I saw with my own eyes

The more money one has the less the need to cooperate with others and hence "selfish behavior." If you have yours then it only makes sense that you will be less willing to compromise. The egomaniacal aspects of the lucky maverick's personality collide with the essentially self-serving aspects of "giving."

However everyone to a very large degree are humbled by the frailty of humanity. In the end that is why happiness is from within. Do what makes you happy because then you'll thrive whether or not money is part of the equation.
 
Kinda ironic that his name is "Larry House" don't ya think? Surely he had gold and diamond encrusted bidets flowing Evian in all of those bathrooms.
 
Ratesquad,

"he is borderline commi....and was influenced by Marx ... so I did not really get into his works".

Communist = cretin

Capitalist = intellectual.

There's a paradox.

You must be an intellectual.

So how come some of the upper class are total philistines, opera is popular amongst some of the working class, and why am I (an oik) bored shitless with sport?

These interpretations re 'mind sets' seem to be based on European, 19th century notions of class divisions (aristocracy, merchant class, workers). While some of this persists, it's largely anachronistic and irrelevant.

Wealth has superceded breeding but there is no concomitant appreciation of what is vaguely regarded as the 'high arts' . Vast wealth is fine, but without depth?

Grant.
 
Quote from Grant:

Ratesquad,

"he is borderline commi....and was influenced by Marx ... so I did not really get into his works".

Communist = cretin

Capitalist = intellectual.

There's a paradox.

You must be an intellectual.

So how come some of the upper class are total philistines, opera is popular amongst some of the working class, and why am I (an oik) bored shitless with sport?

These interpretations re 'mind sets' seem to be based on European, 19th century notions of class divisions (aristocracy, merchant class, workers). While some of this persists, it's largely anachronistic and irrelevant.

Wealth has superceded breeding but there is no concomitant appreciation of what is vaguely regarded as the 'high arts' . Vast wealth is fine, but without depth?

Grant.
More...

Bourdie ws talking about the whole class, he did not take in occassional exceptions. Although, I see you point.

Bourdie had wrote the book in 1998. So the thesis about 19th century does not povide to be clear on your part.

"Wealth has superceded breeding but there is no concomitant appreciation of what is vaguely regarded as the 'high arts' . Vast wealth is fine, but without depth? "
Have you ever been in the Metropolitan Museum, the MOMA? Well, the way the art got in there was due to the donation by the high class. Most people attending the museum on CONSTANT BASES are either art student or high class individuals. DId you ever go to high class cocktail party? what do they talk about? You thiink business......funny.......sometimes but, its not only business its arts as well. Although, I see your points butmy professor would eat you alive if you gave your opinion to her. And tell you the truth high class does not watch that often.....hmmm what do they do for fun I ponder?
 
Rateesquad,

Bourdie is using stereotypes/cliches based on 19th century notions of the European class structure.

“he did not take in occasional exceptions”. Being selective hardly constitutes, or even aspires to, scientific legitimacy.

His theory of class attributes is, like the river of Heraclitus, in a constant state of flux, and it also lacks a logical basis. Someone is born in poverty, and they enjoy drink, football, etc. Then they start to make money in business and enjoy the finer things that money can buy – wines, luxury holidays, possibly the lower end of the art market (which is possibly exceptional). In due course, he acquires a fortune and becomes “upper class”. Does he now reject or avoid his working class enjoyments in favour of the more refined? Does the new suppress the old? Is their a dormant area of the brain suddenly activated by wealth whereby a profound love and understanding of the quattrocento emerges? Leave it out.

Some MOMA donors may well be genuine and philanthropic. Do you think there may also be an element of the vogue, the “me too” syndrome and a desire (need) to be identified, and recognised, as upper class? Does this philanthropy go beyond the MOMA? Do they pay their maids above the going rate? Do you know what a philistine is?

