I predict John Carter will be the new Avatar!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 5, 2010 21:10
VIEWED: 9867
PAGE 7 of 7
Quote:I would argue that it does have an effect on how much they feel at all, because wealth is an anesthetic. Because they can have their whims satisfied at will, the ultra rich are capable of endlessly distracting themselves. They don't just throw money at their problems, they throw people. Other people suffer the slings and arrows of life in their place.
Originally posted by Cavalier:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think it could be argued that being rich, powerful, and successful may have absolutely no bearing on how lonely, abandoned, and powerless a man might FEEL at the top.
Can you actually provide an argument that the average Chinese Emperor or Turkish Sultan felt as lonely, abandoned and powerless as, say, the average plantation slave, fresh off the boat from Africa?
Because if not, that suggests that the amount of wealth, power, and success someone has, does have an effect on how lonely, abandoned and powerless they feel.
And yet, not all rich people, not even all sovereigns, are happy. This is manifestly obvious to anyone who cares to take a look. Was Hitler a particularly happy person? And what of our American Presidents, arguably among the most powerful men in the world at any given time? The only one in recent memory that comes across as happy was maybe Reagan, and he was heavily lacquered and medicated. To a man, each president in my lifetime has visibly aged twice as many years as he spent in office.
You think JFK was happier than the average person as he watched secret service men sneaking Merilyn out of the White House? Is easy access to pleasure the sign of true happiness? Then junkies must be the very happiest of mortals.
And to imply that people in difficult circumstances, the poor and the oppressed cannot be happy, even happier than their "betters" is just as absurd. Happiness is a creature of the inner life and is born of acceptance, living life on life's terms, and that is no more nor less available to anyone regardless of their circumstances in life. If the poor could not find happiness within the confines of their circumstances then the moment a government became despotic it would instantly be overthrown by all the miserable poor.
Even a casual acquaintance with history, to say nothing of simple human nature, reveals your argument as specious in every particular.
That you don't know these things, that you worship wealth so ardently that you see it as a principal guarantor of happiness in this world, is sad. You need to get out more.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, if the average Emperor was no happier or less miserable than the average slave, I can't think why people are so dead set against slavery.
On the other hand, if the average Emperor was happier than the average slave, then wealth and power must make you, on average, happier and, by your argument, less interested in sex.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That wasn't what he was saying at all.
People are against slavery for reasons far beyond whether the people involved are happy or not. Now, maybe there's an element in there that slavery denies people the PURSUIT of happiness, which is different from actually BEING happy. So yes, the average slave will be less happy than an emperor, because the slave lacks the ability to act on his free will. And it's wrong that the slave is denied that right, which is why slavery is abhorrent.
But neither does being able to pursuit happiness or act on free will necessarily LEAD to happiness, which is what OUR point is.
You're trying to reframe the argument here for some reason, but what you're trying to reframe it to is nonsensical. No one is saying or would EVER say that because both slaves and emperors can be unhappy, slavery must not be a big deal. You're trying to paint us with a colour that doesn't exist and attribute a point to us that we're not making.
Neither do you seem to be understanding that HK is not talking about whether people are interested in sex, nor ARGUING that the rich and powerful aren't interested in sex. He's arguing the OPPOSITE, that they're VERY interested in sex because they have more leisure time. That leisure time may ALSO contribute to boredom, loneliness, and depression. He's saying that sex is often USED as a DISTRACTION for boredom, loneliness, and depression.
Or it might be that the boredom, loneliness and depression stem from not being in touch with the self, deep down, and therefore being unable to connect on a meaningful level with other humans. So certain pursuits might be shallow attempts at replacement.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Crazy Eddie, Byte, Crazie Eddie - folks inside the box are always unaware of what color the outside is.
When making arguments, first it's generally a good idea to find an audience capable of comprehending them, wrapping their mind around the idea - and if it is too big, too oddly shaped, or too radical, well, you might as well describe colors to the blind.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME