Good advice is only good if you're willing to use it

[GeorgeParker]

My definition of simple living is just as valid as anyone else's and I'm not one bit hesitant in stating it and defending it. Plus I love the way everyone jumps on the word sloth in their totally judgemental way while daring to call me judgemental. I said having only modest goals when you're capable of more is either sloth or lack of ambition.

If you have the capability to reach for bigger goals but you don't do it, how do you justify saying that isn't lack of ambition?

If you're content with lacking ambition, or even proud of it as a proper Buddhist would be, then more power to you. Whatever works for you is fine with me. But my point was and remains that living simply isn't really "simple living" unless it is voluntary simplicity, and having reasonable goals is more important than having modest goals. That's my definition and I'm sticking to it. YMMV and you're welcome to it, because when everyone thinks alike, no one is thinking very much.

[SteveinMN]

I was an ant in a workplace full of spendthrift grasshoppers. [snip] I ended up retiring at 55 and was told..... "It must be nice." It was nice, it is nice. I guess it all comes down to how you look at it. We all made the same amount of money and we all got to decide how to allocate it.

I love the way a friend of mine put it (don't know if he came up with it by himself): "We were living like most wouldn't so that one day we could live like most can't."

[happystuff]

My definition of simple living is just as valid as anyone else's and I'm not one bit hesitant in stating it and defending it. Plus I love the way everyone jumps on the word sloth in their totally judgemental way while daring to call me judgemental. I said having only modest goals when you're capable of more is either sloth or lack of ambition.

If you have the capability to reach for bigger goals but you don't do it, how do you justify saying that isn't lack of ambition?

If you're content with lacking ambition, or even proud of it as a proper Buddhist would be, then more power to you. Whatever works for you is fine with me. But my point was and remains that living simply isn't really "simple living" unless it is voluntary simplicity, and having reasonable goals is more important than having modest goals. That's my definition and I'm sticking to it. YMMV and you're welcome to it, because when everyone thinks alike, no one is thinking very much.

So glad you have come to find your own definition of simple living that works for you.

With regards to this: "If you have the capability to reach for bigger goals but you don't do it, how do you justify saying that isn't lack of ambition?" who, exactly is defining "capability", "bigger goals" and "ambition"? I have my own definitions of these things that works for me, just as your definitions of these things work for you.

As for this: "If you're content with lacking ambition, or even proud of it as a proper Buddhist would be" - as a Buddhist, I find this very insulting and also an indication you really don't know what a Buddhist practice actually entails, as it is anything but a lacking of ambition.

Have a blessed day.

[SteveinMN]

I said having only modest goals when you're capable of more is either sloth or lack of ambition.

You would get absolutely ratio'ed for that in the reddit simple living group, where it seems half of the posters are young adults just finding out what the world of work is like and wanting to duck it so they can retire by age 30 to raise their own food and spend their days painting and reading. I understand getting burned out at work, but posting that "I just can't 40 hours a week on my first job" makes me wonder where we went wrong preparing those young people for the world.

[GeorgeParker]

I think George Parker has assigned an overly negative connotation to “modest” as in modest goals.

Nothing negative about it. Modest and reasonable are just quantities. The Oxford dictionary defines modest as "(of an amount, rate, or level) relatively moderate, limited, or small." I define reasonable as being "within your capabilities, not reaching for things beyond your grasp". Therefore modest is smaller than reasonable if someone truly wants to achieve less contentment than they are capable of. If your definition is different from mine, that's fine with me.

[GeorgeParker]

You would get absolutely ratio'ed for that in the reddit simple living group, where it seems half of the posters are young adults just finding out what the world of work is like and wanting to duck it so they can retire by age 30 to raise their own food and spend their days painting and reading. I understand getting burned out at work, but posting that "I just can't 40 hours a week on my first job" makes me wonder where we went wrong preparing those young people for the world.

Well, I'd join you in bashing the 20-somethings attitude about meaningless work done just to get a paycheck, but I can't because I used to be just like them. I was in my mid-thirties when I finally got smart, and I've been paying the price for those early mistakes ever since.

[catherine]

You would get absolutely ratio'ed for that in the reddit simple living group, where it seems half of the posters are young adults just finding out what the world of work is like and wanting to duck it so they can retire by age 30 to raise their own food and spend their days painting and reading. I understand getting burned out at work, but posting that "I just can't 40 hours a week on my first job" makes me wonder where we went wrong preparing those young people for the world.

My millennial daughter was ranting about how she thinks her peers are a bunch of babies. She isn't a workaholic, but she is responsible and works really hard at her job, and understands that that's what you have to do if you want certain things. Like food. And a roof. That's life.

[Tybee]

Steve, what does "ratio'ed" mean?

[iris lilies]

You would get absolutely ratio'ed for that in the reddit simple living group, where it seems half of the posters are young adults just finding out what the world of work is like and wanting to duck it so they can retire by age 30 to raise their own food and spend their days painting and reading. I understand getting burned out at work, but posting that "I just can't 40 hours a week on my first job" makes me wonder where we went wrong preparing those young people for the world.

Omg is there a Reddit simple living group!!!???


Of course there is. I should’ve known. There’s a reddit group for everything.

I recently left another personal finance group for sheer WTFery of tender feelings tho not really about work and money. When you have to hide talk about breasts and bras behind a spoiler tag because that topic might trigger someone, that’s my signal to leave. Not my tribe.

[iris lilies]

My definition of simple living is just as valid as anyone else's and I'm not one bit hesitant in stating it and defending it. Plus I love the way everyone jumps on the word sloth in their totally judgemental way while daring to call me judgemental. I said having only modest goals when you're capable of more is either sloth or lack of ambition.

If you have the capability to reach for bigger goals but you don't do it, how do you justify saying that isn't lack of ambition?

If you're content with lacking ambition, or even proud of it as a proper Buddhist would be, then more power to you. Whatever works for you is fine with me. But my point was and remains that living simply isn't really "simple living" unless it is voluntary simplicity, and having reasonable goals is more important than having modest goals. That's my definition and I'm sticking to it. YMMV and you're welcome to it, because when everyone thinks alike, no one is thinking very much.

Dude, I have no trouble being judgmental.