Age and trading
- Thread starter nljones5
- Start date
So you believe that happiness comes from the ability to buy things? That you can measure happiness in square footage, horsepower and clothing labels?
If this is true, why is it that the statistical distribution of happy people vs. unhappy people seems to have zero correlation to financial class?
i.e. take a group of 100 "poor" people and a group of 100 "wealthy" people, and you are likely to find an equal distribution of happiness and misery in both groups.
Another question: would you prefer to be a filthy rich lonely asshole with a family that despises you, or a run of the mill blue collar joe with not much to brag about except a loving family and a circle of true friends?
While I agree that it is important to think and study in a comprehensive way about metaphysics if we are going to broach the subject at all, and to realize that what we know is incomplete to say the least (whether one continues studying for life or quits at some point), I am very skeptical about knowing absolute truths. I only accept "absolute truths" on a social level, where these truths are relate to our inter-personal political-social community and we must accept certain premises in order to interact with one another.
However, the closest thing we have to understanding an objective absolute truth is mathematics, and even Bertrand Russel showed that human understanding of math is itself limited by contradictory premises (ex-Russel's paradox). To the extent that we "know" that the proven laws of physics accurately explain things, even physicists, such as Steven Hawkins, have noted that other dimensions/universes could exist that are dictaed by entirely different physics.
More than all of this, though, is the fact that we must realize that what we see and know is nothing but the infitessmal perceptions of a human being, that sees only what he/she sees through the faith of our senses. The fact that we see something as red does not mean that that item is in fact red. That we feel something as smooth/hard, cold/warm, only means that this is what we sense. What if there are more important things to sense, and we lack the sensors. To be sure, we don't even know for certain if said item exists, or if anything exists.
All that I know is that I think and therefore I am. That, and that ultimately I am severely limited in what I can know and understand about the universe. Even if, hypothetically, God (or an imaginary all powerful being for those who don't believe in God) opened up all reality and truth to us, and even if, for the sake of argument, our miniscule senses could accurately perceive this truth, it is unlikely that we would be capable of comprehending this truth (at least beyond a very small basis).
None of this is to say that there is nothing fulfilling or that it is necessarily fruitless to think about metaphysics. As a matter of fact, it helps us to keep perspective on the "bigger picture" (above all of the petty social and market driven obsessions we often get caught up in), and it helps to hone our reasoning and critical thinking skills for interacting in our social world.
However, while it is silly to simply accept anything because it fits our purposes (like many conspiracists and many religious people do-how many virgins to radical muslums get in the afterlife for killing civilians?), regardless of whether it has been "proven" to the best of our abilities (or whether it is founded), to say that we should "only accept proven and absolute truths" about the metaphysical world (and to compare this endeavor for knowledge to trading of all things) is to assume that these absolute truths are something that we are capable of discovering and fully comprehending in the first place. Ultimately, the question will forever be, "what are we capable of knowing."
Just my 2 cents. Change anyone?
However, the closest thing we have to understanding an objective absolute truth is mathematics, and even Bertrand Russel showed that human understanding of math is itself limited by contradictory premises (ex-Russel's paradox). To the extent that we "know" that the proven laws of physics accurately explain things, even physicists, such as Steven Hawkins, have noted that other dimensions/universes could exist that are dictaed by entirely different physics.
More than all of this, though, is the fact that we must realize that what we see and know is nothing but the infitessmal perceptions of a human being, that sees only what he/she sees through the faith of our senses. The fact that we see something as red does not mean that that item is in fact red. That we feel something as smooth/hard, cold/warm, only means that this is what we sense. What if there are more important things to sense, and we lack the sensors. To be sure, we don't even know for certain if said item exists, or if anything exists.
All that I know is that I think and therefore I am. That, and that ultimately I am severely limited in what I can know and understand about the universe. Even if, hypothetically, God (or an imaginary all powerful being for those who don't believe in God) opened up all reality and truth to us, and even if, for the sake of argument, our miniscule senses could accurately perceive this truth, it is unlikely that we would be capable of comprehending this truth (at least beyond a very small basis).
