Have Times Changed?

[China Doll]

'...Affection is desirable. Money is absolutely necessary.... Nothing destroys the spirit like poverty...'

In this day and age and in a western society do you these sentiments still hold any merit?

And if so, in what context?

Cheers
China.

[Romeo]

1) Affection is desirable? - yes, if by affection you mean goodwill, love and kindness, then affection is indeed a good thing.

2) Money is absolutely necessary? - debatable. It may be possible, in theory, to have a social system without money, but for now it is something we have to accept. Even so, wealth should be redistributed so that there is not a huge gap between rich and poor.

3) Nothing destroys the spirit like poverty? - I totally agree, poverty is a bad thing, depriving people of their needs and abilities, and can lead people to despair, addictions and crime. But it should be kept in mind that even rich people suffer from depression and addictions. Money doesn't buy happiness.

In short, we all have needs and desires. When our needs are fulfilled, we turn to desires, and the pursuit of these desires can lead to misery.

[jake-the-peg]

I think this was from the film "Becoming Jane"? I saw it in the cinema but that was a while ago now.

As I recall the context of this is that it's presented as an "either or". If you don't marry a rich man you will find yourself in poverty.

There's a very deliberate irony here in that Jane never marries and yet manages to support herself very well from her writings and was probablyt he first woman in England to do so.

So if we translate to affection to (affection in marriage) then Jane eventuall makes the choice her father wants but not in the way he expects.

In that same context of an "either or" the choice is clearly no longer there in western society that a woman needs to choose between a well off husband and poverty but we need to remember that poverty in Jane Austin's day was real poverty with a capital "P".

I think some women and presuamably some men make the same choice of affection and riches - a slightly different Faustian bargain but one that's been going on for thousands of years

[China Doll]

You're right regarding the film title, it was from there and was just a couple of lines that stood out. Not just from a matrimony context.

I'm aware of what it meant in Jane Austen's time (she was rather a large part of my dissertation) but I think it does still apply today but perhaps not quite in the same way.

I don't think that women or men have to make the same choices or sacrifices in this day and age but I do think there is still some truth in these sentiments. Consider what it would be like if you and your partner spent all your time making ends meet, worrying about money, not always being able to do what you want to do and absolutely always having to compromise, (as opposed to occasionally having it your way). Do you think love can still survive and thrive in that sort of circumstance and given all those obsticles? I'm sure some ABers will say it can and my own mother would have a blue fit if she saw me suggesting that it might not. However, personally I don't think I could live like that and stay in love. It's too much of a struggle and I'd end up resentful and tired.

Does that make me shallow? Maybe. I don't know. Would I settle for a life with just money but no affection? I know I couldn't. But some people do. Does that make them bad people or just doing what is necessary to get by?

And as for destroying the spirit like poverty I'm inclined to believe that to be absolutely true. I think Romeo made some very good points in his/her secion 3.

I'm not sure money can buy happiness. But it can certainly make life a whole lot easier.

[VillageVicar]

From my old theatre days, there�s a line I�ve had stuck in my mind for over twenty-five years. It�s from the Sound of Music and it came from Herr Maximillian Detweiller, the freeloading Uncle Max as he spoke to the Baroness: It seems to rather vividly sum up many of the people I deal with from day to day:

�I like rich people, I like they way they live, I like the way I live when I�m with them!�

Personally, I�ve earned enough in my life to satisfy all of my needs�and most of my caprices.

But my greatest happiness, rewards, and celebrations have come from places where money meant nothing.

Fr Bill

[China Doll]

Really? What about the idea that it is only those who have plenty of money that think money doesn't matter?

Also, your happiest moments may well have come from things that have nothing to do with material wealth. However, if you did not have the material wealth (you imply you're secure financially) would you have been able to have those moments that brought you such happiness?

Just thinking aloud.

[jake-the-peg]

I always think that happy people make happy millionaires and miserable people make miserable millionaires.

But having said that everybody has so called "hygiene factors" basic needs like food and a place to live warmth etc.

So some money is an absolute necessity - even monks have these needs but they're met by an institution.

The key thing is though when your "needs" grow and your larger house and better car become a necessity to you.

If you give some people a few miilion they'll be down at Monte Carlo wishing they could afford a yacht.

There are probably a very few people who are rich beyond any desires - many of them probably wish they were younger and fitter and better looking

[China Doll]

I understand what you're saying. To an extent I agree.

But I fail to see how people can be happy in life if they're constantly struggling.

To me, just 'having each other' as someone else put it recently when having a similar discussion is not enough.

