Via Napsterization I am reminded that the latin root of "amateur" is "love" and that bascially the modern interpretation of amateur is more often a denegration of work or a person compared to the supposed exalted status of "professional". The assumption is that an amateur is unpaid and hence no good at what they do, and that a profesison is paid and hence must be good at what they do. The original meaning was of course that an amateur toils away for the love of what they do, not for the money.

This reminds me of my basic problem with sports these days - "professionals". Commercialization of everything from major league to the Olympics has created a generation of sports people who are anything but professional and primarily driven by the money versus love of the sport. Do you think an amateur sports person would be inclinded to take steroids for the love of their choosen sport?

But this is not about sport, its about everything we do. For many a job is just an means to an end - money and money is survival. To be paid to do something we love is a luxury not enjoyed by the vast majority of workers, and to be paid to do something has no guarantee we are good at it - hence the modern problem with liability insurance in America. Maybe if more people were actually doing what they loved, taking pride in what they do and getting paid for it there would be less need for expensive liability insurance in the first place. So ask yourself this, in the spirit of the definition, wouldn't it be better to be an amateur who happens to get paid for doing what they love, vs. a professional who just loves the money but not what they do?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment