I’m writing this here because I don’t think I can comment on Jon’s post as I have no Blogger account.
Firstly, I’d like to say that all ideologies are equally valid. Believing that money is the route to all happiness is as valid as believing sex, or a loving relationship, or God, are routes to happiness.
Secondly, it’s not fair to assume people’s reasoning behind their philosophy. Some people may well be deluding themselves that money isn’t the most important thing to them, but in many cases it genuinely isn’t the most important thing. If it isn’t, that doesn’t mean they’re being pious, as there are plenty of non-pious life philosophies that don’t involve money, e.g. drugs make you happy, sex makes you happy, hurting people makes you happy, etc. (this may depend upon your definition of pious)
Thirdly I think it’s unwise to categorise people as having one thing that makes them happy, since for most people it’s a balance of things. A lot of these things can be purchased, but some cannot. I don’t believe that money can buy absolutely everything.
I believe there’s more of a sweet spot to money, when you are living comfortably but still aware of money enough to appreciate receiving it. Having infinite money would make quite a lot of life boring. In that sense I do agree that earning money is enjoyable, but I think it only would be if you were aware of limits surrounding it. Pushing boundaries is often fun. In fact, I would guess that the key to most people’s happiness is in pushing the limitations that surround them, in some sense or other.
I’m personally motivated by “things that are interesting”. I can’t define it quite so categorically as “X is the only thing that makes me happy”, but if I find something interesting I like it and enjoy spending time with it. Dan is constantly interesting. Programming is interesting. Philosophy is interesting. Most people are interesting actually, if you look at them in a certain way. If I can use money to get access to interesting things, then yes, money is useful. But, because other people aren’t always motivated by money, I can’t be either, because logically to get near interesting people who don’t like money I have to do other things than pay them. And I’d like to experience being rich, and being poor, and being somewhere in between, because I think it would be interesting.
I see money as a tool rather than an aim. I don’t see happiness as a goal either. It’s how I am most of the time, it’s just a balance of chemicals, I have the balance good most of the time so I am happy most of the time. It’s about maintenance, not completion.
I’m not suggesting my philosophy is any better, or any less selfish, than a “Cash Ideology”, but there it is. I fuel my curiosity, you fuel your wallet. It’s all good.
Statto | 20-Jan-06 at 5:58 pm | Permalink
What do you mean by “valid”?
Eskoala | 21-Jan-06 at 12:06 am | Permalink
It was in response to Jon’s dismissal of others’ ideologies. I mean that everyone has a right to believe whatever, and everyone can be right, or equally likely to be right, because this is about belief and philosophy and thus there is no right answer. I wouldn’t say that all ideologies had equal value, just that none are valueless.
That do? I just wanted to point out I wasn’t dismissing anyone elses, just putting forward my ideology.
Statto | 21-Jan-06 at 5:38 pm | Permalink
I’m not sure I agree…
I think I’d agree with “I wouldn’t say that all ideologies had equal value, just that none are valueless”, but I’m tempted to be a bit more harsh.
It does depend what you mean by “valueless”, though; presumably it makes the ideology holder happy, else they wouldn’t hold it, but if their ideology is mass murder or some other such singular extreme, I’m tempted to dismiss it totally.
Also not convinced about the “right to belief” - it’s not like you can stop someone believing something if you want…hmm…or is it..?
I think my point is that I’m feeling philosophical and in the mood to split hairs.
I was mainly thinking of a Richard Dawkins argument about the existence of God; often, people say “well, since there’s no proof that there isn’t a God, I suppose I’ll just have to keep an open mind”, but Dawkins argues that there is equal reason to not dismiss a perfect china teapot orbiting just beyond Pluto, until at some point you factor in likelihood or necessity and decide that, in the absence of much of either, both the teapot and the omnipresent being are fallacies.
My point is that there should be a limit to being univerally open-minded. But I assume from what you just wrote that you actually agree with that!
Eskoala | 22-Jan-06 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
I’m a bit of an idealist, and thus like the idea of being universally open minded, but certain practicalities have to come in somewhere if we’re to get on with our lives. Actually I think a mass-murder ideology is perfectly valid if it makes a person happy, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be trying to prevent mass murder.
Where ideologies conflict, conflict must be resolved, and what usually happens is that the majority wins. It’s not possible to pleases everyone because of this. I’d not dismiss any ideology, because I believe you can learn from everything, but I’m sure there are several that shouldn’t be encouraged by society. Any ideology is perfectly acceptable until you involve more than one person. But, having society (interaction between people) is what is furthering the human race. Compromises are necessary for people to live together. What people believe, or think should never be controlled, but what people do must be to a certain extent, for the sake of the rest.
So yeah, I agree with that, but I love exploring idealisms.