Posted this on /r9k/ but got no replies

>also, T14 isn't necessarily my goal.
>obviously T14 is my premier goal
Well clearly the c-lam is preventing my from making up my mind. Let's just assume the latter and forget the former. Sorry.

I guess I was meaning to say that T14 would be the premier goal and anything else (T15-25) would i'd also likely accept. the big bugaboo here being the difficulty of the LSAT.

not even OP but you guys sound like you're living the life.

>Passive income
>owning my own business
>in control of my life
Yeah it's pretty good.

Friend, you are missing everything.
Spending eighty hours a week is the deal.
You don't understand that people who get into such a “career” aren't working for anything but working. Securing a position, raises, each promotion, each year successful, each case carried on are the real incentives, the real reason to work. Everything else is a decorum.

Also, I met few people who show genuine disdain for unqualified staff. I think you've been creating a picture that doesn't really match with the reality.

sounds really meaningful and original nobody else does what you do

Entire family wanted me to go into law but no fucking way I would put my self through 4 more years of schooling. right now i'm an english teacher while getting my masters in Ed Admin as my fiance is going through vet school. we'll be broke right off the bat but but we'll be smooth sailing by the time we're 35 hopefully with a couple kids.

I'm living off my art (I'm a cellist and composer), so yeah, it's great
Way better than slaving off for money and power

and what if you enjoy law?

Kek what a retard

art is slaving too.

>enjoying law

I'm the only one profiting from it.

Is being alone to take profit makes it more interesting? Would law be different if he worked as a partner?

>tripfag is a literal cuck
like poetry

>Is being alone to take profit makes it more interesting?
It's more about the fact that my creativity is not constrained by anything, making everything I do meaningful (to me at least).
99% of jobs in law are boring shit that needs to be done for society to work. It has its dignity, but I can't see how this could be anyone's dream.
Also (but this is just me) I don't see how money and power could ever fill your life and soul. I'm pretty sure I can see the limits of such a lifestyle.

>Would law be different if he worked as a partner?
It would be different if he can manage to get a job in which a) he can express his creativity and genius and b) he can follow his own values.

For most lawyers the job is 99% boring paperwork and 1% boring, uneventful cases

>society is good
top kuckuck

>says the loser who was too dumb and socially retarded to get into law school.
have fun in your bedroom with your online friends bud.
and? the guy who runs a clickbait site does too.

It's mostly good. Way better than living in ancapistan/warlord based society.

>and? the guy who runs a clickbait site does too.
Sure, but I'm not doing it for the money, although I'm really cashing in.

There's more than money in life, my friend.

>society is better than society
Stop running your ass

All society is bad.

That's a loaded statement.
I'll give you that society is a compromise, but it's a infinetely useful one.

>pseudo-democracy is as good as a warlord based society

Eh.

i find it hard to believe you're cashing in as a composer but sure, either way your argument was about profit and not meaning?

What a faggy conversation. Can we talk about law, bros?

It can't be that much of a meme, as much as the STEMlords would have you believe, right?

Composing earn me maybe 1000$ a year. There is no money in the craft, and that has been the case for centuries. I mostly perform (city orchestra, string quartet and the occasional solos/piano trios/quartets/quintets) and every once in a while I give lessons to fellow cellists.
I love it.

good for you.
lawyers can enjoy their job too.

The key is “to me”. I'm glad you tackled a passion, and managed to make it a living, but we aren't all wired the same. I cannot speak for this person, I have nothing to do with law, but I work in finance, and I love it. I had many coworkers who were grumpy in the morning, answering “I'm great, nearly the weekend!” on Friday, who thought our industry was meaningless. Truth is, I love what I do. I love waking up on 5:30 am, watching for the deadlines, meeting with a client. I love the feeling of getting an excellent rating and nothing can match the extase I have when I'm done with a project that have been going on half a year. Truth is, I like reading but I wouldn't be an author. I don't play any instrument. Painting and drawing don't interest me. What is a slave? Am I slave, for I have a “boss”, although we're friends, and that I'm happy? I don't want this “freedom”. I don't believe it exists. I don't believe it's inherently “deep” to paint, versus helping migrants to fill lawsuits. You can be the president of the United States, in the end, you will be forgotten and pointless, like all of the humanity will ever be. What I do matters because it matters to me.

Seems like a reasonable justification.

But I'm concerned you'll eventually run up against the fundamental dependence on others that your profession requires. That is, all of your skills (financial skills) require other people to be employed. Doesn't it concern you that, if left by yourself, you no longer have power?

Do you?

