You think that money is the root of evil?

[our obsession]

Although it is an interesting consideration of Robert Rosen's for example, (from his book, 'Life Itself') that:

"all the self can see is a sequence of percepts, ordered by its subjective sense of time. We suppose that the self can choose which percepts it will look at...(which variables it will measure) and whether it will look continuously or sample at discrete intervals. Subjective time is itself a complicated concept but it is a primitive that we can take for granted at this level. The result of self looking at its ambience is only a tabulation; a list of what is seen, indexed by when it is seen. "

The abstractnoids, the Rands, the Rosens, the Sherwells etc....they make our life richer, in complexities of thoughts and ideas. Some of us dig that.

Some just like reality, and that's just fine too.

And some like both.

 

[DRUSS]

EDIT


Think I went off topic..

Good read

Cheers
Daniel

 

[HiEquity]

It is great to see so many of you have heard of Ms Rand and Objectivism. I look forward to some more discussion from all my friends here.

Hi Simon

When I mentioned I'm a fan of Ayn Rand it was more to do with her relentless logic and her juxtaposition of religion and rational self interest. It helps to point out the elephants in the room - her use of logic and "reason" reminded me of reading Plato...

However before I get branded the most extreme right winger on the forum (I'm more your small "l" liberal!) I should point out I don't actually agree with her "rational self interest" assumption. To me it's too simple a description of humanity - to use it as a philosophy for life would be like living in monochrome. It's an excellent description of the need for reward for effort and a number of other things besides but IMO there is more to life than that and reading her works does leave me feeling a little flat.

The value of the self sacrifice demonstrated in the life of a Mary Mackillop for instance doesn't seem to fit in Rand's world view, which renders it a little lacking for me. There is beauty in hard work, personal excellence and fair trade but there is also beauty in selflessness and sacrifice for others.

So, on the topic of money, I've come down on the side of it being neither good nor evil. Just an inanimate object that there is no need to love, rather it's just something we need to acquire fairly in order to do those things we do love. The reason to focus on acquiring it is to give us the freedom to pursue what we do actually love. For a Christian, loving money would mean forgetting that the point is to love God. Humanity and compassion for others must therefore always trump personal reward, free markets and "pure" capitalism. Or, for that matter, "rational self interest".

Of course if you're not religious then there is no problem in loving money, or sitting on the far Right politically...

Just my 2c...

 

[cu@thetop]

I tried to read Atlas Shrugged many years ago. In my life I can count on one hand the books I started and never finished- and this was one. Just because you write something does not make your opinion worth more than others.

Diagnosis: she sucks

 

[geoffw]

Money is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's a very powerful tool to be sure.

And it's one which can be used for both good and bad.

Ayn Rand points out some of the good uses.

Without money, our system would not survive. Nor any system probably. It is a common means of exchange, whereby an hour of work can be exchanged for 4.325 Big Macs. Or whatever is agreed.

St Paul points out that it can be a bad thing. Whether the money or the love of money is the root of all evil is a problem of translation or semantics. It can be a very bad thing, as we all know.

Money is a ring of gold. It can be used by a Gollum whereby it absolutely corrupts and spoils.

Or it can be used by a Frodo where ir becomes a powerful force for good.

But even in the hands of Frodo, it must be used correctly and in the right quantity. Otherwise it can also corrupt.

Many people look towards the possession of money (and of course, everything it can buy) as the path to happiness.

No money is no happiness. Generally at least, in our modern society.

But it may not follow that a lot of money means a lot of happiness. It probably doesn't. Though I suspect that many people who pursue money don't realise this.

Like Gollum.

 

[WinstonWolfe]

Rand rightly argues money is neither good nor bad.
Like an axe, it can be used to create or kill.

Her attack of "the love of money" position does not logically follow from the above.

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men.

Rand inconsistently switches from her argument that money is a tool, to money only having the nature to represent the best power within us.
For someone as rigorously objective as her, it is a suspiciously simple error of logic.

It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

The bold bit is also sloppy logic via its selectivity. If Rand was consistent and rigorous in her logic, she'd say
"The lovers of money are willing to work for it, and lie, steal, and cheat for it"

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

It is sloppy logic again for Rand to imply a man who does not love money, must automatically hate it.

Initially, Rand argues money is a tool. This supports that we should preserve our love/hate not for money itself, but for what is done in an effort to get it.

And 'respect' should similarly not be accorded blindly for money, but rather, for the actions to acquire it.