Is what you don't have more important than what you do have.

[kvnchrist]

What exactly is greed? Is it wanting to take that which you don't have from others, even though you don't appreciate what you do have?

What is poverty? Is it not having what you desire or disdaining what you do have because it's less sensational than that which others posses?

What is happiness? Is It surrounding yourself with property or immersing ourselves in humanity?

Why should we covet when we, so many times fail to share what we already have? Would we hoard what we would obtain or grant the access we would want for ourselves?

What is equality when we have skills that others do not? Is It access to something that some do not desire for? Is It opportunity which others feel no need to utilize? Is it an existence which all feel entitled even though they would gladly refuse the same to others?

[Tidus44]

I think I likely missed whatever message Mr. Vujicic was attempting to pass on.

I didn't see anything in the video about greed or poverty or equality and I'm not even sure there was anything specifically about happiness being related to either coveting materialistic wealth or engaging in humanitarianism.

If there was a message to the video it was the same simple fix that all motivational speakers use and one that is likely OK for people who really don't have any actual problems.

 

I sort of wonder how having a good attitude and believing in one's self and that life has a purpose helps some individual who is being abused (sexually, physically and/or mentally) just "get over it". There are people who have real problems that won't be fixed by simply changing their attitude about it.

I don't deny Mr. Vujicic anything and he can go do whatever it is that makes him happy and lets him sleep comfortably at night.

 

However, I am a bit confused by the questions asked. For example, what is wrong with greed? Greed is an incentive to work hard, get a good education, start a business or do what one has to in order to achieve what one wants. So why is greed only seen as a "negative" attribute? Why is it wrong to want to have material things and to work towards attaining them?

 

Poverty is not necessarily a bad thing either. Poverty is simply a measurement of equality within a given society. Being poor does not necessarily include desire or distain because what one does have is less than what others have. I know any number of people who would be measured as "poor" who are happier than those measured as "wealthy".

However, poverty that sees people without the basic necessities of life is a problem, but it won't be resolved by those who are in that situation by simply changing their attitude about it.

[HeyYou]

I think I likely missed whatever message Mr. Vujicic was attempting to pass on.

I didn't see anything in the video about greed or poverty or equality and I'm not even sure there was anything specifically about happiness being related to either coveting materialistic wealth or engaging in humanitarianism.

If there was a message to the video it was the same simple fix that all motivational speakers use and one that is likely OK for people who really don't have any actual problems.

 

I sort of wonder how having a good attitude and believing in one's self and that life has a purpose helps some individual who is being abused (sexually, physically and/or mentally) just "get over it". There are people who have real problems that won't be fixed by simply changing their attitude about it.

I don't deny Mr. Vujicic anything and he can go do whatever it is that makes him happy and lets him sleep comfortably at night.

 

However, I am a bit confused by the questions asked. For example, what is wrong with greed? Greed is an incentive to work hard, get a good education, start a business or do what one has to in order to achieve what one wants. So why is greed only seen as a "negative" attribute? Why is it wrong to want to have material things and to work towards attaining them?

 

Poverty is not necessarily a bad thing either. Poverty is simply a measurement of equality within a given society. Being poor does not necessarily include desire or distain because what one does have is less than what others have. I know any number of people who would be measured as "poor" who are happier than those measured as "wealthy".

However, poverty that sees people without the basic necessities of life is a problem, but it won't be resolved by those who are in that situation by simply changing their attitude about it.

Well Put. I agree.

 

I think folks draw a line between 'getting ahead', and 'being greedy' though. And the whole 'do what one has to do' to get to where you want to be has varying shades of grey as well. If you put some constraints on that, such as "within the moral values of the current society", or something similar, then it would just be classified as 'motivated' in any event. I think greed implies 'getting what one wants at the expense of others'. It's that aspect of it that gives it a bad name.

[EnaiSiaion]

 

I think folks draw a line between 'getting ahead', and 'being greedy' though. And the whole 'do what one has to do' to get to where you want to be has varying shades of grey as well. If you put some constraints on that, such as "within the moral values of the current society", or something similar, then it would just be classified as 'motivated' in any event. I think greed implies 'getting what one wants at the expense of others'. It's that aspect of it that gives it a bad name.