I don't think the satisfaction you can derive from such a job can last for a lifetime.
At least that user will still haveboth his memories and compositions. What will remain to that lawyer and that guy in finance?
By the way I'm not saying that only being an artist is worth it, but I think that we both agree that, regardless lf the enjoyment you derive from it, certain jobs are more meaningful than others.

You may enjoy being a cashier, but I would consider you a fool (or at the very least criticize your lack of ambition) if you tell me that being a cashier was your dream all along.

>dream is going to law school and doing one of the shittiest jobs imaginable
You're very odd, OP.

T14 student here. If I wasn't going to graduate debt-free I would probably drop out. At this point I just want the slip of paper that certifies I went to a top school; I don't give a hoot about my career.

I'd like to do something meaningful with my life, and I'm sure I have access to the people who could help me do it, but heck if I know where to start. Most people here just want to wagecuck for some ultra-political non-profit, and the school just wants to railroad everyone into biglaw if possible. Clerking for judges seems fun but it's not worth the absurd amount of drudgery it would take to maintain an illustrious GPA, and plenty of judges are more or less petty politicians at this point. If Scalia weren't dead I might have bothered.

Getting in wasn't the problem, nor is maintaining average grades- the problem is caring enough about your future to press on. Outside of a few pittance wage jobs you might find, all of the labor you do is going to be totally alien.
law school is 3 years senpai

Do I what? Do I feel concerned that by myself, I have no power? Certainly: my power is bound to my ability to write (i.e. it is my greatest skill), which can provide for me in this world (the capitalist world) because the global dependency on resource substitutes (currencies) creates a global web of concrete interdependence.

But if I lived in Sumer, I'd probably be fucked. Writing was a much more exclusive profession due to the labor that went in to producing the final product (clay mining, slave logistics, cunieform calligraphy, clay baking, etc.). Self defense doesn't cut it either because it wouldn't allow you to provide for yourself unless you used it as a tool of robbery, i.e. not to defend yourself.

It comes down to the "primal masculinity," if you want to call it that: the need to see a direct linkage between your work and your self-provision, e.g. when one kills and cooks an animal. In finance, there's no direct ("objective" so to speak) link between your labor and your life; your life depends on the will of another. That spooks me, because my life is then necessarily outside of my control, so I prefer to spend my labor on tangible things that visibly link to life-affirmation, like hunting and cooking. I'm trying to find a farm to work on that won't discount my work ethic based on the simple fact that I'm a white U.S. citizen.

I used to live in the grad dorms next to Harvard LS. The law students were a bunch of loser dorks.

Why would you WANT to get into law?

>drug addict
>I want to make it into law, law school

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that ain't gonna happen.

Don't know much about law, but I just wanted to say that this post beats most of what is posted in critique threads.

No it's not.
Yes, because all society is bad.
Law is for dull children, and Harvard is for the dullest of the dull.

Not an argument, desu.

>arguments are good
Typical lawchild.

>There's more than money in life
Everyone knows it. Everyone knows that everyone knows it. Still somehow poorfaggots feel the need to repeat that all the time. A mystery.

The memories last. A lifetime isn't too much to aim for the best. How would you qualify that in forty years, he will look for the supreme court? Wouldn't be quite an achievement? What initially disturbed me is that, it were impliedn roughly, that people who aren't self-made men, artists or entrepreneurs, must hate to work. I'm sure there are gardeners who love to collect rubbish in a park, for the sole pleasure of making the place cleaner and nicer to people. I'm sure there are cashiers who are happy with giving the most, and getting a smile back.

To be honest, I would say that being an artist is most likely to be a noteworthy meaningless occupation. You would have to sell, to be famous, to influence people so it makes sense. Writing or painting for oneself doesn't do any good to the society. The lawyer, the insurer, the janitor, the chemist, they mostly do contribute to make a better world. Erect a house. Craft a watch. Cure a cancer. That's what I would definitely consider to make sense. I don't think people are hostile to the profession of a cashier. That's the name which doesn't shine enough.

Well, provided there's nobody, nobody may pay you to read your books. The chain is shorter, but substantially, there's little difference. Whether you write without a computer and the endless series of people who have worked on this, that you don't contact a publisher, don't have your work translated, edited, corrected, that you don't have it printed nor bound, in the end, we're still both selling something, and we both need a buyer to live. Neither currencies nor commodities make a different, we're naturally interdependent as long as we aren't living in complete autarky.

Also, would you live in Sumer, you would probably be a lawyer, since the major purpose of writing was to record laws and legal settlements.