None of this is to say that there is nothing fulfilling or that it is necessarily fruitless to think about metaphysics. As a matter of fact, it helps us to keep perspective on the "bigger picture" (above all of the petty social and market driven obsessions we often get caught up in), and it helps to hone our reasoning and critical thinking skills for interacting in our social world.
However, while it is silly to simply accept anything because it fits our purposes (like many conspiracists and many religious people do-how many virgins to radical muslums get in the afterlife for killing civilians?), regardless of whether it has been "proven" to the best of our abilities (or whether it is founded), to say that we should "only accept proven and absolute truths" about the metaphysical world (and to compare this endeavor for knowledge to trading of all things) is to assume that these absolute truths are something that we are capable of discovering and fully comprehending in the first place. Ultimately, the question will forever be, "what are we capable of knowing."
Just my 2 cents. Change anyone?
Originally posted by trader88
I'd rather be a filthy rich asshole with a loving family and a circle of true friends.
No reason why one shouldn't have the best of both worlds.
Right, but my point is that there are more important things.
And oftentimes, one is sacrificed for the other. I look at all the CEO's of these fortune 500 companies for example, and I see a bunch of losers. They've worked 80 hour weeks for twenty years straight, ignored their families and gone through multiple marriages during the whole process, missed out on life in general, and for what? A big yacht with their name on the side? Give me a break.
Money is nothing more than a tool, like a hammer or a compass.
Only a tool would worship a tool, in my opinion.
And why are people so willingly spoon fed this madison avenue crap? This whole "i've got stuff so i have a better life" image is crafted by THE GUYS WHO WANT TO SELL YOU THE STUFF.
I agree with the last comments of both Darkhorse and Trader 88 (happiness and friendship/loving family are not necessarily mutually exclusive, depending on what it took to get that money, and whether money was your means or your end). However, if we are talking about our idea of a perfect life, ideally I would be filthy rich, with a loving family and a true circle of friends, AND have a fulfilling career in which I have faced many of the challenges I want to face AND have achieved many of the things I want to achieve (money NOT being an achievement but rather a lucky spoil for me). Then I would give most of the money to help those who never had a chance for a comfortable life (much less to live my ideal life), while saving/spending the rest to do the things that I've been blessed in this imaginary life with the opportunity of doing (traveling, owning my own prof sports teams and making personnel decisions, having my own chef, etc). Does anyone know what the latest powerball jackpot is worth??
I Sooooooooooooooooooo concur with Darkhorse. I have thought hard about these things and have felt the same way for as long as I can remember. However, I must admit that when one is suffering from heavy debt, as I am, does FORCE ONE to make money more a priority than one ever hoped it would be. That doesn't mean its your end. To the contrary, money is the means to the end of freedom in this case (at least with regards to getting out of debt), but getting money and thinking about getting money is now more of a priority than I ever wanted it to be. And somehow I must supress this so that it doesn't sabotage my trading.
Boat:
Did u study philosophy in school? I only ask because the points you made suggest you are familiar w/ Kant's categoriocentric predicament as well as the obvious Descartes reference.
I agree in large part with your observations: we are MUCH more ignorant than we know. If people realized that they know a lot less than they think they do, it would solve a big portion of the problem because we wouldn't be so cocky in our pronouncements.
Kant's nifty argument that we can never be sure of anything does not excuse us from making the search, however. And it doesn't give us the ability to never make a conclusion and shrug our shoulders at the end of the road- "hey, according to Kant...."
The fact that we can think and use logic to discern truths about our reality neutralizes Kant's predicament to some degree I think. If we are all being fooled by a malignant demon, then everything is folly anyway. Therefore we have to operate on the premise that our experiences have validity, or else there is no point in moving forward at all. Any time we act on a belief or try to act consistently we are accepting the validity of our perceived experience by default.
The mystic who says 'I understand nothing and accept nothing' and yet jumps up when you overturn a cup of hot tea in his lap is demonstrating his hypocrisy.