Simarly, while I have no doubt that the Vicar's happiest moments have been entirely without any material regard, I would question whether he would have been able to follow his inclinations if he wasn't finacially secure.

I am aware that there is some scope to say I'm a little on the cynacle (I prefer pragmatic) side.

[ruby27]

Hiya thief, am going to have a real go at you before I answer your question. How dare you use up all of the sensible answers leaving me with nothing to indicate that my responses should be revered as words of wisdom?

Bad tempered bitch response over, now to the answer

I think love is the necessary glue between parent and child, the parent giving the child receiving.

Outside of that relationship affection is desirable but not necessary. Certainly in the West I consider we have totally over rated the romantic relationship between adults. Our partner is our lover, best friend, parent of our offspring - pretty tall order for anyone person. I do think there is a kind of well if my relationship isn�t quite as depicted in the glossies or any other media, I will trade it in for a newer model. Personally I think respect and a commitment to hard work on our relationships, including family life is infinitely more important and rewarding long term

Money and poverty. Money or means of providing for your basics - such as food and shelter are essential. But, more than that is desirable not necessary. (My opinion). Poverty does destroy the spirit but this isn't just about finances. You can have cash in hand but have no hope, no future, and no aspirations - that�s poverty of the soul (poetic soul rather than one that some god is going to add to its tally come death). If you visit some housing estates in this country it�s a bleak, bleak place where it is hard to feel any hope and opportunity.

A good question � no easy answer.

Bye way green with jealousy that you studied Jane. Brilliant, brilliant writer.

[China Doll]

Cheeky mare! But thank you... I'm taking it as a back handed compliment... ;0)

Interesting point you raised about children, I hadn't thought of it in those terms.

Poverty of the soul where there is cash in your hand still means you have some freedom though doesn't it? You have the freedom to get up and change easier than someone who just has nothing? Do you not think there's an argument that money can buy freedom? And since freedom is something we all aspire to, then perhaps money can buy happiness?

(Studying Jane was actually my second choice as it goes, I never wanted to. I didn't understand her and thought she just wrote sappy, love stories. I still don't understand her completely but I admire her greatly. I studied her alongside Mary Wolstencraft in the end regarding who was the more revolutionary female writer of the time. I was quite suprised at my conclusions.

However I also got to study Bob Dylan... now that was fun!)

[ruby27]

I think poverty outside of the basics is so subjective. To me poverty is lack of opportunity to have work that is challenging and fun, to have access (and by access I mean the love of taught when a tiddler) books and now the Internet, galleries, the seaside, family and friends and hats - I suppose a wide range of experiences and opportunity. but, this is my choice and my partner would be totally bereft if he couldn't follow his football team - sad git that he is.

So some cash is better than non, but there are always people who seem to achieve against all adversity whilst others handed out opportunities still seem to throw everything away. So I come down to the view that money can improve your lot, or make it harder but doesn't essentially provide you with the ability to be happy or not.

Bitch, bitch, bitch, not only do you steal answers but you studied the two women I would have studied if I had gone on to do Lit or Women history. not fair sulk
Mind you did you ever wonder why Mary gave birth such an idiot daughter, how can such a bright spark have taken up with Shelly. I mean she must have been more than in love with him, totally besotted comes to mind.

[China Doll]

Hmmmm (to quote the guru)... There's a little of me that is very, very jealous of that idiots daughter to be so compounded by her sensibilities rubes; I wonder what it would take to love someone that much. I wonder what she'd have to say to a question like this? How do you even begin to function? And what of the shadow she lived in with Wolstencraft as a mother? Not to mention her daddyO. She was a screwed up little madam no doubt. But yet, such passion...

Frankenstein is one of the most remarkable books in the history of time ever. Just brilliant.

It's very interestingt...Wolstencraft demanded rights, Austen demanded that women prove themselves to be the intellectual equals of men and thus deserved to have the same rights. As well as chastising men for encouraging them to be simpering fools. But she did it so subtley. A brillian mind. I still read all her books (Austen) at least twice a year and I still can't decide on my favourite. Or my favourite character for that matter.

And then some silly tart comes along and bases a character called Bridget on Elizabeth Bennet! If I was Austen, after I'd finished doing my 360 turn I'd have come back in ghost form and b1tch slapped that author... Talk about getting the wrong end of the stick!

That said, short of being able to spout on endlessly about various books I've read my degree is pretty much next to useless ;0)

[VillageVicar]

China: With hand on heart, I can honestly say that the happiest times, the most fulfilling and profoundly memorable times I have had in my life have come when I had no money, or was in situations where money was worthless. I had to re-read what I wrote when you suggested that I implied that I was financially secure. Actually, everything I�ve earned I�ve invested, or donated, or whatever one wishes to call it, in my social responsibility programmes. There will never be a financial return - I never set them up that way. However, the return I do receive is priceless.