Perhaps we should look at definitions here. In the US, high class/upper class = wealth. In the UK, upper class (we don’t use high class) = aristocracy, where wealth may be significant but so is relative poverty. If you are an impoverished earl without a pot to piss in, you are still upper class, ie at the top of the class structure. The wealthy (without titles) are upper-middle class.

That’s the difference between the UK and US: the US thinks wealth equals style. In the UK, style is independent of wealth. Further, we no longer live in a deferential society, although it seems the Americans (generally) equate wealth with wisdom, and hence a respect derived from shaky foundations.

This may seem like an anti-US rant. It isn’t. The truth is, depressingly, this is how the UK is developing.

Only Americans have cocktail parties (and wear tuxedos to weddings).

“high class does not watch that often” I’m sorry, to what does this refer

If your prof would eat me alive, she must be anorexic.

Grant.
 
Grant,

Read my answers/question in parenthesis, next to the text

Bourdie is using stereotypes/cliches based on 19th century notions of the European class structure. (But, in the book, The State Nobility he talks about America class structure.......ok, I sppose you havent read the book.......still the argument can be compeling)

“he did not take in occasional exceptions”. Being selective hardly constitutes, or even aspires to, scientific legitimacy. (Precisely)

His theory of class attributes is, like the river of Heraclitus, in a constant state of flux, and it also lacks a logical basis. (Not really, he is a Marxist, his points are really clear)

Someone is born in poverty, and they enjoy drink, football, etc.
Then they start to make money in business and enjoy the finer things that money can buy – wines, luxury holidays, possibly the lower end of the art market which is possibly exceptional. In due course, he acquires a fortune and becomes “upper class”. Does he now reject or avoid his working class enjoyments in favour of the more refined? (NO...NO...NO...that is precisely his point......that money cannot change the person, he can fake to be something else...but he is not...although in MY OPINION, the person will eventually change if he fakes it for a long time.)

Does the new suppress the old? (Well thats called the revolution. The revolution can be not only political. It can be inside the person....to be more clear 'revolution' of the personality.

Is their a dormant area of the brain suddenly activated by wealth whereby a profound love and understanding of the quattrocento emerges? Leave it out. (maybe. Bourdieu did not study this. I did not participate or acknowledge such transition.)

Some MOMA donors may well be genuine and philanthropic. Do you think there may also be an element of the vogue, the “me too” syndrome and a desire (need) to be identified, and recognised, as upper class? (OF course. You always want to be better than some one. Lets take for example T.O., look at him he considers himself to be on top of the hierarchy in football. the point is you always want to satisfy your ego. Being upper class, the top of the hierarchy......satisfies the EGO to the furthest degree.)

Does this philanthropy go beyond the MOMA? (YA)

Do they pay their maids above the going rate? ( I do not know, and I do not think you would know either unless you do the taxes for them or you are yourself in an upper class.)

Do you know what a philistine is? (you mean the want to be country in Israel, with terrorists?)

Perhaps we should look at definitions here. In the US, high class/upper class = wealth. In the UK, upper class (we don’t use high class) = aristocracy, where wealth may be significant but so is relative poverty. If you are an impoverished earl without a pot to piss in, you are still upper class, ie at the top of the class structure. The wealthy (without titles) are upper-middle class.(RIGHT)

That’s the difference between the UK and US: the US thinks wealth equals style. (Not really, look at Warren Buffet)

In the UK, style is independent of wealth. Further, we no longer live in a deferential society, although it seems the Americans (generally) equate wealth with wisdom, and hence a respect derived from shaky foundations. (IF you say so.)

This may seem like an anti-US rant. It isn’t. The truth is, depressingly, this is how the UK is developing. (RIGHT)

Only Americans have cocktail parties (and wear tuxedos to weddings). (Ok, what is the point of that?)

“high class does not watch that often” I’m sorry, to what does this refer (TV)

If your prof would eat me alive, she must be anorexic. (not really, she is actually is pretty fit for her age)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top