[bpt3]

To me, the author of the article has missed that it's not an either-or scenario with bright lines between the two options.

Eating the free lunch being offered to you doesn't mean you've taken your eye off of your ultimate goals or mission in life.

[grok2]

But I think the point being made is that eating the free-lunch makes you "weak" (weakens your resolve) on your journey towards your Ithaca -- illustrating exactly the point being made about being a "lotus-eater".

[bpt3]

And my point is that doesn't have to be the case. You can eat a free lunch at your current job without being weakened or distracted in any way.

It's good to keep your end goals in mind and make sure you aren't deviating from a course that will get you there, but a logical conclusion of taking this blog post literally (which many people are doing, because there's no obvious reason not to do so) is that the author is severely misguided at best.

[throw_14JAS]

It's as valid to say that eating your free lunch provides strength and saves energy to support you on the way towards the goal.

There is nothing inherently praise worthy about suffering. Preferring comfort does not make one weak.

The author is generalizing their personal values to others.