Csikszentmihalyi did a study on happiness, the results being the notion of flow. There's a book and papers, but basically the result is that you're happiest when you're completely absorbed in a challenging task that you are qualified for (state of flow). The inverse is that you're unhappy when you're not challenged and doing something that's low skill (apathy).
Csikszentmihalyi called it the paradox of work. The study showed that they have their most positive experience on the job, but even when they feel good, they'd report that motivation was low. They'd report surprisingly low moods during leisure, but keep on wishing for more leisure.
One theory is that they'd disregard the quality of immediate experience, and base motivation on the cultural stereotype of what work is like. Another is that the perception is based off their goals in relation to it - someone investing energy into achieving their own goals (e.g. finishing a season of a show) is more motivated than that energy being invested in achieving someone else's goals (making the boss rich).
So, the notion of achieving your own goals is probably getting the way of your own happiness. Perhaps the goals are wrong. Perhaps it's a culture problem.
I think there's lots of models missing in mainstream Western culture. There's alternate goals like becoming a shokunin - this endless goal to climb to a higher level of mastery, knowing you can never reach the top.
There's tawakkul, where you have absolute faith in God's goodwill; there's no need to rely on anyone or anything. You keep to a standard code of ethics and find a way to practice that. You're honest when you could be punished for honesty, forgive when a situation allows vengeance, charitable when you could use more money, and so on.
Flipping burgers doesn’t equate to licking Ronald’s shiny red shoe for the man.
A profound statement, and one I wish I could have heard when I was in my early 20s.
Thats not what they said and you know it.
Real relationships are not like that. I'd love to hear where you got this absolutely tragic idea from...
It can be dangerous. It can be used in destructive, manipulative, and abusive manners. And it often is - leaders who get you to die for your country, or employers who tell you they're "family".
But without love, you lose a lot from life. It needs courage, it needs some level of honesty. And you do have to filter before committing. But sometimes you don't get to filter. You love the in-laws, you love the kids, your neighbor.
The common definition is closer to sentimental love, wanting the luxury of the emotions without paying for it. The sentimentalist talks about good things but have no intention of following through. They take no risks. The cynic is the opposite, they actively choose not to commit. But they also deprive themselves of the luxury of the emotions.
Sounds like me. Although the answer might be to just be happy with what you have. For me, I need to just accept that I'll never make more money or get promoted, or do even half the stuff I'd like to do in my "free" time.
Work gives me something to channel energy towards. At a meeting, you can utilize the brainpower of someone who has lived 30 years in a different situation, and channel their experience towards a common goal.
I feel like you can actually get a lot out of work. Even if you were flipping burgers at minimum wage, you can enjoy the smell of a cooking burger, the crusting of a bun on the stove, the beauty of mise en place. It's like a relationship; you don't find a perfect person to love, you just pick someone and love them for who they are.
IMO the biggest waste of life is wishing that you're elsewhere. You end up wishing for a different present and future, then find that all your present is now the past.