Do we really own the professional CHOSEN 'field' for a career?

I guess we'd say we do. In the fear of adversity for the justice by unaccomplished tasks, the fields of taking possession of our property truly are extrinsic to our Consciousness though.

The question is: can the people in spite of Adversity become Responsible for Their actions (independent of these arbitrary 'property' issues)? can be people field their Property to become tolerant of each others adversity for the terms of defining:

the field = the property developed by the determining of tasks for the 'Task of common tasks of All Humanity', OR by the educated Field uncommon tasks in the Love of Nature.

You see: One common world war and uncommon hatred of Nature in each one of Us would only Create adversity control by each one of Us (has no Philosophy) against the wadded Field possessable only in some, say, George Bush.

 

You are not your job?

 

all this complicated shit....... cant you people understand we arent even really there.........................................

 

One is his job, if he can muster faith in the directed state of his feelings. But truly he is like the Forum description 'To be or not to be'.

Jonah in the Bible thought he was his job. But then his fields of investigation were inquired upon resulting in the providence of a successful advancement in his Field because of downsizing (not because of working overtime or something like that, eh?).

 

Armando Ianucci said that he didn't like how people are defined by their jobs, and that when people ask "what do you do?", they always say "I'm a baker", or "I'm a hostage negotiator", rather than "After a day of squandered dreams I return home to eat microwave spring rolls and watch boxed DVD sets of Buffy the Vampire Slayer alone in a carpeted rooms stained with bitter tears of a life of failure - and yourself?"

 

What makes this subject ethical though? I commit myself to the value of contention of saying and explaining: I do such and such for a living. I just am just an assembler soderer of the specific hinge to an aluminum door in a factory; for instance.

Perhaps, this person can make great conversation now for the value of what he is doing (WOW!!! that specific door.) OR he can respect the profession and just be felt sorry for. Enables a romantic revolt. 'I am' is a serious use of the Object with nothing but ostensible trouble for the time and space of the actualizable human being.

What I am pointing out is that there is a deep psychological danger in calling the Human a 'One'. From that state though Hegel means to point out some central Systematic Essence to the universe of the number one, the time of one being attached to the one human is killing His Singular relation to the Universal being-in-the-midst-of-Nature. That One is merely the being being substantially excluded from the morality of Good decisions.

But anything ethical must hinge upon morality which puts ME in the scene of being -part; and being-myself is to have the oportune changing of Value there and then.

I think hegel means everyone needs a job for a Life; everyone needs; oh something to believe in because of education. This for the time being was my JOB.

Thank you.