How was your LSAT? Honestly I don't have a clue how I'd fare on it but but I know that only the top >5% of test takers is typically the cutting off point for T14 school admissions.
I want to get into Law because lack of options, money, and prestige. Gives me a goal. I don't even care if I'm a lawyer or not.
I like drugs user.
>Law is for dull children, and Harvard is for the dullest of the dull.
Perhaps you might think that. I dunno. I just posted the pic because it's relevant to law. No opinions here about Harvard Law. I'm certain I couldn't make it in anyways.

Pictures of comfy elite universities makes me feel comfy so here's another.

Elite universities are garbage. They're ran by cannibals.

>lack of options, money, and prestige
Lack of money and prestige are not what I wanna go to law school for, but lack of options is. Does the original sentence still make sense without clarifying this?

sage

I was responding to a guy who apparently did not know that. Stop being so contrarian.

There were still poems like "Gilgamesh," I'd hesitate to ascribe special pervasiveness to law and history in this context because we obviously don't have all written works produced in Sumer. Our understanding of their society as oriented toward legalism could simply be the result of skewed archaeological data.

>we're still both selling something, and we both need a buyer to live.
I agree, this is what frightens me. Without the buyer and the market, we cannot provide even for ourselves.

>Neither currencies nor commodities make a different, we're naturally interdependent as long as we aren't living in complete autarky.
I'd say currency and commodity make this interdependence easier (more efficient) as well as more widespread, but you're right that the essential basis of any economy, however primitive, is interdependence. I wouldn't say people are "naturally" interdependent though, because one could conceivably live a totally solitary life. One resides in a cave, lives by hunting game, takes water from a nearby stream. Or, if one were a skilled enough farmer, one could provide enough physiological resources (shelter as farmhouse, food as crop, water as well) for oneself. This is what I'm striving to accomplish: total resource self-sufficiency, or as near as I can come to it, so that socialization is a free joy at my power rather than something I must do to survive.

>benzos
>buzz

>How would you qualify that in forty years, he will look for the supreme court
He's a drug addict shitposter on Veeky Forums. Please.

>What initially disturbed me is that, it were impliedn roughly, that people who aren't self-made men, artists or entrepreneurs, must hate to work.
I haven't implied that, what I have implied is that certain jobs don't really deserve to be anyone's dream. Being a normal lawyer is one of those jobs.

>I'm sure there are gardeners who love to collect rubbish in a park, for the sole pleasure of making the place cleaner and nicer to people.
Which is fine and dignified. But imagine if that gardener dreamed of being a gardener for his whole life: that would show you a complete lack of ambition and common sense. If you're young you should strive for more, and if you fail at it you should try to find peace in the job you've got. This is what I believe in.

>To be honest, I would say that being an artist is most likely to be a noteworthy meaningless occupation. You would have to sell, to be famous, to influence people so it makes sense.
The ideology. Most of the greatest artists we know of died anonymous and penniless. Should I give Kafka shit only because he did not sell any of his major works in his lifetime?
Art is inherentaly meaningful to the artist as long as he has something to say. Also, as I've said earlier, this is not the only example of profession that is worth aspiring for. Still, there is a pretty big leap between dreaming if being an artist and dreaming of being a cashier.

>Writing or painting for oneself doesn't do any good to the society
No one has talked about society, the focus was on one individual's personal existential journey.

have you ever taken a c-lam? the effects typically last until mid day next day or so. i wouldn't recommend them recreationally unless you enjoy blacking out.

>He's a drug addict shitposter on Veeky Forums. Please.
Please stop with this meme. I'm not a drug addict user, but I do consume drugs sometimes.

>complete lack of ambition and common sense
Yes, I'm sure a man doing what he loves for a living is very concerned about all those spooky societal labels.

People will buy books and invest in mutual funds, don't worry. We will both die with no such worries.

>I wouldn't say people are "naturally" interdependent though, because one could conceivably live a totally solitary life.
He could, but he won't. We are meant to associate and live in a group. I think that's Aristotle who wrote “man is naturally a social animal”. Even the most primitive societies in the world are built as a group, would it even be for the elementary requirements of a family. Heremitism is a choice, it isn't a natural tendency. I admire this choice, and I dream I could achieve it.

Concerning the purpose of writing, it has always been law and accounting. Etruscan, Sumerian, Hittite, Chinese, Greek, Latin, Jewish or Arabic. Everything starts with a need to write down a legal system and accounting entries. Arts aren't necessary, thus they have to come later.

It may demonstrate a poor ambition, but it has little to do with common sense. What's the purpose of life? Happiness? I bet this gardener would be happier than a lawyer and a painter. Assumed that what matters is the experience of the individual—let's say it out, I couldn't disagree more—then what's the difference between a zealous janitor and Franz Kafka? I wrote it earlier, I take no interest in art. I don't aspire to write anything, I don't compose, I don't paint. I don't want to. Why does such an occupation inherently carry more meaning than my own menial position, then, which provides me with nearly-ecstatic satisfaction?

