H
Hate
Guest
Agree?
Disagree?
That’s my philosophical topic contribution for today.
*Remember to click like and subscribe.
more money, different types of problems... like who you leave it to in the will or who's campaign to contribute to as opposed to "what can I buy to eat for today with $3.74?"
I hear you're pretty well off nowadays.
Could you add me to your will?
Disagree completely.
Bolded = Less problems. Best pick when you completely put your ego aside - which is almost impossible anyways, so don't worry much about it. I believe that, given the chance, most people would be as greedy as they could be.
Past a certain ammount of money you'd have to worry too much about security (against kidnapping, stealing, etc) - without enough benefits in quality of life to offset this concern. That said, greed would play a role on some choices - more money isn't always the best option.I don't think greed was the issue.. Or was it?
Pretty much. We adjust to new standards of living and even to new levels of happiness. Classic hedonic treadmill business, right there.I think the biggest problem many people have in getting rich is the shock of realizing that it doesn't make you any happier than before. Then you have to restructure your values, find more potential answers to your lack of bliss, or just try to forget your unhappiness. Wherever you go, there you are.
And Alexander wept for there were no more worlds to conquer.
The only problem with success I've ever seen is this:
Success does not necessarily equal money. Success is self defined, or at least it should be.
The tendency I've seen here is to define success in a way that makes it accessible to most everyone, not in the way the world defines it.
I think that you guys are describing living a happy and fulfilling life, but not necessarily a successful one.
Success is relative. For all those that get that promotion, there are five others that didn't.
For all those start ups that find a market need and fill it (capturing market share), there are probably 100 that don't.
To define success in a manner that relieves it of exclusivity (achievement relative to others), destroys the term's social utility as an incentive for greater competition and innovation.
Surely everyone (to an extent) deserves to be happy.
But not everyone deserves to be successful, and in the way you define it, most of the populace would qualify.
If your definition success is used, if society stops viewing success as a zero sum game, we lose the motivating ability of competition to drive innovation.
When our kids ask us if they can be president, we say yes hoping that the possibility drives them to habits of excellence and achievement.
If society considers a janitor as successful as the inventor of the first artificial heart, we lose the incentive to put the time and effort into driving innovation.
If society respects the achievement of being a cashier micky d's as much as becoming a neurosurgeon, fewer people will become neurosurgeons.
Thus for me, more money does not equate to more problems.