| This question <9|12> overall <9|11> Hans: <5|14>. |
| Question 8: Can one say that happiness is the only true wealth? |
| [10] Hans: How Many Resources do you need to be Happy? Charles, in [9], uses the definition that wealth is things which are valued. If you use this definition, then there is not much difference between wealth and happiness. Happiness is a person who has good feelings, and wealth consists of things which evoke good feelings. It is mainly a difference of perspective. |
| I have problems with this point of view because it makes everything subjective. If you feel good, you are in a good situation, and if you feel bad, you are in a bad situation. Charles is consistent if he comes to the conclusion that we decide how happy and wealthy we want to be. |
| I'd like to propose a different definition of wealth. Material wealth are those things which enhance human life, things which people need to have a good life. I.e., wealth is not something subjective but something objective. These conditions for a good life do not necessarily make you happy, but if they are missing, then it is much more difficult to be happy. |
| If you use the objective definition of wealth, then the ugliness of our society stares you into the face. Why have some people so many more resources at their disposal than others? If you use the subjective definition, this society is more tolerable, because you can say that these differences in resources do not matter, it all depends on one's attitude. |
| The issue with happiness and wealth has been debated a lot in the archives. I can still recommend my [1999SP:12] as a good starting point. |
|
|
|||||