That's charmingly idealistic, but unfortunately it simply isn't true. There is more to life than what you do to earn a living. There's having a family, traveling, whatever you can imagine. At some point, you will need a sufficient quantity of money to do stuff unrelated to work. And if you can't make that money doing what you love, then you're going to have to make some choices about what you really want.
Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't come with the advice, and I realize that it has limitations.
That said, if your family/travel/something else is so important to you that you'll work a job you don't like to make it possible, them perhaps those other things are what you love. Nobody said that you have to define yourself by what you do for a living.
2. in order to do activities in the first category.
It may be that you can earn money doing what you love, but it may not. If not, you may have to spend time doing category 2 activities in order to do category 1 activities.
> There is more to life than what you do to earn a living. There's having a family, traveling, whatever you can imagine.
I think here's the major disagreement between the practical and the idealistic. To the true "amateur" in the original sense, there is no family, traveling, whatever to compete with the ideal or loved interest. Marriages do break-up (or never occur in the first place), people do stay in one place their entire lives, and so on if they love what they do enough. But for people that don't "do what they love," what they DON'T do is what they love, hence the disagreement.