 

 

Those others have the same chance to get ahead though. If the race is fair, can you blame one side for taking it more seriously?

[HeyYou]

 

 

I think folks draw a line between 'getting ahead', and 'being greedy' though. And the whole 'do what one has to do' to get to where you want to be has varying shades of grey as well. If you put some constraints on that, such as "within the moral values of the current society", or something similar, then it would just be classified as 'motivated' in any event. I think greed implies 'getting what one wants at the expense of others'. It's that aspect of it that gives it a bad name.

 

 

Those others have the same chance to get ahead though. If the race is fair, can you blame one side for taking it more seriously?

 

Maybe they do, maybe they don't..... There are many examples of greed winning out, simply because the greedy (who happen to be rich) have more resources to call on than their intended victims. Emminent Domain to take land for commercial purposes for instance.

[Hardwaremaster]

I think this song is highly appropriate for this thread, in that it attempts to diagnose this exact problem, also it manages to sum up what I think the original poster was getting at, which I personally believe is more based how one defines their environment.

 

 

My thoughts are as follows, I have repeatedly wondered about this same thing for a long time, I think it really comes down to what you define as wealthy and what is poverty, I have seen some of the most wealthy people on this planet money wise, who are miserable, then I have seen homeless people who are the happiest people on earth. I have also noticed that the more money people acquire, the more people tend to spend for some strange reason, all one needs to do is look at government for example.

 

Edit: I think one of the reasons greed, is often used in the negative sense, is because it can be parasitic feeding off of others for personal gain. However the same can also be said of the poor, who can be a drain on the rich, so it really comes down to what someones morals are at the moment, and what they think is the supposed right or wrong thing for those morally ambiguous.

 

Song Lyrics: Eddie Vedder - Society.

 

 

 

It's a mystery to me
we have a greed
with which we have agreed
You think you have to want
more than you need
until you have it all you won't be free

Society, you're a crazy breed
I hope you're not lonely without me

When you want more than you have
you think you need
and when you think more than you want
your thoughts begin to bleed

I think I need to find a bigger place
'Cos when you have more than you think
you need more space

Society, you're a crazy breed
I hope you're not lonely without me
Society, crazy and deep
I hope you're not lonely without me

There's those thinking more or less, less is more
but if less is more how you're keeping score?
Means for every point you make your level drops
kinda like it's starting from the top, and you can't do that

Society, you're a crazy breed
I hope you're not lonely without me
Society, crazy and deep
I hope you're not lonely without me

Society, have mercy on me
I hope you're not angry if I disagree
Society, crazy and deep
I hope you're not lonely without me

 

 

Edited November 12, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[Tidus44]

I didn’t find the song was about rich or poor or even necessarily about greed. What I got from the song is that people tend to measure their happiness or freedom or fulfillment by what they have and even sometimes by what they don’t have. I’m not sure that it would specifically be about how one defines their environment as such, but how one defines – or in the case of the song – measures or keeps score regarding their level of happiness.

 

The song suggests to me that the materialistic and the non-materialistic individual both have similar problems in achieving happiness.

The song identifies;

When you want more than you have you think you need
and when you think more than you want your thoughts begin to bleed

The materialistic have the issue of:

You think you have to want more than you need until you have it all you won't be free.

The non-materialistic have the issue of;

There's those thinking more or less, less is more but if less is more how you're keeping score?
Means for every point you make your level drops kinda like it's starting from the top, and you can't do that

The materialistic are not happy or fulfilled until they have the possessions they desire and seek more to achieve the happiness they seek.

Whereas the materialistic tend to wind up having more than they want and thus are faced with ridding themselves of possessions in order to be happy or fulfilled.

 

The thing is (according to the singer) neither gaining nor giving away possessions is a means to happiness or fulfillment.

The person singing identifies they are neither materialistic nor non-materialistic and has no desire to be involved in either “race” for happiness or fulfillment; they are just going to be happy with what they have as they have it.
Society, have mercy on me I hope you're not angry if I disagree
Society, crazy and deep I hope you're not lonely without me.

