So you think that greed is good because it satisfies individual and general interest.
I've never indicated in this thread whether I agree or disagree with the initial quotation. I have merely attempted to explain it on its own terms.
val wrote:
Then, greed being a tool to reach something else, you should begin by establish what general interest is.
Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at that, val.
0 Replies
rufio
1
Reply
Wed 20 Oct, 2004 02:35 pm
An intelligent person will not desire anything that brings destruction. This is because, as many have said, greed is insatiable, so destroying things only serves to destroy something that might be desired at some point.
Also, think for a minute what life would be like if you didn't want anything. Not if you had no need to want, as in you have everything that you desire, but that you simply had no desire. No reason to get up and do anything, no motivation to live your life. Where would we be without greed?
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Wed 20 Oct, 2004 09:12 pm
I would like to keep clear the distinction between greed and self-interest. I pursue my self-interests, food, selter, friendship and cooperation, medicine, entertainment, etc. etc., but I do not (at least I try not to) pursue more than what I need for the happy life, especially at the expense of the legitimate needs of others. It seems to me that the term, greed, has been weakened, to the point of distortion, when we equate it with normal and reasonable self-interest. And I'm afraid that this tendency has served to justify the institutionalization of greed presently seen in the worst aspects of capitalist culture--commercialism as religion.
0 Replies
rufio
1
Reply
Wed 20 Oct, 2004 10:58 pm
Greed is self-interest though - it's just a matter of degree, and how PC you are, I suppose.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Wed 20 Oct, 2004 11:06 pm
Rufio, greed is seems to me best refers to the unenligtened and obsessive pursuit of self-interest. I don't recall seeing or feeling a little bit of greed, but I guess it is conceivable, like a small amount of generosity.
0 Replies
val
1
Reply
Thu 21 Oct, 2004 02:40 am
Sorry Joe, but what I meant whas this: you asked if greed whas good. Then you said that greed was good because it is able to satisfy individual and general interest. So, greed is not good or bad in itself. It all depends on what is considered general or individual interest. Then, the question should be put in therms of that interest and not in therms of greed
0 Replies
joefromchicago
1
Reply
Thu 21 Oct, 2004 08:53 am
val wrote:
Sorry Joe, but what I meant whas this: you asked if greed whas good.
Yes, that's correct.
val wrote:
Then you said that greed was good because it is able to satisfy individual and general interest.
No, I said that "the quotation . . . makes the argument that financial greed -- the desire for acquiring money and other worldly possessions -- is a good thing for society as a whole." I was, in other words, characterizing the opinion of the author of the original quotation. I never said or implied anywhere that I was stating my opinion.
val wrote:
So, greed is not good or bad in itself. It all depends on what is considered general or individual interest. Then, the question should be put in therms of that interest and not in therms of greed
If you choose to answer the question on those terms, then I encourage you to do so.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Thu 21 Oct, 2004 12:40 pm
We are referring to greed as a moral category of attitude and action. I think we should keep in mind, however, that there are no moral phenomena in nature (consider the "cruelty" of Nature's food chain), only moral interpretations of phenomena.
It is MY INTERPRETATION that greed in society is "immoral" and a sign of psycho-spiritual immaturity.
0 Replies
rufio
1
Reply
Thu 21 Oct, 2004 02:58 pm
But now we're begging the question. You'r arguing that greed is an obcession, because that's how you're defining greed, and that it's bad for society because that's what you're taking greed to mean.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Thu 21 Oct, 2004 04:03 pm
Rufio, I got the notion of the obsessive nature of greed from you.
"No. It's wrong. First, because it enslaves you to the object of your greed. Second, because greed excludes solidarity. We are not "monads", you know.
And greed, even for life, becomes an obsessive attitude. Obsession excludes criticism."
!= means "is not equal to" in C++.....
0 Replies
BoGoWo
1
Reply
Sun 24 Oct, 2004 07:59 am
The most dangerous attitude pervading, and devastating this planet, is the intimate connection of 'greed', and the 'natural way'; used to excuse a blind indifference to the obvious. We have learned from our uncivilized past to 'take' in excess to survive individually, whereas the active protection, and sharing of the resources of this planet is the only way we shall be able to survive, and flourish as a species.
We parasite the planet to survive, killing, and consuming other living creatures, because, being a product of a totally arbitrary process, that is our 'nature'; but is it really necessary for us to expand this atrocity to the point of parasiting each other?
[it is time we 'grew up', and became responsible for ourselves!]
0 Replies
Acquiunk
1
Reply
Sun 24 Oct, 2004 08:04 am
BoGoWo wrote:
[it is time we 'grew up', and became responsible for ourselves!]
We (humans) have domesticated a number of other species, both plant and animal. But we are the only species to have domesticated ourselves. It is not an easy or self evident process.
0 Replies
BoGoWo
1
Reply
Sun 24 Oct, 2004 09:37 am
Acquiunk wrote:
We (humans) have domesticated a number of other species, both plant and animal. But we are the only species to have domesticated ourselves. It is not an easy or self evident process.
allow me an edit:
"We (humans) have domesticated a number of other species, both plant and animal. But we are the only species to have [attempted] to domesticate ourselves. It is not an [endless] process.
0 Replies
Acquiunk
1
Reply
Sun 24 Oct, 2004 09:53 am
Domestication is a process by which a plant or animals brought within the sphere of culture, a niche whole occupied by humans. So we are by definition "domesticated". Understanding this niche, exploring its boundaries and its possibilities, is our problem, and that is an endless process.
0 Replies
BoGoWo
1
Reply
Sun 24 Oct, 2004 09:56 am
i suppose, when we complete the process; we may as well hop into the little pine boxes, and let the lids be hammered on, and ...................................
BoGoWo has found the core:
"he most dangerous attitude pervading, and devastating this planet, is the intimate connection of 'greed', and the 'natural way'; used to excuse a blind indifference to the obvious. We have learned from our uncivilized past to 'take' in excess to survive individually, whereas the active protection, and sharing of the resources of this planet is the only way we shall be able to survive, and flourish as a species."
And we have domesticated ourselves; that's what is meant by culture.
0 Replies
BoGoWo
1
Reply
Sun 24 Oct, 2004 10:27 am
art and culture is 'everything we have; but let's make 'sanity' an integral factor.
[to see ourselves as we are, against how we could be is invaluable.]
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Sun 24 Oct, 2004 10:35 am
BoGoWo, you realize, of course, that by "culture" I refer to all the constructs mankind has made to define reality--all of his institutionalized habits, definitions, understandings, attitudes, etc. etc.--not just the "arts."