>he thinks that quoting meme-philosopher#21 can discredit that argument
Quote Sam Harris too, since you're already here

I guess you haven't met enough people who dabbled with benzos yet. I'm sorry but I can't honestly trust your istinct in the long run. You're set for failure.

I didn't quote anyone, friendo. Just pointed out how ridiculous you sound with your 'ambition' and 'common sense' when talking about a person on a dream job.

>this is your brain on naive scepticism
I guess that when talking with you I can't refer to any term that may imply any sort of metaphysics, right?
Damn, you're smart.

>I bet this gardener would be happier than a lawyer and a painter.
What are you? A human beng or an animal?

>then what's the difference between a zealous janitor and Franz Kafka?
As I said earlier, what Kafka does last a lifetime and directly stems from his will and creativity. He creates something out of nothing, while being bound by nothing. A janitor, instead, at best can lear to appreciate a job that has none of these qualities (in fact it has virtually nonquality whatsoever: if you're fine with being a janitor you're fine with soing most jobs, which tells more about you than about the job itself).

They're just RCs near the benzo family. Been using them for about 4 months now, I believe? Use 'em one saturday a month. I don't think you know me enough to say what I'm doing is wrong or not.

Cornell's campus looks so pretty.

You don't know these drugs enough to say that I don't know what I'm talking about. You're a ticking bomb, wether you like it or not.

Why does this guy keep posting Ivy league colleges? Great way to waste your money, state schools are equally as good and much much cheaper.

Okay user.

Because they look pretty is all. Here's a public uni! And probably my main choice. Not T14 though, but close.

>People will buy books and invest in mutual funds, don't worry. We will both die with no such worries.
Yet I worry. My sustained worries are twofold: one, objective concerns, and two, personal subjective concern. Objectively I am concerned, for instance, about the potential to reach peak oil in my lifetime. I'm generally concerned about resource scarcity, and the effects on the world market any resource scarcity necessarily has. My personal subjective worry is as follows: if I'm a professional writer, I make money by selling my writing. If I make money by selling my writing, I need to have buyers for my writing. While I recognize that the inter-subjective element isn't very problematic to me ("People will always buy books"), my major concern in this context is that people will stop buying *my* books, short stories, plays, scripts, whatever. I can be cut off from my livelihood by the preferences of the mob. The whim of the mob, in a world where wealth is determined by the ability to appeal to the preference of the majority (e.g. in advertising), takes on the role of luck. I am at luck's mercy.

>He could, but he won't. We are meant to associate and live in a group.
This is what I meant earlier by turning "socialization" into a "free joy at my power." I want to be able to have my own livelihood (one not dependent on luck, like subsistence farming), thereby divorcing my social power from my will to live. In this way, I can take back society (be authentic in it) without attempting to make good out of bad (e.g. forcing myself to get along with publishers). I'm not saying I want to be a hermit, I'm saying I want to have the capacity to live as a hermit, i.e. be meaningfully self-sufficient.

>Arts aren't necessary, thus they have to come later.
Sure, I'm just saying Sumerian society had art so it was possible to make a living that way, but it was much more difficult than it is now.

>posted this on /r9k/ but got no replies

SO THEN WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU POST THIS HERE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LITERATURE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Do you think there's such a different in quality? A janitor may clean for a lifetime, out of will. It's a matter of prestige, nothing else. You don't necessary change the world more significantly by writing or painting than by gardening or crafting knives. His contribution is less tangible, diffuse, harder to figure out, but does exist. Do you think the librarian without a salary would cease sorting up books? I deny any quality to creativity. Many artists aren't even creative, but work in order to reproduce, restorate or promote existing pieces. In my opinion, there's nothing unsuitable for a dream. I have a high respect for people who consciously chose a job that is considered futile, menial or boring. My father worked in business out of pressure, yet his dream was to be a farmworker. He would have been happy working to have a domain well-kept, cutting branches, ploughing a field.

It's not about using the terms it's about those those things being completely irrelevant in case of a person on a dream job. Ambition is not some inherent good - on the contrary it's an irrationality poisoning the West.

Society ought to undergo the appropriate transition to resolve the resource depletion problem. Anyway, our reserves are probably wrongly estimated—we're still far from the oil peak predicted decades ago—and the population will certainly stabilizes once populated countries like India, Brazil and China are done with the emergence of a middle class. I still share your concerns. You're right on the ability to sell books, and that's precisely why we aren't substantially different. People may turn down my financial products, as they refuse to acquire your books. It's a matter of depth rather than quality. We're both equally exposed to the others.