Skip to main content

Money Week, Part II





Yesterday, we spoke of a former cryptocurrency honcho, now hoping for an international prisoner exchange that night free him. Tomorrow we will speak of old-fashioned government-fiat money and the role it plays within Keynesian economics. 

Today, I offer a quotation from an ancient philosopher. A Stoic, Epictetus, said this about money. He imagines that a friend has asked him to go earn some quick money and then share it. He replies to this hypothetical friend. 

"If I can get it while maintaining my self-respect, trustworthiness, and high-mindedness, show me the way and I'll et some. But if you're asking me to lose my good qualities so that you can get things that aren't even good, you can see how unfair and unfeeling you're being. What would you rather have, money or a trustworthy and self-respecting friend?"  


Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryMarch 1, 2023 at 9:11 PM

    What Epictetus adds to what his friend asked him -- that the friend wants to use the money for "things that aren't even good" -- makes it too easy a case. Suppose the friend wanted Epictetus to sacrifice his self-respect, trustworthiness, and high-mindedness to earn some quick money so that the friend can purchase a life-saving drug for his child. That's a tougher case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ChristopherMarch 2, 2023 at 12:28 AM

      In the context of the long ages before effective medicines, including Epictetus' whole lifetime, you comment would have seemed silly. Ministrations were quite likely to kill a sick child by interfering with the natural restorative powers that allow many of the to overcome many of the illnesses that ail them. Calling in a physician and apothecary wasn't i fact, "even good." In the 21st century: yes, you might quarrel.

      Delete
  2. HenryMarch 2, 2023 at 6:30 AM

    OK. Change my hypothetical either to the 21st century or to food for a starving child, even in ancient times.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
17 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more