 

Not that I think I'm correct or others wrong in the interpretation of the song's message, but it didn't speak of wealth or poverty or greed to me.

 

I suppose that the corporate dream of dying at your desk of a stress induced heart attack while planning how to stab your rival(s) in the back in order to get ahead is the typical scenario one thinks of when “greed” is used as an adjective. But I also see those who may be greedy as one who has the desire to obtain what they want and will “do what it takes” – in the sense of honest work through working long hours, working two jobs, sacrificing some thing to obtain others, etc. – to get whatever it is they desire or want as “greedy” as well, and not just motivated (which I find to be a very soft word. One can be motivated, but they are not necessarily greedy).

[kvnchrist]

Greed is the desire to possess. It matters not what the intended possession is, but it reduces that which is desired to that of being an object. It de-emphisises the importance of humanity and the ignores the needs of others. Greed can only satisfy itself by more greed.

 

Poverty is not the lack of funds but the lack of compassion. Support can be gained through a multitude of avenues, but having no concern for others gains you the same sentiment in return and you end up an empty soul, bankrupt of everything humane.

 

happiness is something that if not shared with and by others has a hollow ring to it's sound.

 

Equality is the simplest thing to acquire. it only demands you unlearn what you've come to think of as truth by a fearful world. You want to see it in effect. Simply watch a child playing with another child and ask yourself which world is less sane. The world of a child or the world of adults.

[Tidus44]

Greed is the desire to possess. It matters not what the intended possession is, but it reduces that which is desired to that of being an object. It de-emphisises the importance of humanity and the ignores the needs of others. Greed can only satisfy itself by more greed.

 

I agree that greed is the desire to possess beyond the basic needs of survival and comfort. It can be applied to more than objects, such as with the pursuit of status and/or power. However, I am not specifically clear how intent to possess or even possession reduces or demeans the object and I am entirely unsure what one may own or possess other than an object.

My possession of an object creates no impact on any other persons needs and certainly does not diminish any person or humanity in any way. I have what I have because I earned it. I didn’t steal it from someone else and I didn’t hurt anyone in the process of obtaining it. Wanting something/object and working to own it doesn’t make someone evil or uncaring or inhumane.

 

Poverty is not the lack of funds but the lack of compassion. Support can be gained through a multitude of avenues, but having no concern for others gains you the same sentiment in return and you end up an empty soul, bankrupt of everything humane.

 

Compassion and concern are two of the most useless emotions one can have. One can be compassionate and concerned about people who are poverty stricken and it does absolutely nothing for them and it certainly does not make anyone more humane.

If all it took was compassion or concern to resolve the problem of poverty, then poverty would have been solved long ago.

Even worse than feeling sorry for people is being motivated by emotions of compassion/concern into doing something not wanted or needed in a misguided effort to make one’s self feel better.

The resolution to poverty will not be easy, but it won’t be resolved by anyone feeling personally responsible for it. Being a contributing member of society is responsibility enough and while I do admit the system does seem to be broken, I’m not responsible for that either.

 

 

Happiness is something that if not shared with and by others has a hollow ring to it's sound.

 

Happiness is a pretty fuzzy concept and can mean different things to different people. The idea that unless happiness is shared with others it is not happiness or it is hollow is one I reject. Many people enjoy life and live in a full and satisfying way without the need of sharing with others constantly.

This concept of shared happiness is akin to the philosophical question;

"if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make a noise?"

 

If no one is around to see, hear, or feel your happiness, does that mean you are not happy? Is one’s happiness dependent upon someone validating it?

Happiness can and does exist alone in ourselves, and I do agree that certain points or times of happiness can be more satisfying when shared, but it isn’t a necessity.

 

Equality is the simplest thing to acquire. it only demands you unlearn what you've come to think of as truth by a fearful world. You want to see it in effect. Simply watch a child playing with another child and ask yourself which world is less sane. The world of a child or the world of adults.

 

I would suggest that there is any number of people who would disagree with the statement that equality is the simplest thing to acquire and all that it takes is to change one’s thoughts or attitude about it. Changing one’s mind about some issue of equality isn’t the problem anyway; it’s changing everyone else’s mind about it.