Passive vs. Active Philosophy

Speaking broadly, there are two ways to think about life: passively or actively. Passive philosophy amounts to letting things happen, whereas active is about making things happen.

I generally try to stay active. If I want something to happen, I need to make it happen. Sitting around waiting for something to happen or for someone to come along and tell you what to do is passive.

You can find plenty of examples of this in life, and you may also notice that people who achieve their vision of success tend to be active. Think of entrepreneurs like who built great something from a simple idea into a billion-dollar company, or community organizers who transform neighborhoods by rallying residents around common goals. The belief that the world owes you something and you shouldn’t have to take an active role in making things happen harms you and you alone. Actively working to pursue your goals is the only reliable way to get through life.

Some people can get far in life passively, and–anecdotally speaking–they tend to be people with relatively strong support networks. It could be that their parents are very involved in their lives, or they have some other strong influences, such as a spouse, close friend, or mentor. These people would be remarkably successful if they just took a more active role in their lives (provided they wanted to).

I’ve contributed to many open-source software projects over the years and have created a number myself. I’ve been asked by people before how they can “get into open-source,” and to me, this question reveals a passive mindset: the only thing holding you back is you. The cool thing about software is that it’s soft, and the only limit to what you can do is your time and energy. There are no open-source police out there; you can publish as much or as little code as you want. There are infinite resources on the Internet and elsewhere to learn about writing software.

It can be easy to fall into the passive trap. It’s easy to be passive; being active is hard. Being active is scary; it means that if you fail, you can only blame yourself. You become fully responsible for your actions, and you have to bail yourself out when things go wrong.

To be fair, there are moments when a more passive approach might be appropriate—when learning from others, collaborating on a team, or dealing with situations truly beyond our control. But even in these scenarios, actively choosing when to follow rather than lead is different from defaulting to passivity.

To me it has felt for a long time like there’s been an uptick in the general infantilization of everything, but it may just be that I’m growing older. You see this often in the various media we’re exposed to, especially advertising, and the way politicians and anyone in positions of power speak down to people like they’re idiots. A lot of the modern-day political backlash seems to be a response to this kind of infantilization and condescending patronizing.

Passivity is choosing to be infantilized, or in other words, it’s choosing to let someone else make your decisions. Being active is harder, but the result will almost always be better.

Making that shift usually feels bad at first. You have to admit that nobody is going to swoop in and sort your life out for you. You have to do things before you feel ready, risk looking stupid, and deal with the mess when something blows up. It’s still better.

Once you start operating that way, a lot of things look less fixed. Some barriers are real, but plenty are softer than they first appear. You stop waiting for permission or for perfect conditions and just start.

I think this shows up most obviously in work and creative projects. Instead of spending all your time talking about what’s broken, you start asking what you can actually do next. And if nobody picks you, you can still make something.

Taking that responsibility can feel heavy, but it does buy you something real: you’re not stuck waiting around for someone else to begin your life for you.