Within my role, I serve some people who are extremely wealthy in monetary terms. However, they�re constantly awash in a state of misery and discontent that in my eyes, all seems to centre around their obsession with owning things.

When I was a child, I had an immeasurable love for my riding instructor. In many ways, she was more of a mother to me than my own. She dished out some extremely abstract comments on occasions that didn�t make a lot of sense to my young ears. But later in life, they�ve had a resonance to them that constantly reverberate in my heart. One line she threw at me was �You�d better get out there and live every single hour of every single day as hard as you can.� She then took a deep breath and added �Because if you don�t, you�ll never have anything to talk about in the locker room when you�re old!� I think I was only nine when she said this�but bless her socks�it did stick with me!

Continued:

[VillageVicar]

Part 2

Yes, I have had the benefit of material things. But they are merely what they imply � things. They returned nothing, they gave nothing, nor did they serve any purpose other than fuelling my societal psyche of impressionable youth.

And I might add that in all the times I�ve sat beside the bed of a person whose life is ebbing away, not once, not one single time, have any of those people asked to have their bank statements, jewellery, Ipods, or property-deeds beside them. Instead, what they�ve longed for is someone who loves them.

Have times changed. No. Not really

Fr Bill

[China Doll]

I can't disagree with you on the sitting by peoples bedsides.

However... I will pick you up on one thing if I may. You start these programmes, which I'm sure are very worthy and help a lot of people. However, as much as they need you love and support, do they not need some form of financial aid too to help them re-start? Or for support? Or even if your programmes just provide them with somewhere to go? Did their poverty not crush them and force them in to all sorts of horrid situations? (I've seen some of your postings).

So surely you have to agree that to an extent money/financial aid could definitely make a big difference to their lives?

(Honestly not trying to belittle what you do, just trying to understand differernt viewpoints as I very much agree with the statements above).

[VillageVicar]

China: I don�t think I suggested that money isn�t beneficial in a variety of ways. My children in Moldova are all victims of the most horrific, distressing, and violent acts against children one could imagine. And whilst finances support the infrastructure, pay salaries, etc., it does not provide what the child needs most � someone to love them.

Here at home, our government provides shelter for countless children. Those in care receive all the essential elements to sustain life, as well as text-book guidance until they�re passed along to the next governmental programme. But that never provides what the child needs most � someone to love them, to celebrate their accomplishments and to mourn their losses.

Our elderly are treated in an appalling manner, warehoused in facilities that sometimes resemble nothing more than waiting rooms for death. Money could enhance their quality of living and provide them with activities to arrest the endless tedium, but it doesn�t create someone to love them, to be there with them, to listen to their stories and to honour their accomplishments.

Our deceased are treated in an dreadful manner. Behind the scenes they become marketable commodities, where survivors are led to believe they can assuage their guilt over having never shown a scintilla of care for their family member, by paying huge sums for a MDF box lined with old newspapers and a ride in a posh mini-cab. Or alternatively, which is more often the case than you�d imagine, they�re �dispatched� in a way that�s not supposed to incense our sensibilities. But that never provides that individual who lived, loved, hurt, and grew what they deserve most � recognition and celebration of all they contributed to our world.

Can money make a difference to the journey? Of course it can. Can it make a difference to the end result? I�m not so sure.

Fr Bill

[ruby27]

V V

You have a pretty grim view of life in this country don't you.

There are children, elderly, people with disability, and the perfectly fit and not in the slightest way vulnerable, who are not cared for. But, most people do have loving albeit not perfect families.

There are care homes that have lost or never had the care component, but again this is the exception rather than the rule, most workers in the home for the eldery or the children, are dedicated to providing good quality care. They don't 'love' as a relative but they do celebrate and cherish the people they look after.

Sorry this isn't quite on track with the thread but I find V V second post a bit one sided. Mind you I love that point about no one asking for the bank statement as a form of comfort as they are dieing!

[Octavius]

Golly, lots of headache inducing philosophy above, so I'll go the simple life view.

I would think that generally speaking �
Money is desirable, affection is essential and nothing destroys the spirit like greed and envy.

But in a Western society it is pretty much as you say.

In another time and place, with enough food and drink and self sufficiency, I could probably live quite happily in a cave with Mrs O(ctavius, not the other one). It is only the society we live in that makes us want what everyone else has got, or more of it and better.