Leisure vs. Accomplishment

[dougo]

I retook the OKCupid Online Dating Persona Test because it had been over a year since the last time. (I've taken it three times now, and gotten a different result each time.) The following question is something I've been thinking about for a while now, though I had forgotten that this is where I saw it:

Which is more appealing?

• a life of leisure
• a life of accomplishment

I think I'm currently leaning towards accomplishment, but I don't remember what I answered before. A life of accomplishment seems to be the more responsible, admirable, heroic goal. But a life of leisure is also really appealing, especially now that I can afford it (assuming I can find a job at some point, which I'm pretty confident about for the moment). I have already accomplished something by getting a PhD, so maybe I'm entitled to just relax and enjoy the ride from here on out. But my dissertation is not something I'm particularly proud of—it's another in a long line of underachievements. But... maybe that means I'm just not cut out for achievement? And anyway, isn't accomplishment just a means to an end—the end being happiness, which comes with the rewards for accomplishment? I suppose general happiness is different from "a life of leisure", which connotes a certain hedonistic disregard for work. And accomplishment is its own reward, or so we're told. But really I think when it comes down to it, my ideas of leisure and accomplishment aren't contradictory: most of the things I would like to accomplish are both for my own leisure and forms of leisure. Now if only I could get someone to pay me for that!

Comments

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Well, sure, accomplishment implies having some positive effect on the world, otherwise leisure would be its own accomplishment: I've watched every episode of Seinfeld, but I don't really count that as an accomplishment. My dissertation hasn't had an effect in the world yet (at least I don't think anyone's cited it yet), but I'm thinking maybe it will be one of those long-lost papers that turns out to be earth-shakingly important (or at least trendy) fifteen years later. Or not. It probably would get more traction if I were actively publishing follow-on papers, but I'm not, and probably won't. On the other hand, just having a PhD is likely to open doors leading to more significant accomplishments, so even if it's not an accomplishment itself, in theory it's a stepping stone.

Or, you know, I could just be a workday hacker in some random cubicle and spend the rest of my time playing games and watching movies. That's pretty appealing too. Thus the dilemma.

Hi Erik! Come to Perkins! Or, Waterpoint!