Most people’s automatic reaction when thinking about their future occupation is to consider what they love doing to be the top priority. However, Gordon Marino, professor of philosophy at St. Olaf College and editor of “The Quotable Kierkegaard”, believes that this should not be the case. He wrote on the subject in his article titled “A Life Beyond ‘Do What You Love’”, which was published in The New York Times on May 17, 2014. His purpose in writing this article was to express his thoughts on the ethicality of choosing love over necessity and to advise those people on jobs and people thinking about future occupational options. Mr. Marino argues that the statement “do what you love” is an elitist aspect of our culture that degrades the inherent
…show more content…
By doing this, he strengthens his argument by posing possible counterarguments and dealing with them before the audience has the chance to raise them. He provides a response to the possible counterargument that could arise if the reader does not argue with Kant in that everything has a definite purpose. Marino later provides an answer to the counterargument that we shouldn’t avoid doing what we love at all costs by stating “For some, a happy harmony exists or develops in which they find pleasure in using their talents in a responsible, other-orientated way” (pg. 3, para. 4). His bringing up finding a median between doing what one loves and what is necessary shows that he has looked at both sides of the argument, making him even more well versed in the subject. Dealing with questions the audience may pose before they have the chance to pose them is an extremely effective way to close any gaps in his argument, solidifying his argument further.
Gordon Marino’s “A Life Beyond ‘Do What You Love’” presents the argument that if one possesses a talent that could benefit humanity and chooses to be comfortable to avoid the discomfort that comes from expanding his natural abilities, he is unethical and is an elitist. His argument is gracefully supported throughout his article with his use of credible sources, like Martin Luther King and Kant, through anecdotes detailing his personal experience on the topic, his use of procatalepsis to protect his argument from counterarguments, and finally through his presentation of logic and deductive
By doing this, he strengthens his argument by posing possible counterarguments and dealing with them before the audience has the chance to raise them. He provides a response to the possible counterargument that could arise if the reader does not argue with Kant in that everything has a definite purpose. Marino later provides an answer to the counterargument that we shouldn’t avoid doing what we love at all costs by stating “For some, a happy harmony exists or develops in which they find pleasure in using their talents in a responsible, other-orientated way” (pg. 3, para. 4). His bringing up finding a median between doing what one loves and what is necessary shows that he has looked at both sides of the argument, making him even more well versed in the subject. Dealing with questions the audience may pose before they have the chance to pose them is an extremely effective way to close any gaps in his argument, solidifying his argument further.
Gordon Marino’s “A Life Beyond ‘Do What You Love’” presents the argument that if one possesses a talent that could benefit humanity and chooses to be comfortable to avoid the discomfort that comes from expanding his natural abilities, he is unethical and is an elitist. His argument is gracefully supported throughout his article with his use of credible sources, like Martin Luther King and Kant, through anecdotes detailing his personal experience on the topic, his use of procatalepsis to protect his argument from counterarguments, and finally through his presentation of logic and deductive