7/9/2014–The pseudo-sabbatical beginning in January has paid off. My expenses have been more than covered, I have no debt, I’m playing more soccer than ever, I’ve read or podcasted more philosophy than ever, and have recorded six songs professionally. I’ve also fundamentally adjusted my diet and exercise based on studies read in my “free time”. I’ve begun to see all 24 hours as free time for our voluntary allotment.
I’m about to start at Purdue, a first step toward my career I predict, so these hobbies may be occasional, soon. This is ok because I will work to cover future expected expenses, like a house and family. So far, I can’t think of something I’d do differently. Maybe keep in touch with a few people more frequently. I have developed an appreciation of corporate restaurants since I’ve been able to visit many local options recently. They do things so efficiently, out of necessity, and are measured on the important things. The last two I’ve worked for also have great feedback tools for customers. I’ve come to the conclusion that w/out experience in a corporate place it would be too hard to succeed as a small restaurant owner.
Regarding philosophy, to me it’s still all about love. Love is the most sustainable behavioral impetus both immediately and long-term, though I don’t believe an act can be one and not the other. An act is either “good” or “bad” in an infinite sense. Essentially, I imagine two alternatives, one immediately “good” but “bad” in the future and the other one vice versa. An example may be how to act toward a beggar. Ignoring moral duty to spend your own $ to benefit society, one could say either you are “good” to give $ to the beggar in the immediate, or you are “good” to not encourage their (assumed) destructive behavior. In either case, the opposite label goes with the opposite reference in time. But I think it’s wrong to say an act is “good for me now, but bad later” or vice versa. To me, another way to say “love” is “sustainability”; the more sustainable an act is, the more love-driven, and therefore “good” it is, regardless of its differing short and long-term consequences. In the previous example, I think (don’t know) the better act is to not give the beggar $. Another way to consider sustainability is “the society that does this lasts longer than the society that does that (this and that being alternatives). Similarly to time, I think it’s false logic to say something can be good for one person but bad for another. The same logic applies as to the example before. That is, free healthcare, tax loopholes–taxes, generally–are either good for all or bad for all, regardless of who uses/benefits from it in the near future. Again, the good act is the one which, when fully adopted and done over and over, increases stability of the individual/group.
The emphasis on sustainability leads to many clear and practical conclusions. It is most stable to act out of love in every moment (see: Jesus). Love of self means making the decision (choice + action) to learn about and to practice physical health. Good health is very sustainable. Love of others means a serious attempt to discern what the most effective way to communicate with them is, then to use that method to encourage their thriving and to discourage their destruction (to them and to others). A specific example is a father understanding what a teen listens to and reacts to, instead of relentlessly bombarding them with moral guidance. Also, love can lead to negative consequences, or “punishment”, though it may be better to call it “negative reinforcement” or a more future-oriented term. I love the criminal, so I judge him and show him the better way; and meanwhile my love for the other citizens leads me to seclude the criminal–to support their sustainability. “Negative reinforcement” is technically more accurate than punishment because you are reinforcing the need to stop destructive behaviors. More, you’re encouraging better behavior, so there’s a positive or creative aspect to negative reinforcement. This reason puts a great emphasis on intent vs consequence. Intent is always known to the one acting, but many times consequence is just a probability, at best. Also, when intent is considered before acting, bad consequences often reveal themselves. When good intent leads to bad results, good intent drives the subsequent effort to fix the mistake.
It’s nothing new to love self and others, nor is the idea that what’s good for one is good for all. But I don’t hear them used as reasons to eat well, exercise, learn, use talent, communicate better, establish and enforce law, nor to act only after considering the future. All of these habits (virtues?) stem from love and result in a sustained person and people. More benevolent than “health”, more pleasing than seeking happiness or pleasure, even more sustainable than procreation, acting out of love in all aspects of life is the most altruistic, productive, and sustainable ethic.
10/13/2017 review: This was shortly after I decided to leave restaurant management to prepare to be a great dad. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I would go on to repeatedly enjoy benefits from following my purpose-driven path. Other things started to fall into place–new hobbies, relationships, and experiences I’d never have enjoyed were it not for my seeking a new path. Regarding love as the most sustainable driver of behavior, I still feel that way–even more having read the bible and lived as much as I’m able to in this way. I’d correct myself in saying I now judge people’s behavior, not people themselves. It may sound like it’s not important to change those words, but it matters when you realize people are all capable of good and bad behavior, and behaviors are visible, making it easier to use examples when you want to help them to change.