Effectively. Like all national politicians, he had the same resources at his disposal that a rich person in his country would have. His ascetic life was voluntarily so.
Social capital is dependent upon the continuing goodwill of others. That is an important restriction. If Gandhi had dropped his ascetic lifestyle, deciding to obtain a mansion, his social capital would have declined dramatically.
You are missing the point. Saying that getting rich doesn't matter because Ghandi didn't get rich is silly. You could use that argument, with some hero, in favor of anything.
Who said getting rich doesn't matter? It is what matters to you that is important, for all values of you. Being rich didn't matter to Ghandi. If you do what you love, you are likely to be happy, even if you are not rich. If you just love money, I suppose doing what you love is equivalent to getting rich.
Why does the thought that many people may consider Ghandi's life to be more meaningful than your own upset you so much? Boy, you have an ego...
For the record, Ghandi's accomplishment is not "putting his name in the history books", but rather "being spiritual and political leader of hundreds of millions of people and having a great impact on their lives".
This is just plain getting stupid. You've wandered so far off the topic in a maze of misunderstanding.
And the original poster implied it doesn't matter. And I pointed out that just because it doesn't matter to Ghandi (if it didn't) doesn't mean it shouldn't matter to others. And somehow you managed to derive from that that I am upset because a billion Indians like Ghandi better than me. Brilliant.
I don't know if it's fruitful to focus on specifically. I think the parent may have meant, "Gandhi is an example of someone who accomplished great things and did what he thought was important, but it didn't make him rich. Would you want to be in like Gandhi in this general regard?"
I'm not implying it, I'm stating it. If you would like to endure what he did just to get your name in the history books, you should reconsider your priorities.
And if you wish to emulate Ghandi so much, what are you doing about it? I see from your profile you're a freelance web developer and currency trader. Is that the best route to helping the downtrodden?
I'd be willing to be you've chosen a lifestyle for yourself that's a lot more like mine than Ghandi's, and both are available.
The accomplishments of Ghandi far outweigh both his reasons for achieving them and the methods he used. Passing judgment on his lifestyle in spite of his feats would be like saying we should disregard the works of Darwin because they offend people. Ghandi didn't get his name in the history books because he lived like a pauper.
I have no desire to emulate Ghandi and I never stated that I did. I recognize when to respect the accomplishments of others.
I didn't say I don't respect him or that he wasn't important, and I didn't pass any sort of judgment. I simply said I wouldn't want to be him. There's a pretty large difference.
OP was asking about how to prioritize things in his life, and it's clear that Ghandi is probably not a good model for him.
I didn't attack him at all. He mentioned that my priorities were wrong because I'd rather not trade places with Ghandi. I pointed out this his must be wrong too, because rather than helping the destitute in Calcutta, or any of the other third world areas, he's making websites and trading currency. When it comes down to it, I doubt he'd trade places with Ghandi either. (And in reality, I think both of our priorites would be wrong if we would make that trade.)
I didn't start any ad hominems, I was simply pointing out that the original idea (that you shouldn't worry about money because Ghandi didn't) was ludicrous.
Your initial reply to me can be rephrased as "I wouldn't want to accomplish all the amazing things that Ghandi did because I wouldn't want to live in poverty my whole life." I hope you understand that his accomplishments outweigh his lifestyle and that if everyone were able to accomplish what he had in his lifetime the world would be a much better place.
I think what you are trying to say is "You don't need to live in poverty in order to accomplish great things." In which case, I agree with you, but I believe you should pick your words more carefully.
This will be my last reply; I don't want this thread to become a pissing contest.
The Gandhi part aside, I agree with your sentiments.
Does money matter?
The response I hear from most people is that, "It will matter when you need to put food on the table". This is undeniable but after we are able to accomplish this task whats next? From that point on money is not and should not be the primary driving force.
I say primary because there are things in life that people enjoy doing that needs some amount of money. So I would say,
a) Find what you love (x)
b) If the process of completing x needs money, then seek the money needed for it.
Our ability to do this process well depends on how focused we are. since, it is easy to get distracted in a world filled with things we "want".
Money matters a lot. You can be unhappy with money, but you can't be happy without it.
Society has tricked many into thinking the desire for wealth is base or shallow, just like it has with many natural human urges. It's an idea that's happily perpetuated by those who have it. Just as men have, throughout history, preached monogamy while cheating every chance they got because if every other man is not actively mating and you are, your genes will survive better, the wealthy have perpetuated the idea that wealth is evil to decrease competition. But hey, don't worry, your suffering in this life will be rewarded in the next.
It's easy to see this every time the Pope proclaims that it's easier for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle from his golden castle in his golden city.
In the first statement you made, you can replace money with any other essential need that human beings have.
My perspective has always been this; after you have achieved your needs for the money you need to stay alive, what do you do next?
As I was saying before we should first find what we like and then look at the money required to carry it out. If we were to take the other approach where we first look for the money and then find something to do in our life that makes us happy with the money, we would invariably hurt ourselves in the process. As somebody mentioned before in the comments, the pursuit of money distracts from the task at hand. This leads to an unhappy process and a poorly completed task.
But again it takes focus to carry this out. Focus not only on what you do but also on what makes you happy.
Happiness is but a collection of moments strung together which when reflected upon gives us the relative feeling of joy.
This is quite an assertion. To make sure I'm getting this right, I can't be happy without money to buy my happiness, and if I ever believe I can, I am simply giving into the group-think that the upper class has foisted upon me. Either I'm driven by the insatiable desire for money, or I am a cog of the bourgeoisie?
I think this is complete crap. The most unhappy person I can think of right now doesn't buy into the money is evil philosophy; quite the opposite in fact. The problem he has is that he doesn't know what he wants, so he is defaulting to money as an indication of wealth. And I can think of a number of people I know who are happy, but aren't particularly high on the social ladder, nor do they really want to be. What they consider wealth right now -- their children, and time to work on their hobbies -- is something they can't trade for on the open market. Please keep this in mind: wealth is not the same thing as money. Wealth is what you want, money is simply one means, but not the only one, of getting what you want. For those who don't know what they want, it seems that they default to treating money as an end, rather than as a means.
To be clear, I'm not arguing the opposite of your claim, I am arguing that the desire money is not good or evil; it is neutral. The real question of motives becomes where that money will be spent, or if not to be spent, why it is being hoarded. If hoarded only as a metaphorical yard stick of worthiness to the people supposedly oppressing the rest of us, it seems like a waste of time. If it gets you the things you need to make you happier, then it isn't a waste of time.
I know of no one who has been tricked by the wealthy into believing they should sacrifice the most basic necessities of life for the sake of some greater ideal. If you know of someone, I will be happy to stand corrected on this point.
But I think we are confusing the idea between those who have no money at all, and those who have no disposable income after the necessities of survival. Both might sound similarly oppressive, but there is a huge difference between them. The former has one obvious form of wealth that they are coveting, and would be the same for everyone in that position; and for the latter there is much more latitude regarding what they consider wealth. They are no longer focused on mere survival, but instead on fulfillment. When people say to me they have no money, they are usually referring to the latter situation. It is probably why it seems like we are arguing past one another.
I think the way I would phrase what you said is "Money matters to the degree that what you want/need can be obtained by the exchange of money." This I would agree with. The way you phrased it, though, it seemed as though you were arguing for the earning of money as a means to fight against the wealthy class's desire to hold you down. As soon as obtaining it becomes a tool to flaunt those who say that obtaining it is crass and shallow, then I see the whole thing become somewhat pointless.
"Money matters to the degree that what you want/need can be obtained by the exchange of money."
Well said. It depends on what somebody's basic necessities are. For me, necessities includes books and music and the occasional trip to the city and a good meal. I could live on less, but I'd be miserable if I didn't get to enjoy those things frequently. If I had to use a worse computer than the one I have, I'd be less happy. So for me, making money is a means to more effortlessly obtaining the things that I want. I think that's healthy so long as the things that I want have value.
