As someone who is focused on making money, I want to dispel this lie so anyone who agrees with me can make themselves richer and not being made poorer by believing in the big lie.
If money does not make you happy then what does? Friends? Ok, then make more friends. But does money make you unhappy? No. But does money allow you freedom to do what you want? Yes. So if money does not make you unhappy, but it grants you freedom to do whatever you want. Then more money means more freedom and we all know freedom is a good thing.
Money is frozen potential. It holds the ability to be most anything that you desire. The ultimate desire, though, is happiness. But to say that money in and of itself will make one happy we have to evaluate a few things: If you can have all the money that you desire, but no friends - would you still be happy? If you had all the money that you desired, but no love or respect - would you still be happy? If you have all the money that you desired, but no goals or motivation, would you still be happy? And we could go on and on like this. We should also recognize that there have been people who have spent their lives without money, and still achieve happiness.
Neitzsche would probably argue that having a great deal of money means that a person can exude their will over those will less money - money providing the means to power. However, the money is a means to an end. It is the power and the ability to control others with this power that brings about happiness.
Some would argue that finding meaning in life and having a purpose is what brings about happiness. I personally know people who are financially independant and have the freedom to do what they please. Instead, though, they choose to continue working because they want to be purposeful and feel as if they are making a difference and helping.
Because of the way we percieve money in our society - it is definitelly an element of potential happiness. I have never heard of anyone whose sole cause of unhappiness was having wealth.
The interesting thing about happiness though, is that you must experience its converse in order to know it. So no matter how happy you are, you will eventually have to be unhappy and then achieve another level of happiness. Happiness becomes the fuel for unhappiness and vice versa. Ironically, the more money you have, the less potential you have to be satisfied and, in this case, money could very well create a higher frequency of unhappiness.
That’s what I would expect too. So money certainly has the potential to bring at least temporary happiness, but it probably won’t last. I wonder if this is the case with happiness in general. It’s probably a matter of attitude and how you look at things, at least partially.
Purchasing power does not equal freedom as commericals for goods and services would have you believe, with their plastic grins and the satasfied actors.
happiness, ok we all want it, but do you know anybody in your life who is happy. I mean at all times. Happiness seems like a momentary thing. So enjoy it while it lasts, because being in possesion of wealth guarantees nothing.
The Tao says, if you want to be whole, let yourself be empty. I trust the Tao for its wisdom.
Good to see you are still well. I’m back to throw a few punches, sharpen my wit. I’m no longer as sharp as I used to be, been too busy exercising, jogging and working and all. Hope all is well for you.
Phillipus Rex
I’m not saying money can make you happy, as there are plenty of unhappy people in the western world. But money certainly allows you to have a better lifestyle, better health care, better food… See, many people see money vs friends, love, respect. as though if you have money, you would have no friends, no love or no respect. You can have money AND friends and love. At the same time if you have no money, does not mean you WILL have friends, love or respect. There are people who have spent their life in poverty yet happy, however, almost all the poor want to be rich.
See, you can have happiness and still be rich. The two are not mutually exclusive
Human relationships can only make you happy by distracting you from the essence of existence.
If money doesn’t make you happy then give it to me. Money for buying things is not the way to happiness, but money as a way of buying back your time, is.
The one thing money can buy is choices and freedom.
The other day I finished reading La mort heureuse; one of the themes of the book was that you can only be happy if you are rich. I have reservations about taking advice about life from a twenty-three-year-old, even one who was to become Camus. It does recall Gertrude Stein’s “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor. It’s better to be rich.” And myself having been rich and poor, I have to agree that penniless poverty really hurts. Money helps out with hospital bills too, and as the Chinese say, “health is wealth.”
Beyond these facts, it depends what you like. Living on a dollar a day may be fine for some people; I mean a lot of them look happy. Reading up on the K Foundation the otherday, personally, if I had a million dollars, I’d burn it. This doesn’t mean I’m not dreading going back to working twelve hours a day at the end of the Holidays. But I got enough money now, in the top ten percent (globally) by net worth; I don’t know what I’d do with more? finance a latter-day Khmer Rouge maybe, or Al-Qaeda?
Happy Holidays to all, I read here a lot more than post, so I am familiar with many personalities here and honestly fond of all, with no exceptions, except when I hate everybody for being so cocksure and close-minded (what?)
As per the topic…
My parents were “hippies” so I was raised, if only peripherally, with this attitude of “Money don’t matter, it’s “love”, or what’s “right””, but as a grown-up with a household, I realize the various forms of unhappiness that more cash would seem to erase, at least as they manifest in particular instances…
It makes sense that money only buys temporary happiness,
but if happiness only exists within a moment, then we have more opportunity to create those “moments” with more money, right?
