[UPDATE: 네이버로 "the road to happiness" 검색하신 분들 이블로그에 오셔서 감사합니다! 하지만, 그표현을 왜 찾으십니까?]
I have no particular desire to become rich. If there's anything I want in terms of money, it's simply the chance to be free of scholastic debt, and to have enough money to indulge in a few personal projects. That would be all right by me.
Having spent my time since 2002 with the aforementioned scholastic debt hanging hugely over my head, I'm used to financial hardship and have a hard time understanding how money can drive certain people to suicide. I assume this has something to do with cathexis: you extend your ego-boundaries around something, and its fortunes become yours. All the more reason not to invest one's ego in financial matters, eh?
Psychologist Ernest Becker, in his The Denial of Death, argues that when one's self-image includes the notion that one is the hero of his or her own narrative, this generates a sense of immortality, accomplishment, and fulfillment. The loss of that heroic image can lead to various forms of insanity, and even to death (see a quick summary here). I think there's something to this idea, which seems rooted in common sense. The poor bloke in the above-linked article, a German tycoon, saw his empire crumbling and very likely lost his heroic self-perception. He apparently killed himself by walking in front of a train.
There are many roads to happiness, however one defines happiness. My advice, for what it's worth, is to avoid hitching your sense of self-worth to the money truck. It should be pretty obvious that being rich doesn't equate to being happy. Money's important, but is a sudden lack of money a legitimate reason to end your own life?
_
4 comments:
I agree with you about money not bringing happiness. And having a whole lot of scholastic debt myself, I also share your desire for freedom from those shackles.
It depends on the situation for me when it comes to debt-driven suicide. A billionaire tycoon committing suicide is rather different, in my mind, from the mass suicides of debt-ridden, dirt poor Punjabi farmers in India. I'm not sure Becker's analysis necessarily applies to them, but I think you've shown it probably does apply to Merckle.
I'm not sure it's necessary to be happy in the first place.
Rhesus,
I've never sat down and pondered the question of the necessity of happiness before. It feels like a strange question to me. Common sense would seem to dictate that it's better to be happy than to be some less positive state, but what do we contrast happiness with? Does happiness even have a true opposite? I'm genuinely curious. Let's explore for a bit.
"It's better to be happy than to be in pain." Perhaps. But can't one be both happy and in pain?
Or: "It's better to be happy than sad or angry." But do periods of sadness or anger signify the lack of an underlying happiness?
Or: "It's better to be happy than to suffer." Again, can't one be basically happy even while suffering?
Or the classic: "It's better to be happy than unhappy." Doesn't this avoid the question of what happiness is? Here, "unhappy" is simply "the opposite of happy," but that tells us nothing.
So maybe we need to talk about what happiness is before we can begin to talk about whether it's necessary.
Kevin
Hey Kevin,
Did you see this guy? He says he walked across the US the other way, starting with only $217!
You might have posted this already?
http://www.slatev.com/player.html?id=6554077001
Post a Comment