3 ms·
This is quite an assertion. To make sure I'm getting this right, I can't be happy without money to buy my happiness, and if I ever believe I can, I am simply gi
by azanar 18y ago
This is quite an assertion. To make sure I'm getting this right, I can't be happy without money to buy my happiness, and if I ever believe I can, I am simply giving into the group-think that the upper class has foisted upon me. Either I'm driven by the insatiable desire for money, or I am a cog of the bourgeoisie?
I think this is complete crap. The most unhappy person I can think of right now doesn't buy into the money is evil philosophy; quite the opposite in fact. The problem he has is that he doesn't know what he wants, so he is defaulting to money as an indication of wealth. And I can think of a number of people I know who are happy, but aren't particularly high on the social ladder, nor do they really want to be. What they consider wealth right now -- their children, and time to work on their hobbies -- is something they can't trade for on the open market. Please keep this in mind: wealth is not the same thing as money. Wealth is what you want, money is simply one means, but not the only one, of getting what you want. For those who don't know what they want, it seems that they default to treating money as an end, rather than as a means.
To be clear, I'm not arguing the opposite of your claim, I am arguing that the desire money is not good or evil; it is neutral. The real question of motives becomes where that money will be spent, or if not to be spent, why it is being hoarded. If hoarded only as a metaphorical yard stick of worthiness to the people supposedly oppressing the rest of us, it seems like a waste of time. If it gets you the things you need to make you happier, then it isn't a waste of time.
- mattmaroon 18y agoWell, you totally misunderstood it. You can't be happy if you're worried about your bills or where your next meal is coming from.
- azanar 18y agoI know of no one who has been tricked by the wealthy into believing they should sacrifice the most basic necessities of life for the sake of some greater ideal. If you know of someone, I will be happy to stand corrected on this point. But I think we are confusing the idea between those who have no money at all, and those who have no disposable income after the necessities of survival. Both might sound similarly oppressive, but there is a huge difference between them. The former has one obvious form of wealth that they are coveting, and would be the same for everyone in that position; and for the latter there is much more latitude regarding what they consider wealth. They are no longer focused on mere survival, but instead on fulfillment. When people say to me they have no money, they are usually referring to the latter situation. It is probably why it seems like we are arguing past one another. I think the way I would phrase what you said is "Money matters to the degree that what you want/need can be obtained by the exchange of money." This I would agree with. The way you phrased it, though, it seemed as though you were arguing for the earning of money as a means to fight against the wealthy class's desire to hold you down. As soon as obtaining it becomes a tool to flaunt those who say that obtaining it is crass and shallow, then I see the whole thing become somewhat pointless. I hope this makes some sense.
- unalone 18y ago"Money matters to the degree that what you want/need can be obtained by the exchange of money." Well said. It depends on what somebody's basic necessities are. For me, necessities includes books and music and the occasional trip to the city and a good meal. I could live on less, but I'd be miserable if I didn't get to enjoy those things frequently. If I had to use a worse computer than the one I have, I'd be less happy. So for me, making money is a means to more effortlessly obtaining the things that I want. I think that's healthy so long as the things that I want have value.