“Lasting” happiness, being so difficult to guarantee, if realize at all, would then have nothing to do with the material experience. It’s probably power which brings happiness, power being something which possession of money represents merely one version…
The entire question if money makes you happy is based on the concept of hedonism in my belief. If this question is going to have any relevance then it has to be placed on the backdrop that happiness is the true belief of what makes life worth living. That is hedonism in its truest form.
Before one can understand if something is true or not, it must have supporting beliefs that are true. Without these true supporting beliefs, one can not understand the belief. In example, if I say that mountain lions are scary then we have to have supporting beliefs that are true about the mountain lion. The statement “mountain lions are scary†can only be understood if the supporting facts of the mountain lion are true, such as what is a mountain lion, what does a mountain lion look like and what are the characteristics of a mountain lion. Without the supporting beliefs about the mountain lion being true the statement that mountain lions are scary could never be understood.
The question up for debate is if money makes you happy but what is the backdrop of supporting beliefs this statement is being placed? What is the purpose of happiness? What is happiness? Why is happiness attempting to be achieved? Until these questions and the supporting beliefs of the backdrop to this question are answered, I can not give true answer.
I need the justification used to support this backdrop of beliefs. If your backdrop is hedonism then I can not answer. I do not believe a life of hedonism is a moral way of life. If it is not hedonism please justify your supporting beliefs.
I fully understand the concept of possibility and probability, thus the reason for justification. I need your justification about happiness that transformed it from possibility to probability.
There’s no doubt that money buys freedom. That it does is because money is the tool used by the powerful to keep themselves in power and to ration the power available to the rest of us. In other words, carefully controlling the flow of money is the means used to both control the masses and keep the powerful in the positions to which they have become accustomed.
In short, most of us are born into economic slavery. We owe money almost before we are born! What I find particularly galling is that in Roman times, even though slaves had to endure forced labour the way we must do today, at least Roman slaves didn’t have to pay taxes. Nowadays the modern slave has the worst of both worlds - forced labour AND taxes!
tobermory07, I perceive the possibility that money buys freedom but can you explain your justification for the probability that it will do it. I need your reasoning and knowledge of freedom to clearly understand what qualifies the rest of your statements. Until you have justified money buys freedom the rest of your qualifications are unsubstantiated. As I have noted earlier, the backdrop of freedom must be validated as true before the concept of money buying it can be true.
I have a few questions that need to be answered about freedom before I can understand that money buys freedom.
What are the characteristics of freedom?
What does one gain from freedom?
Is freedom obtainable in the physical world?
Is freedom in opposition to slavery? Or can freedom still be obtained while in slavery?
How does one know when they have freedom?
I have to be able to attribute a number of beliefs about freedom to your concept that money buys freedom. Without these other beliefs there is nothing to connect money to freedom. I must understand your beliefs of freedom before I can contribute money as the means to gain it.
Until you justify and give information about freedom, I am required to believe that your statement “money buys freedom†is a concept through Holism. Or that you are just repeating what you have heard and do not have any idea of what it means.
Thanks everyone for posting. Just let me say this to those who doesn’t care about money. GIVE IT UP. Why are you not giving it up? Ask yourself that question.
let me address Ozman in particular because he needs help.
you are obviously a nerd with no friends, but that’s ok.To find the answer to your question, go and meet with people you like, have a few drinks, a few laughs, talk some bullshit, fart a bit… To understand happiness you need to experience it, just as you need to have sex to understand orgasm.
Again if you are referring to the ancient Greeks and their orgies then hedonism is not a moral way of life. Think of it this way, if you have enough money to live on, so you don’t have to work with people you don’t like. A car so you don’t have to share public transport with ugly people you don’t want to see. A house so you don’t have to live like caged chicken in a flat. A backyard garden so you can grow your own vegitables. Everyday you can wake up whenever you like, do whatever you like, go wherever you like. Isn’t that the life free of bondage that we all want to have?
what does the nessessity of using money have anything to do with happiness. The nessesity is a burden and one that obligates each individual on the planet. I find that rather slavish. For those people who say time is money, I will say this, I value time more. That doesn’t mean I can give it up the small amount of money that I do have.
“Why are you not giving it up?” is like me asking why does my body produce hunger and why is food not free?
come on, stop manipulating your point. Just Read the Great Gatsby to find an example of how money isn’t a sure fire method to smile.
Besides we all give money up at death. Reason you’re way around that.
You are the prime evidence that advertising works.
