LITERATURE: Consolation – On Money

Perhaps I should read through to the end before I post on this or any other book, because I change with it as clarifications are made, but the arguments along the way are some fun too.  I don’t mind admitting when I’m finally convinced I’m wrong, nor balk at changing mind in view of it; in fact, it seems a lifting of the veil and sparks, I’m sure, a great Hurrah! among those who watch my faltering steps to gain my footing up the mountain.

Here, Philosophy uses the material form of wealth to illustrate her principle:

"And now let us see whether riches really drive away need.  Don’t the wealthy become hungry and thirsty; don’t they feel the cold in the winter?  You may argue that they have the means to satisfy their hunger and thirst, and to protect themselves against the cold.  Nevertheless, the needs remain, and riches can only minimize them.  For if needs are always present and making demands which must be met by spending money, clearly there will always be some need which is unsatisfied.  And here I do not press the point that, although nature makes very modest demands, avarice is never satisfied.  My present point is simply this:  if riches cannot eliminate need, but on the contrary create new demands, what makes you suppose that they can provide satisfaction?"  (Book III, Prose 3, p. 42)

This is a very pointed and logical way of reasoning.  And the only thought that I take issue with is the basis on which Philosophy claims that new demands are created.  The following is the pre-argument for the above. 

"Then wealth cannot give a man everything and make him entirely self-sufficient, even though this is what money seems to promise.  But I think it most important to observe that there is nothing in the nature of wealth to prevent its being taken from those who have it.

(…) "And why shouldn’t you agree, since every day those who are powerful enough snatch it from those who are weaker.  In fact, most lawsuits are concerned with efforts to recover money taken by violence or fraud.

(…) "Therefore, a man needs the help of others to protect his money.

(…) "But he wouldn’t need it, if he had no money to lose.

(…) "Well then, the situation is upside down; for riches, which are supposed to make men self-sufficient, actually make them dependent on the help of others."  (p.42)

I do understand the concept, and the bitter reality of it, but would argue that it not be a preassumed stand that "man needs the help of others to protect his money".  This is what Philosophy claims as the basis for its inability to promote self-sufficiency.  We must assume the evil nature of man who lusts after his neighbor’s wealth, or, in a more grassroots manner, even assume that if a man, let’s say, has wealth dependent upon his lands, he himself is dependent upon the work of others to bring it to fruition. 

But I argue none too emphatically as Philosophy is being practical and realistic rather than suiting her arguments to an idealistic world.

That’s okay; I’m sure I’ll find something else to question as I go along.