody is going to cease being the way they are because... well... we should try to be not like that... Why? because... 'character' and 'good for society.' Gags

It's when people are out of touch with what happens when you are a selfish prick long enough, that these words get spoken.

See, the reason people need to work together and not be delusional or ego-maniacs, is because that's the ONLY way we can survive. People who have not lived around poverty or places where you NEED to be able to rely on others for basic things, oftentimes don't get this.

When you grow your own food at a cottage and your water hose ceases working, you NEED to be able to go and ask the neighbour for help. When you cut yourself and you are out of bandages, you NEED to be able to go and ask the neighbour. When people know this, not 'think' they should 'have character' because 'it's good for society' but when they KNOW that without this, we'd be SCREWED, then things fall in place.

It goes in waves - people move to cities, raise kids who never have to rely on anybody and everything 'just works somehow', tend to grow up selfish and clueless, end up making terrible decisions until we have to come together to fix it and then when we do, we remember oh... this is what makes it all work - working together.

And then everything is fine, until it is not and then we come together and fix it again, if we can :)

"Since when does the author feel he's so much better than everybody else, that he feels qualified to tell the readers of the NYTimes what they want to be"

You must be unfamiliar with David Brooks' output. He's thought of himself as "that guy" for YEARS...

I sometimes trick myself into believing that a powerhouse like the NY Times would filter their content for quality, I am forever disillusioned :)

I should write for the NY Times perhaps...

I totally see where you're coming from, but remember, everyone needs to feel special. Even David Brooks. Even you. You can't go through life thinking "I am expendable", it's immolating and unsustainable. What is human in each of us is what reveals us. It often undignified (David Brooks, for example, feels that he's not lived a life worth living but then he writes a book about it. That's so not going to work, yet there he is.) It's definitely imperfect. But this is the sheet music of who we are. You're not going to escape it either.

Some take great comfort in the belief that they are expendable. There are no standards to live up to but their own. That person can focus on his own worth and friends and family around him without any guilt about not properly serving 'society', as defined by NYT Op Ed contributors.

You can't go through life thinking "I am expendable"

Take an introductory astronomy class. You'll find you don't have a choice.

Reality and what you think don't have to have any relation. What people believe and what is objectively provable are only weakly correlated.

In the abstract, people buy what makes them feel good.

This can be "direct purchase" like nice clothes, good food, vacations, property, furniture, life insurance, etc. Or it can be an "indirect purchase" in the form of attention which equals money in aggregate since some percent of youtube viewers will spend money downstream as a result of either paying the public speaker or clicking the ad before the youtube vid and paying an advertiser (public speaker gets a cut), etc.

A million writers/public speakers have cropped up because there is a market - people are willing to pay indirectly with their attention - for 'feel good' snake-oil style self-help advice.

The trouble is filtering the signal from the noise where a good filter tends to be whether the person providing you with productivity advice needs your money.

Interestingly, the value of productivity / 'self-help' advice (applied to personal or entrepreneurial life) is usually proportional to the person providing it's net worth. Peter Thiel's 'Zero to One', for example, is excellent.

Most of the time self-help is just a circle jerk though

I think you are overreacting. Maybe he does have a better grasp on a few areas in life than you or I do.

It's just a book. One that might make people think a bit and question their own life more.

What I find gross are people scared of criticism and offended by anything that remotely challenges one's beliefs or actions.

> Maybe he does have a better grasp on a few areas in life than you or I do.

Then why can't he phrase them precisely, giving real moral guidance instead of pious-sounding virtue-ethical platitudes?

Anyone want to check if David Brooks has signed up for anything like that "Giving What We Can Pledge"? $50 says he hasn't.

(For the record, I haven't signed the pledge, but I do try to donate 10% of gross income.)

Not to mention that given enough time, everyone's eulogy or resume will become meaningless.

For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool.

- Ecclesiastes 2:16

I feel dirty after reading all the comments in response to this. I can't help but think that all the visceral hate directed at this piece, all the ad hominem dismissals, and the lack of response to his specific points, have less to do with truth and more with anger at being forced to consider a very uncomfortable truth.