Monday, April 2, 2012

Work

The typical bourgeois endures tedious and unfulfilling work for the sake of extravagant entertainment and sumptuous meals. An existence in which such passive activities are the center and focus is but a pale shadow of what it might have been, had work been its center and focus. It isn’t consumption that satisfies. It’s creation.

One visible effect of the bourgeoisification of the professions is that, over time, the houses of professionals become more and more grand and opulent, while the offices where we perform our work become more and more austere. If work were the center of our life, rather than merely a means, it would be just the other way.

If we expect to find gratification in insignificant things (entertainments and sumptuous meals) and not in significant things (thinking, creating, producing), we will find only an insignificant gratification. Profound happiness will elude us.

The difference between genius and bourgeois is not that genius has more talent, ability or intelligence. It is that for genius work is an end in itself. Genius is gratified by its exercise. The bourgeois refuses to find and exercise his genius. Instead, we find him at the theater and the opera, vainly trying to be gratified by the genius of others. His passivity is a tragedy in its own right, if only he would understand it rightly.

The division of labor efficiently provides for basic necessities, so genius may focus upon developing itself and not be distracted. But it brings with it an unfortunate temptation to sit back and watch others exercise their genius instead of finding and developing our own.

No comments:

Post a Comment