Old Timer, since this is a philosophy forum I would advise that you at least understand Philosophy 101 if I am to take you serious. I fully understand freedom. What I am asking is a basic principle of philosophy. If any belief is to be true or false it must be set in a background of a truth. A belief can not be false without a true belief, this means I must be able to attribute to the person a number of beliefs I take to be true to consider one false. This is why I am asking for those questions to be answered. I must have his/her beliefs on freedom or happiness before I can attribute true or false to it. As in my example, if a person can not give me any information about a mountain lion, then how do I consider mountain lions are scary? What is scary? If they have no belief of a mountain lion, then what is scary? If money buys freedom, without freedom defined, what is money buying? If money bring happiness, what is happiness? What is money bring to the person?
If your idea of philosophy is throwing opinions out and seeing how they fall, I have nothing else to contribute. If freedom or happiness is something that can only be experienced and you can not answer these questions then is your belief of freedom or happiness a Concept Holism?
Again, if you are to be taken serious, learn a little about philosophy. Hedonism is one fundamental component of utilitarianism. It is a moral philosophy that holds that an action’s moral value is dependant upon the total amount of happiness that it produces. Try reading Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick for more understanding. Or try reading An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation by Jeremy Bentham.
You need to understand that money is a medium for exchange, you can use money to buy cars, to buy a message, and if you have money you can avoid people you don’t like. When you do something don’t think it is slavish. Think of it as though you are doing society a service. Work that has dignity is not slavish.
Time is money basically means you can make more money given more time. so if you can work for 3 more years then you’ll be able to earn 3 more years of wage. See, if you have more money then you have more time to yourself, so if you have 3 yrs of saving, then you don’t have to work for 3 years, you have 3 yrs extra to yourself.
incidentally, I’m a great fan of this Fitzgerald’s book. I know Gatsy was a wealthy guy who was once poor and loved Daisy, but she married Tom Buchannan, and Gatsby represented by the green light at the end of his dock longs for Daisy. Tragity struck when the husband of another girl thought his wife was killed by Gatsby when Daisy was at the wheel came over and killed Gatsby. Then Nick compared the killing to the second Holocaust, and I remember the beautify imagery used to describe the Gatsby’s mansion when Nick took one last look at that ‘monumental failure’, and I remember this quote vividly, “Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that recedes before us. It eludes us then, but that’s no matter, tomorrow we’ll run faster, stretch out our arms further, and one fine morning.”. I loved the Great Gatsby and I still believed that he and Daisy would get married if he was richer, back in those days before he went to the war, Daisy said ‘Rich girls don’t marry poor boys’. You see if Gatsby was rich, they would have had a happy marriage. Gatsby worked very hard to build up his empire because he loved Daisy. I believe in the power of love but I also believe that money can make things happen.
While it is true we all give money up at death, but we are not dead yet are we? So we still need money while we are alive, is it not true? You can’t live your life anticipating death at every corner and thus not worrying about money. While we give up our money at death, we need our money while alive.
Will it shock you to hear that I don’t watch television?
Ozman
my friend, you are making a mistake. Old timer is what I’m known as now days, previously I was under Pinnacle of Reason, and I was one of the earliest and important contributors to the development of this forum, but that was a long time ago. I had over 1000 posts.
Back to your question. Your example of the scary mountain lion is not the correct example to use. I presume by lions you are referring to empirical evidence to their existence. When it comes to freedom, it is a metaphysical concept. You can not use an empirical example to represent a metaphysical concept. You can define a montain lion through empirical observation but you can’t with freedom. Freedom is a transcendental idealism as Kant would call it and it’s different to empirical evidence, please refer to his Crique of pure reason.
I can not specifically define freedom as I would define a mountain lion. You need to experience it. Freedom as I feel it is a state when I can do anything I like, and I gave examples of what I mean, such as having your own vegetable garden, waking up whenever you feel like, not having to be with people you don’t like. Money allows those freedoms to exist.
In philosophy, you need to understand what can be empirically defined and what is inate in us. Many philosophers failed to understand the distinction and they go on to talk about ‘the thing in itself’ which is absurd. Certain experiences like love, hate, anger are all innate private experiences.
Again, you are being too academic and rigid in your understand of freedom and happiness. I can not write descriptions of colors, as words are only ‘signifiers’ and the experiences such as color are the ‘signified’. You need to experience to understand.
Utilitariamism is a crude form of communism. How do you measure happiness? Here we go, if you don’t understand what happiness is, then why are you referring to happiness in this question? What is “total amount of happiness”, you said it, you must understand it. Otherwise you are saying you don’t know what you are on about.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
