The work is not a building, place, book, system or tradition.
It's something living in our hearts and minds - if we find it.
It's something living in our hearts and minds - if we find it.
- M. Nicoll
Keeping Sayers' 1st proposition in mind (see previous posting), the 2nd consequence she points out is "we have no clear grasp of the principle that every man should do the work for which he is fitted by nature. The employer is obsessed by the notion that he must find cheap labor, and the worker by the notion that the best-paid job is the job for him."
So I ask, can both be achieved?
Notice the author did not mention in this consequence the worker being suited for the job. Instead, she contends the worker is looking for the best-paid job, regardless of being suited well to it. Nothing from the worker or the employer about job-fit or enjoyment.
Can both be achieved? Yes, in theory, but rarely in practice. In practice, they conflict. Or seem to. (?)
What causes the conflict? Purpose? The purpose, the why, we work? Philosophers since Socrates have pondered the one thing man wants and have all concluded it to be.....joy (pleasure, fun, happiness). Thus, in this fallen world the more-than-common man and employer fail on the side of money. One typically wanting to get more, the other give less.. The pursuit of joy is usually substituted with the use of money to easy pain. Not all, but most.
Performing a job suited to one's nature, desire and/or passion normally goes out the door, until one takes or is force into a state of pondering. Something drives him to test, to evaluate and work toward the right goals...to adjust her dreams to God's will...."to do the work one is fitted by nature to do."
To that end.
