Skip to main content

A Conflict with the Current Currency /////// Isabelle Ferguson

 I always imagined what it would be like if I had all the money in the world. Growing up, I always thought I would spend my money on brand new, working things for my mom. A house with working air and heat, a car that didn’t break down every three months, and all the designer clothes she could ever want. I also imagined giving the money to people and programs. The fine arts department at my high school, my church, and all my friends. I’m sure you’ve noticed: my money would be out like a light within the first few hours of me having it. Aristotle captures this in Book IV. This is about to take a sharp turn, so hold on to your diplomas. 
I have so many questions. Why is wealth, honor, and pride (predominantly wealth) the main focus of everything?  “The poor man cannot be magnificent because he has not the means with which to spend large sums fittingly” (Book IV, paragraph 2). But if he spends all he has on the right things and refuses to take from the bad things, is he not magnificent? Why is wealth the measure of everything? If the poor man gives 75% of what he has, but the magnificent man gives 25%, why is the magnificent man still magnificent? People are out there breaking their backs at work just to get slightly ahead, and it’s infuriating.  
The person who deserves riches the most doesn’t get it. Why? Oh, yeah. He gives it all away to help those who need it more. If you give away all your riches to help others you won't be rich. Yes, he donates his money and funds certain programs, but we don’t see Jeff Bezos offering to pay off student loan debt. It explains why the people who are the wealthiest alive are “the wealthiest.” You need education to get a good job, you need a job to pay for education, you need a car to get to the job and education, but you need money for the car, and it NEVER ENDS. This is the way of life, and has been for a long time. And it sucks. I vote we change the currency to something more significant than a something shiny, green, or decorative. 
P.S. I commented on Lily Caswell's post and Jessef Leslie's post.

Comments

  1. My business brain is crying for help... it is screaming NOOO!!! However, putting business aside, I can definitely see where you are coming from. I am constantly yelling “why does everything cost so much money?” It is like the saying “nothing is free”. And that is true. Everything costs something. Whether it is time or money. To get back on track, the big question we need to ask is, Is the wealthy man happy and content? I would assume and believe that the man who gives everything away is the happy and content man.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is what we give up to have an invisible hand in the free market. The market functions because of self-interest. The economy has to function off self-interest(off people working for money) because most individuals simply wouldn't do the work which needs to be done to create a product out of love for other people. Capitalism has its pros and cons.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lovers of Wisdom, Not Power—Lily Caswell

In Book VIII of Plato’s Republic, Socrates talks about the possibility of having a well-governed city. However, he also talks about how that particular form of government is impossible to have. A well-governed city becomes a possibility only if you can discover a better way of life for your future rulers than holding office.” (Plato, p 215) Maybe his version of a better life was for those in office to not be lovers of power, since it would then become a fight among rival lovers. Socrates gets to the point that the only rulers who don’t love power are true philosophers. Philosophers are lovers of wisdom and knowledge and not power, ergo they are the perfect rulers. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely, so I’m thinking that maybe the trick to being a good ruler is for you to be a philosophical person who loves wisdom and not power. I commented on Jamie’s and Isabelle’s posts.

How to Make a Clone - Clabo

I found books three and four to be very cringy. I mean, to me the idea of structurally producing good soldiers/guardians through heavy censorship is somewhat inhumane. I feel as if human beings should be allowed to experience every bit of knowledge they can at some point in their lives. To me, it seems as if the guardians are being guarded against information throughout their entire lives so they can solely fulfill the duties they were birthed into.  However, the influence and importance Plato places on poetry and music do make me wonder what it would be like if we had the same values as our military today. What if the United States military invested in the souls of its soldiers and placed within them emotional and intellectual values outside of what they have learned previously. Perhaps the military instills values and principles within soldiers to fulfill the same purpose as the guardians would in Plato's Republic and that is to only be that which the government wants you to be....

Dystopian Origins Uncovered ////// Isabelle Ferguson

  I think that ideas eventually run out of originality and circle back to the original idea. During this week's reading, many of Socrates’ suggestions for a place of perfection reminded me of some novels I’ve read depicting dystopian worlds. Disclaimer: There are spoilers ahead. You have been warned.        To begin, in  The  Giver  by Lois Lowry censorship is a major theme. The novel is centered around a boy who is receiving memories withheld from the population! The government in The Giver is especially careful to censor the memories that may cause strife, anger, fear, sadness, etc. In the adults, this society is cemented. So, the government is especially strict with the youth. Socrates talks about verses to “obliterate” to prevent the descriptions from doing “harm to our future warriors” for the better half of Book III (Plato, page 44). The warriors he speaks of are the youth. He goes on to list the multitude of verses that should be done ...