Posts by coastaltiger25

Sam Martinez9 said:Have you ever actually encountered a narcissistic homeless person? A narcissistic beggar? Someone truly destitute?

You simply can't have narcissism without some level of wealth to fuel it.

I do agree, though, that the essence lies in finding that equilibrium. My concern is that achieving such a balance—whether for an individual or for society at large—is an incredibly difficult feat to pull off.

Take Buddha, for example. He grew tired of the "aristocratic lifestyle" and pure narcissism, so he swung hard in the opposite direction toward extreme asceticism.
But even that eventually went to his head in a sort of populist way—arguably worse than the nobility he left behind. He ended up becoming a "god on Earth and in Heaven." 😁

I agree that balance is the key. The issue, though, is that achieving balance—whether for an individual or for society as a whole—is notoriously difficult.

It reminds me of what P. P. Njegoš once wrote:
"No one has finished a cup of honey yet—but don't choke on a cup of gall, because a cup of honey is just a cup of gall mixed together... and those are the easiest to swallow."

Sam Martinez9 said:Are you saying you wouldn't mind if people were incredibly wealthy, provided they had zero political influence, leaving all the power strictly in the hands of the working class?

Of course, everything is interconnected and we could go in circles on this forever. However, if we really want to parse out the *having versus being* dilemma, the core question should probably be: to what extent does the pursuit of wealth prevent someone from truly existing? Or, conversely, how much capital does one actually need to accumulate before they can finally afford to just *be*?

I finally finished that Ford book—along with the rest of his collection—and honestly, everything about it is solid, except for the title. It’s just... off.
It’s a bit of a trick question—it's tucked away in that "either/or" part.
Why?
Because a healthy, natural balance relies on that sense of symbiosis—having everything work together. I think you might have cut off your message there. What was on your mind? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. If this was meant to be a question or a specific point, it didn't quite make it through. Feel free to clarify whenever you're ready.
If one side leans too far in any direction, we’re essentially lost—either sliding into pathological materialism or falling straight into narcissism.

Sam Martinez9 said:It isn't really about a "ruling class" in the political sense, but rather an economic one. However, sticking to the spirit of the thread's title—to have versus to be—it's clear they merely possess; they don't truly exist.

That brings us right back to the ruling class. Whoever controls the money—or holds the purse strings—is effectively running the show, whether they’re doing it through official policy or just behind the scenes via corruption.
As for "being"—achieving that sense of self-actualization and fulfillment—that's a much deeper rabbit hole. It depends entirely on who you ask.

mistyfox812 said:It’s basically this messy collision between democratic ideals and pure capitalism. Democracy tells us everyone is equal, right? Like, the good guy is just as important as the jerk, the gorgeous person is equal to the ugly one, the philanthropist is on par with the cheapskate, the genius is level with the average Joe, and the intellectual is treated the same as the guy who just wants to grab a Bud Light and chill.
Because of who we are as humans, we’re all equal. That’s the whole democratic promise.
But then capitalism steps in and says everything can be boiled down to a dollar sign. So, if one person is out there chasing knowledge while another is just focused on drinking beer, that’s gonna show up in their bank accounts. If someone is stunning and someone else isn't, yeah, that hits the bottom line too. Every single human quality gets flattened into a number. It just becomes more or less cash.
When it comes to what we own, we definitely aren't equals.

And honestly? It’s all totally broken. People aren't actually "equal" when you look at their flaws or their strengths, and you can't take the crazy spectrum of human personality and turn it into a spreadsheet or some net worth.

Exactly. It’s what dragged us away from that old communist utopia and shoved us straight into today's capitalist dystopia. We went from this imagined world where everything was supposedly great for everyone, to a world where things are great for a tiny handful of elites—the ruling class—while the rest of the population just struggles to get by.

bluesurfer6 said:I wouldn't call it a reset; it looks more like a total collapse to me. Plus, could you actually explain what these "cycles" are? What exactly is supposed to have started anew?
Seriously though, everyone, can we please stop throwing around terms like "Great Reset" and all that? It’s starting to sound a bit like I’m standing on a street corner preaching about the apocalypse.

Exactly. And besides, look at this:

https://www.nytimes.com/section/health/