Poverty is no problem
Perhaps this is somewhat peripheral to our central topic, but I would like to share with you several delighful little arguments from the 3rd century BCE Cynic philosopher Teles. Teles’ original works are lost, but some of his remarks were excerpted in a later anthology by Stobaeus.
In an essay whose title is lost to us Teles is arguing that acquiring wealth will cure neither a greedy, miserly character nor the actual deprivation that that kind of character inflicts upon a person who is too miserly to part with his money. That argument doesn't interest me as much as another he seems to offer almost en passant:
For example, poverty does not change the character of those who are temperate/prudent [ sophron], if they fall into poverty after having been wealthy. Sooner, I think, you could say that the acquisition of money changes your skin or size or appearance.
The coming of cosmetic surgery has made Teles’ analogies unfortunate, but disregarding that detail, what a remarkable claim about the effect of impoverishment on human character. How does Teles presume to know what impoverishment will do to someone’s character? Teles also lacked the advantage of the Great Depression and its effects on millions of men and their families. What would he say if we presented him with real sociological data from that unfortunate time? What do we actually know about how impoverishment is likely to affect people? We don’t think their health and psychological well-being will be immune, but somehow their characters will be?
A little later on in the same essay, another topic. Someone asks the Cynic philosopher Crates
What will be in for me if I study philosophy? “You will be ready to open your wallet,” he said, “and with your hand scoop out and dispense what is there, instead of, as you do now, squirm and hesitate and tremble like someone with palsied hands…And if you see that your wallet is empty, you will not be disturbed.
Another remarkable claim. Study philosophy and you’ll acquire detachment and indifferent to your financial situation. You will give money away lavishly and not worry if you have none. My hands are shaking as I write this. I must have missed that philosophy course.
In the sequel, Teles is arguing that poverty is no deterent to philosophy. On the contrary,
Don’t you see that as a rule the poorest men become philosophers, because the wealthy are involved in many activities related to their possessions?...Or don’t you see that because of their poverty the poor are compelled to cultivate a patience endurance, whilst with the wealthy the opposite holds true? In my opinion, whenever someone easily obtains what he wants, he is no longer eager for hard work and philosophical inquiry, but with wealth as his companion in vice refrains from no pleasure. Or don’t you see that the rich man is not allowed to be inactive because he has much to do, but the poor man, not having anything to do, devotes himself to philosophizing.
So poverty and enforced idleness are the royal road to philosophy, and the poor man, not having any to do ( like obtain the necessities of living), has the leisure and the motive to philosophisize. I just can’t think of what to say about such a claim, but there it is.
Perhaps this is somewhat peripheral to our central topic, but I would like to share with you several delighful little arguments from the 3rd century BCE Cynic philosopher Teles. Teles’ original works are lost, but some of his remarks were excerpted in a later anthology by Stobaeus.
In an essay whose title is lost to us Teles is arguing that acquiring wealth will cure neither a greedy, miserly character nor the actual deprivation that that kind of character inflicts upon a person who is too miserly to part with his money. That argument doesn't interest me as much as another he seems to offer almost en passant:
For example, poverty does not change the character of those who are temperate/prudent [ sophron], if they fall into poverty after having been wealthy. Sooner, I think, you could say that the acquisition of money changes your skin or size or appearance.
The coming of cosmetic surgery has made Teles’ analogies unfortunate, but disregarding that detail, what a remarkable claim about the effect of impoverishment on human character. How does Teles presume to know what impoverishment will do to someone’s character? Teles also lacked the advantage of the Great Depression and its effects on millions of men and their families. What would he say if we presented him with real sociological data from that unfortunate time? What do we actually know about how impoverishment is likely to affect people? We don’t think their health and psychological well-being will be immune, but somehow their characters will be?
A little later on in the same essay, another topic. Someone asks the Cynic philosopher Crates
What will be in for me if I study philosophy? “You will be ready to open your wallet,” he said, “and with your hand scoop out and dispense what is there, instead of, as you do now, squirm and hesitate and tremble like someone with palsied hands…And if you see that your wallet is empty, you will not be disturbed.
Another remarkable claim. Study philosophy and you’ll acquire detachment and indifferent to your financial situation. You will give money away lavishly and not worry if you have none. My hands are shaking as I write this. I must have missed that philosophy course.
In the sequel, Teles is arguing that poverty is no deterent to philosophy. On the contrary,
Don’t you see that as a rule the poorest men become philosophers, because the wealthy are involved in many activities related to their possessions?...Or don’t you see that because of their poverty the poor are compelled to cultivate a patience endurance, whilst with the wealthy the opposite holds true? In my opinion, whenever someone easily obtains what he wants, he is no longer eager for hard work and philosophical inquiry, but with wealth as his companion in vice refrains from no pleasure. Or don’t you see that the rich man is not allowed to be inactive because he has much to do, but the poor man, not having anything to do, devotes himself to philosophizing.
So poverty and enforced idleness are the royal road to philosophy, and the poor man, not having any to do ( like obtain the necessities of living), has the leisure and the motive to philosophisize. I just can’t think of what to say about such a claim, but there it is.
posted by Macuquinas d' Oro at 10:36 PM
0 comments
