Why there are so many losers?

If there is confusion, as you say, then you should address it to the thread author as this is where the decision of who a loser is and why originated in this thread.

Why? It is the function of the discussion to get rid of the confusion. A vital part of philosophizing is clarification. Indeed, once clarification takes place (it it does) there may be nothing to philosophize about anymore.

Actually, there are often many losers for each winner, but maybe the issue here is how we define "loser". Our grandfathers would have been astounded by the wealth of the lower middle class today and yet they often managed to live fullfilling lives, raise families, celebrate holidays, etc. Were they "losers" because they didn't have the material wealth we enjoy today? If you "take the path with the least risk, and hope to not attract any attention" and are happy you might not be living up to your potential, but does that make you a loser? Is Bernie Madoff a winner for stealing the earnings of others? Was he a winner before he was convicted, but became a loser when he got caught? I'd define loser as someone unhappy with his life and unwilling to do anything about it. That clearly transcends economic conditions.

Losers are sinners?

former philo forum members are so literal?

But isn't the point that if they are sinners, then it is their fault they are losers. And do you want to suggest that?

again. let's not play literal, just role with it, not every thing is some philosophical dilemma, some things just are

Billy Joel is a wise man??

Wow, what a post.

Pursuing a materialistic vision of success is short-sighted and self defeating, irresponsible and destructive. What's more, the rat-race of career success and buying more crap, in pursuit of someone's idea of success, is not only a losing battle on a personal level but it tends to include using or overusing debt and becoming a slave to all that **** you've spent your time grabbing. All that stuff won't make you happy - to get that "thrill of satisfaction" that comes from 'stuff' you need to keep buying; which means keep working, harder, longer, pushing for more money. I never cease to be amazed at how many people live like this and keep riding that merry-go-round to nowhere.

Becoming a "success" in this materialistic vision relegates wisdom, compassion, responsibility, empathy and education to the background since not only are these not requisite for financial success, in the capitalistic world they're more of a liability.



You realize this is a blatant contradiction, don't you?

Those who internalize the materialistic consumer culture aren't necessarily the poor ones. Internalizing it - taking it on as a personal pursuit - more likely results in people who spend all their energies in pursuit of money and things (i.e., the non-poor).

Now... those who DO spend themselves into poverty (which I'm guessing might be where you were trying to go) might well have earned the judgment you've given. But to stereotype all poor into this category is really narrow minded; that they exist and that this happens doesn't mean that ALL have become that way.

I myself am poor by choice. After retiring from the military I spent four years as a CIO making well over 6 figures. It was only for the wisdom of my wife - that we realized this money grab horseshit was killing us - that we quit our jobs, moved to the most inexpensive place we could tolerate and now enjoy a quiet, humble lifestyle where exercise, family, reading, enjoying our yard, each other and community fills our time. I'm very proud to say I'm just below the U.S. poverty line. And although I am still tempted by stuff, buying all the neat toys, gadgets, close and cars is no longer an option. I'm free... standing on the sidelines trying to tell people to jump off that merry-go-round of failure; no one seems to care.

In any case, while I think you're right that materialistic consumerism is a social cancer-of-cancers and that some have spent themselves into poverty, don't be so narrow minded as to assume that all (or even most) are that way due to irresponsibility.

Thanks

Nah, not all of us.

My philosophical background lies mainly on ethics and epistemology. You'll find that those from the logic side are like this more often. Ken's observation is legitimate. But since no one can phrase everything perfectly, so is the advice to just roll with it.

No one can (it is true) phrase everything perfectly. But some can phrase what they say so that what they say does not imply exactly the opposite of what they intend.

The poor of France, in 1789, gave a ****. The poor of today also give a ****.

There are many kinds of losers as you speak of.

Those who have PTSD and other kinds of depressions, therefore lost all inner motivation and willpower for maintaining a normal life with job and such, and has fallen to a miserable life.

Those who learning difficulties.

Those who from early age mingled with the wrong kind of people, and got lost in a world of crime, violence and drugs, all cause by group think, flok instinct and suggesion.

Then theres those who havn't gotten the possebility to elevate themselves by school education, didn't have the goverment to provide jobs, infrastructure ..etc, a 3rd world country.

..etc.

I am with Failure's Art.

The poor of France in 1789 lived at a bare subsistence level. That is certainly not true of the poor of today who believe they are poor if they do not have two TVs. (I am talking about the United States). As the man said, "It is all relative".

I think djjd62 is trying to make it clear that you should not be using so much effort to dissect a joke. Whether this was perfectly phrased or not, is irrelevant. It's composed for sake of humor, not argument.

A
R
T

you are correct sir

when i was a young lad we came by our philosophical thoughts the natural way, by way of about a half an ounce of good weed, i tend to take my seriousness a little bit less seriously

Maybe we can send him some.