Taylor sets up the concept of avarice very well to distinguish which type of agent she wants to focus on, the miser. On pages 38 and 39 Taylor discusses how the miser must cling to their possession due to an irrational fear of losing their position of power and influence.
I must disagree with this concept because in order to accumulate wealth, or a large number or any worth-while goods (which would be necessary in order for an agent to be considered miserly) a certain amount of risk is required. Old wealth is a common counterexample to this posit, but we must consider the position that the agent inherits as well as the wealth. It is rare for an agent to acquire a large sum of wealth without any assumption of responsibility of risk or any taking of risk.
As well, it is unlikely that an agent would hold any power or influence if they did not put their wealth to use. If an agent chose to be miserly and withheld their fortune from the general public, or those deserving of a portion of the fortune, then the agent would be ignored or rejected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I was actually wondering about this two while I was reading it but upon consideration I think I figured out how a miser could become rich. The key is how exactly a miser conceives of money. For instance, if a miserly investor invests in real estate, he may not view his investment as something to be enjoyed, but rather essentially as money that takes another form, which conveniently both has an estimated net worth and which has an ever-increasing value. To the miser, the investment may not be an expense, but rather a clever way to make money. Alternatively, the miser could manage to overpower his natural short-term stinginess with a long-term desire for more money, since Taylor does state that the miser is focused on neither the short-term nor the long-term, but, essentially, on the never (since their accumulated wealth will never be spent and hence never have meaning.
Taylor also states that the goal of the miser is not so much to have power and fame, but to have security and the ability to have whatever that miser might want. Taylor seems to think that, to the miser, the actual possession of fame, power, and happiness is not as important to the miser as is the ability to have those things easily.
Though it is understandable to think that wealth can only happen when taking risks, I agree with Taylor on the fact that misers take almost no risk when it comes to accumulating money.
Practices like venture capitalism aside, moeny can be a fairly consistent thing to depend on, provided the agent has a job or some other source of income. If the miser saves this income by spending as little as necessary, this money will accumulate. The true miser would see spending this money for any reason, including the possibility of influence or power, as a risk of losing money; which is a risk the miser does not take.
The miser mistakes the possibility of influence and power signified by his money for the things themselves, and so would see no need to risk his money for those things, especially since misers tend to be so introverted, driven by their distrust of other people.
I think too much of the interpretation of how the miser practices avarice is being interpreted as being harmful to one's gain of wealth.
Taylor states, and I support, the claim that the reason why the miser, in his hoarding of material possessions will not flourish as a human being because he is concentrating on material and non-meaningful things; things that do not add to one being a self. If one chooses to focus purely on material means, they are defined by their material objects, and do not explore any interest that is worthy of a human being.
The miser is either confused or ignorant to what would be truly meaningful in his life and contribute to what he is as a self. The meaning one attains through monetary means is secondary to the meaning one attains through adding the ability to interact with the world with knowledge and passion while practicing virtuous behavior.
The miser is actively constraining the growth and nurturing of his self. The miser is probably confused about what a self is. A self is something that begins to develop and then truly never stops developing through one’s whole conscious lifetime. The self embodies emotions, thoughts, habits, moods, speaking patterns, humor, knowledge, actions, and passions; all of which were adopted and molded to oneself since the time a young developing self watches one’s parents interact in front of one all day. The self is developed largely through the observations and interactions one sees and partakes in with people. The miser is depriving oneself of many interesting interactions, self enhancing and flourishing activities and is leading one’s life in a less than worthy and flourishing way.
Post a Comment