I Can Afford To Be Philosophical!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed May 30, 2012 6:01 am

A monetarily wealthy person once said that to me after I had told him that I thought he had said something interesting. The subject of our discussion may have been related to money.

What do you think?

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed May 30, 2012 6:14 am

He is probably right.

It is easier to be philosophical if you don't have to spend all your time trying to pay the rent and feed your family.

Doesn't necessarily mean you really know anything, but you do have more time to think about stuff.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Wed May 30, 2012 8:59 am

On the other hand, having money brings the worries as well. I have known a lot of folks who have suddenly become "wealthy" after Silicon Valley IPOs. They then had to worry about losing that money, since it seemed that everyone was out to grab some. Money needs to be managed. Even if someone is hired to manage it for them, there are the worries about whether that person can be trusted.

Hmmmm. I guess I'm not being philosophical.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 9:20 am

For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others. Their inward thought is, that their houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all generations; they call their lands after their own names. Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish.

Eheu fugaces labuntur anni, as Horace puts it.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:15 am

Given the average career span (three to 6 years) of professional baseball and football players and the huge amounts of money earned during these years, and the fact that they do not know how to manage money, is it any surprise that 60 % of them file for bankruptcy in later years?

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:18 am

What dreadful figures. Cricket's the game to choose then - a good cricketer can play at the top of the game in a national side for thirty years, and longer still at the county level.

eta: I may be out of date, I'm thinking of cricketers from when I was younger perhaps. Call it twenty these days.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:49 am

spot;1394772 wrote: What dreadful figures. Cricket's the game to choose then - a good cricketer can play at the top of the game in a national side for thirty years, and longer still at the county level.

eta: I may be out of date, I'm thinking of cricketers from when I was younger perhaps. Call it twenty these days.I believe the estimate for "three to 6 years", and albeit a very short one in my opinion at that but perhaps he's closer than my guess, is related to how competitive the sport is at the professional level without regards to one's physical endurance.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:57 am

Lon;1394771 wrote: Given the average career span (three to 6 years) of professional baseball and football players and the huge amounts of money earned during these years, and the fact that they do not know how to manage money, is it any surprise that 60 % of them file for bankruptcy in later years?Maybe they're not educated enough to know the difference between "da Benjamins" and "da binges man".

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed May 30, 2012 2:45 pm

K.Snyder;1394781 wrote: Maybe they're not educated enough to know the difference between "da Benjamins" and "da binges man".

There was a good article in the "Economist" magazine about a scholarly ex Pro Football player that went back to Columbia to get and MBA with plans to counsel pro athletes. Those that do this now do not have the pro back round and he feels this will give him an edge.

He came up with this very appropriate statement about the way these pros spend money. "They spend money like 25 year olds when they should be spending like 55 year olds".

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed May 30, 2012 7:50 pm

Lon;1394821 wrote: There was a good article in the "Economist" magazine about a scholarly ex Pro Football player that went back to Columbia to get and MBA with plans to counsel pro athletes. Those that do this now do not have the pro back round and he feels this will give him an edge.

He came up with this very appropriate statement about the way these pros spend money. "They spend money like 25 year olds when they should be spending like 55 year olds".Perhaps time is the same for everyone, the only difference being in how one spends it. If time is the same for everyone, then there is no wrong way to spend it. The only question that arises in my mind is how anyone can feel they have the right to judge what is "philosophical" and what isn't.

By default I'd say they only have the right to do so when questioning the origin of their own thoughts

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 31, 2012 1:50 am

"I can afford to be philosophical."

or

"I am unaffected by the issue under consideration and consequently my viewpoint is detached and impartial."?

I think it can be used in wider contexts than just money?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu May 31, 2012 4:01 am

This exchange took place some thirty years ago.

I wrote that I thought the conversations may have been about money but I don't really remember if it was. My reason for mentioning it was for full disclosure. But then again, from what other perspective might a self employed insurance agent be speaking from? Successful or not. It's robotic at that stage (I'm guessing he was approximately 40ish at that time) - "teach a child in a way and [s]he shall not depart form it" ( the quote goes something like that, I think).

If the subject was money then I guess it's possible this person could have meant that he had enough of it to be a bit reckless (philosophical) with it. What vulgar abuse of language, even for one such as myself, if that is indeed accurate.

I raised this issue because I thought it a shame that: 1) this person as well as most who go through our education system are instructed to put philosophical thought and inquiry behind that of consumerism (no wonder we're so bad at relationships) and; 2) that philosophical thought is a luxury that must be bought when it's been there all along but never nurtured. The price is proving to be too high. We need to adjust.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 31, 2012 4:44 am

Ahso!;1394925 wrote: I thought it a shame that ... philosophical thought is a luxury that must be bought when it's been there all along but never nurtured.
:yh_clap

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 31, 2012 4:47 am

Just had a quick look on line without success, so can't at present find the origin of it as a saying, if it is recognised as such.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu May 31, 2012 7:22 am

Clodhopper;1394937 wrote: Just had a quick look on line without success, so can't at present find the origin of it as a saying, if it is recognised as such.If you're speaking of the quote in the first paragraph in my most recent post in this thread, I believe it to be proverbs. Yes it's 22:6.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu May 31, 2012 8:04 am

Ahso!;1394925 wrote: This exchange took place some thirty years ago.

I wrote that I thought the conversations may have been about money but I don't really remember if it was. My reason for mentioning it was for full disclosure. But then again, from what other perspective might a self employed insurance agent be speaking from? Successful or not. It's robotic at that stage (I'm guessing he was approximately 40ish at that time) - "teach a child in a way and [s]he shall not depart form it" ( the quote goes something like that, I think).

If the subject was money then I guess it's possible this person could have meant that he had enough of it to be a bit reckless (philosophical) with it. What vulgar abuse of language, even for one such as myself, if that is indeed accurate.

I raised this issue because I thought it a shame that: 1) this person as well as most who go through our education system are instructed to put philosophical thought and inquiry behind that of consumerism (no wonder we're so bad at relationships) and; 2) that philosophical thought is a luxury that must be bought when it's been there all along but never nurtured. The price is proving to be too high. We need to adjust.

Well, if the guy was in his 40s thirty year ago, he could have grown up in a world before 'consumerism' really took hold.

Somehow, I never associated recklessness with philosophy.

and, yes, philosophy is a luxury for those who have enough free time to truly contemplate and reflect upon things not directly associated with their physical existence.

The guy who works 12 hours a day to bring in enough money to keep his family housed, clothed and fed, has little time for even the most basic reflection. It is not so much the education system that forces the young to put philosophical thought behind them, but the very lifestyle we lead.

Children are often philosophical. They wonder, and ask questions, but most adults are too busy to take the time to nourish that curiosity. By the time children reach their teens, most have abandoned genuine thought and are just trying to fit in.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:41 am

I believe it to be proverbs. Yes it's 22:6.

Proverbs 22:6: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

shome mishtake shurely?

Affording to be philosophical just doesn't sound Biblical to me.

"I can afford to be philosophical" does have a sense of someone who has taken a knock, but it's not THAT serious, or there are other compensations which make it minor to the person affected, so he's not going to react; whereas perhaps someone else might be seriously damaged by the same knock and so react vigorously because they can't afford to be philosophical about it.