Originally Posted by deprav
I wasn't getting upset because you weren't agreeing with me, that would be silly. I was getting upset because you and turtle were answering like condescending douchebages.
It's not that I didn't think it, both are viable point of views depending what perspective you adopt. The world isn't just one unique truth.
If you place yourself in the "present social situation" (don't really know how to put that) of our civilization and how it is actually working then yes, money is true, it exists and influence our lives as economics measure it.
If you take a step back and place yourself in an exterior perspective and considere life is suffiscient to itself, in the absolute, money (and therefore economics because they go along) doesn't make sense.
The thing is to balance both point of views to reach a "humanist" middle ground. Between primal state of life and overwhelming laws of wolrdwide exchange flux that we created.
So long as we can compare things, economics will exist. Economics is not the study of currency.
Currency makes sense from any perspective. You will have to explain further what you mean by "step back and place yourself in an exterior perspective". It seems to me that no matter how you look at it, currency is a convenient and lucid solution to abstraction of wealth.
Examining the difference between primal and modern humans? Even in primal humans a mate must be chosen by some criteria. An indigenous species of Australian birds called the 'bower bird' builds nests to attract mates. While these birds do not have the cognitive abilities to perform introspective studies, one could say that principles of economics do exist even in nature. When you look at territory owned by magpies then it's obvious that a concept of 'wealth' does exist in nature.
Thus our dependence on wealth abstraction as opposed to material wealth is not particularly relevant.
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»