[renewiltord]

Interesting that this is hard to understand. For generations, craftsmen who have dedicated themselves to the art of their craft have existed. Almost all have "worked for someone else".

I saw a monk once, on his hands and knees, maintaining the grass at a temple. This is the craft he has dedicated himself to. Others have chosen other things.

It is not hard to see why many see their life's work as important to them. That isn't romanticism. That's just a different preference vector.

Personally, having read The Remains of The Day, there are certain end results I would consider failure. But clearly men such as Newton did not consider them that.

[keiferski]

This is probably traceable to the amorphous nature of modern work. In the past, working all day meant you had a physical result, whether that’s a clean garden or a pile of widgets to sell. These days in the information economy, working all day mostly just gets you more words on a screen. Humans are physical creatures but our contemporary work style treats them as pure spirit.

Reminds me of this scene in Margin Call, about the 2009 financial crash:

"You're one of the luckiest guys in the world, Sam. You could have been digging ditches all these years."

"That's true, and if I had, at least there'd be some holes in the ground to show for it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtFyP0qy9XU

[renewiltord]

This is another traditional view but I find it hard to believe the truth of it because of the strong bias (and personal experience): happy people do not generally know they are happy, unhappy people think that doing a different thing is sufficient for happiness.

Personally, I have found fulfillment from menial labour only when I have found no fulfillment from knowledge work. Achievement at the latter beats out the former by a large multiple, and doing the former when I have access to the latter feels me leaving like I've wasted time.

[senko]

> For generations, craftsmen who have dedicated themselves to the art of their craft have existed. Almost all have "worked for someone else".

>> When we only had months of runway left in the bank, there was no work-life balance. We had to work around the clock so that our company could survive. When we were behind on our big product launch, when we’re behind on our revenue goals, when we released nasty bugs to our users, or when our servers were down, there was no work-life balance.

This doesn't sound like someone dedicating themselves to the art of their craft, and I would argue that we released nasty bugs is the complete antithesis of what you meant. This sounds like making desparate moves trying to stay alive.

To me, a perfect modern example of someone putting the craft above all else (including their family) is Jiro Ono [0]. He does that because he wants to, not because he'd go broke otherwise.

I read GP's comment as not critizing craftsmen, but criticizing someone prioritizing the daily grind above their life. And let's face it, startups (or any other business) is 90% daily grind.

--

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiro_Dreams_of_Sushi

[rlonn]

She's an entrepreneur, and her craft is not really building a product, but building a business. I think that's what really drives her.

[brabel]

She fell into the trap of thinking her business was her life and gave equal weight to both. Quite sad to see... even if she becomes a billionaire and her business an unicorn, when the end comes, will she be happy for what she accomplished? Hardly. It's a pretty universal sentiment that what makes people happy is actually close relationships, friendships, family and helping others (not in exchange for something, like in a business, mind you - but helping for the sake of it). People like her and even the greatest in the field, like Steve Jobs, may lead extraordinary lives in our imaginations, but inside, they almost always feel horrible most of the time (the stress so high they grind their teeth to the point of damaging them as the article mentions) and end up dying sad and lonely.

[fairity]

> It's a pretty universal sentiment that what makes people happy is actually close relationships, friendships, family and helping others.

There isn't one path to happiness. Yes, close relationships and helping others in close proximity can feel good. So can wealth, social status, or building a business that positively impacts millions of people. It depends on your values, and your ability to align your actions with your values.

> People like her and even the greatest in the field, like Steve Jobs, may lead extraordinary lives in our imaginations, but inside, they almost always feel horrible most of the time.

I believe you are actually the one romanticizing here. Most people do not have this type of success, and therefore, tend to discredit the lives of those that do in order to protect their self-image.

The story of the outwardly successful CEO who is inwardly emotional distraught is a great Hollywood story, but it's an exception. If you actually follow the lives of most successful entrepreneurs, I think you will find that they are quite happy - enjoying their wealth and social status in their free time.

Yes, the day to day work of a CEO is very stressful. But, when they have time to step back from it all, knowing that they gave it their all and made an impact can be deeply satisfying.

Again, the key is to not assume everyone shares the same values. Family and friendships are one thing to value. Impact, contribution, wealth, and social status are other values. No value system is better or worse, objectively -- as long as you are capable of fulfilling your values.

[renewiltord]

I think this view is best established in The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro. It's a fairly traditional view but well described there.

For what it's worth, I think it depends on the shape of the thing. "What actually" is not a fixed concept like that. For instance, "what makes a good vacation?". One could say "not having faeces on your nose for the whole time" since, after all, it is unlikely that having faeces on your nose the whole time is likely to make a good vacation even if you're on the most lovely beach surrounded by all you live. But that's a baseline that's easy to meet. So what _actually_ makes a good vacation? The truth is: ∄ an activity or characteristic X such that ∀ vacations V that have X, V is a good vacation.

So what "actually makes people happy"? No one knows. We know things that can make you unhappy (faeces on the nose, not having any relationships) and we know that there exists a baseline happiness we have (the Hedonic Treadmill, etc.). But really, not much more.

[romanovcode]

I don't know man. I don't see the connection between Newton and building CRUD SaaS apps. In fact I see it funny how one can compare himself to those great scientists like that because he/she built an app.

[yowlingcat]

> In fact I see it funny how one can compare himself to those great scientists like that because he/she built an app.

I think I see both sides. On one hand, as someone else said, it's not the building a SaaS app that entrepreneurs are proud of -- it's building the business and building the company. That in and of itself is a lot more impressive to me than building just an app.

Is it as impressive and historically significant as the great scientific discoveries of Newton? Maybe, but probably not. Or maybe they are apples and oranges. Suppose Newton had a collaborator who built a giant manufacturing empire with his discoveries. Would those two be comparable in terms of "who was more important", or would comparison simply cease to be meaningful at this point?

To your point, maybe that's what makes the Newton comparison somewhat of a non-sequitor -- it's at best a reach.

[renewiltord]

That's unsurprising. Those whose preference vector is very different won't see it. After all, the thing you see in Newton is outcome and you don't care for the attempt. But that's not the entirety of it (though it is a significant part) for the craftsman. These craftsmen are driven by the craft itself.

So, for instance, while you'd (taking a leap here and guessing) rate it useless for a Theravada monk to master his chanting, there is a portion of it that to him is sufficient to just be good at. A portion apart from the outcome that is just dedicated to the craft itself.

If you're not driven by the craft, you likely won't get it. That's okay. The path to living a fulfilling life is to find your preference vector and optimize for it.