Immortal gods! Men are not aware how great a revenue is parsimony; for I now proceed to speak of extravagant men, I take my leave of the money-hunter.
The revenue one man receives from his estate is six hundred sestertia; I receive one hundred from mine.
To that man who has gilded roofs and marble pavements in his villas, and who unboundedly covets statues, pictures, vestments, and furniture, his income is insufficient, not only for his expenditure, but even for the payment of his interest; while there will be some surplus even from my slender income, through cutting off the expenses of voluptuousness.
Which, then, is the richer, he who has a deficit, or he who has a surplus? He who is in need, or he who abounds? The man whose estate, the greater it is, requires the more to sustain it, or whose estate maintains itself by its own resources?
The revenue one man receives from his estate is six hundred sestertia; I receive one hundred from mine.
To that man who has gilded roofs and marble pavements in his villas, and who unboundedly covets statues, pictures, vestments, and furniture, his income is insufficient, not only for his expenditure, but even for the payment of his interest; while there will be some surplus even from my slender income, through cutting off the expenses of voluptuousness.
Which, then, is the richer, he who has a deficit, or he who has a surplus? He who is in need, or he who abounds? The man whose estate, the greater it is, requires the more to sustain it, or whose estate maintains itself by its own resources?
—from Cicero, Stoic Paradoxes 6
It might seem reasonable to propose that a lesser income would intensify our wants, while a greater income would relieve us of our wants, and yet we are rarely so reasonable when it comes to our desire for wealth. For far too many of us, an increase in our earnings will actually stimulate our greed, while just a very few of us, those who dare to look beyond the trappings, simply learn to be satisfied with less.
As the say, he who has much wants much, to which we may also add the reverse, that he who has little needs little. I once heard an economist describing this as lifestyle inflation, and a psychologist as the hedonistic treadmill, but behind it all is a basic truth of philosophy, so fittingly embraced by the Stoics, and so succinctly expressed by Seneca: "It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor."
This can only begin to make sense once we make the quantity of our fortune subservient to the quality of our character. If, on the other hand, we continue to equate our blessings with our comforts, we will constantly be chasing after the next level of gratification, failing to see why the gifts of our human nature are already complete and self-sufficient. If I cannot find happiness with being myself, how can a diversion with trinkets fill the hole inside of me?
I have never been rich, and I don’t imagine I will ever be, but even I have grown tired with some amusement, and then assumed that I must get myself an even fancier amusement. While I wonder how I can get my hands on a new book or record, my neighbor dreams of owning a boat, and the tycoon in his penthouse schemes about buying out his fifth company. At whatever the level, it won’t end until we redefine our source of the good.
“But that guy has millions of dollars! And I can barely afford the roof over my head or the food on my table!”
What makes you think there are no strings attached to his millions of dollars? If he is so lucky, why is his life in such a frenzy? And if you are at peace in your soul, what more does your body need than a cozy nook and a full belly?
It might seem reasonable to propose that a lesser income would intensify our wants, while a greater income would relieve us of our wants, and yet we are rarely so reasonable when it comes to our desire for wealth. For far too many of us, an increase in our earnings will actually stimulate our greed, while just a very few of us, those who dare to look beyond the trappings, simply learn to be satisfied with less.
As the say, he who has much wants much, to which we may also add the reverse, that he who has little needs little. I once heard an economist describing this as lifestyle inflation, and a psychologist as the hedonistic treadmill, but behind it all is a basic truth of philosophy, so fittingly embraced by the Stoics, and so succinctly expressed by Seneca: "It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor."
This can only begin to make sense once we make the quantity of our fortune subservient to the quality of our character. If, on the other hand, we continue to equate our blessings with our comforts, we will constantly be chasing after the next level of gratification, failing to see why the gifts of our human nature are already complete and self-sufficient. If I cannot find happiness with being myself, how can a diversion with trinkets fill the hole inside of me?
I have never been rich, and I don’t imagine I will ever be, but even I have grown tired with some amusement, and then assumed that I must get myself an even fancier amusement. While I wonder how I can get my hands on a new book or record, my neighbor dreams of owning a boat, and the tycoon in his penthouse schemes about buying out his fifth company. At whatever the level, it won’t end until we redefine our source of the good.
“But that guy has millions of dollars! And I can barely afford the roof over my head or the food on my table!”
What makes you think there are no strings attached to his millions of dollars? If he is so lucky, why is his life in such a frenzy? And if you are at peace in your soul, what more does your body need than a cozy nook and a full belly?
—Reflection written in 5/1999
IMAGE: Quentin Matsys, The Usurers (1520)
No comments:
Post a Comment