Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Religion and economics

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 8:51:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To what degree do you agree with the following statement?

Context: Evolution of capitalism from pre capitalist form of societies.

" Within the identifying theme of history of capitalist development, a crucial element involves changes in attitudes towards acquisitiveness itself. Above all, the disappearance of the ancient concern with good and evil as the most immediate and inescapable consequence of wealth gathering. The change took place because of the gradual reinterpretation of dangerous 'passion' of avarice as a benign 'interest', capable of steadying and domesticating social intercourse rather than disrupting and demoralising it."

Id say 7/10. I live in a pretty conservative/ religious community, and I have seen a fair share of people overriding opportunity of acquisition of profitable properties because the ' numbers are bad', or the ' timing is bad', or the ' rahu is in the fifth house', among innumerable reasons. Plus, any new acquisition is first cleared with a priest first.

I was wondering if I was a anomaly. How would you rate the truth of a statement, on the scale of 1-10. 10 being 'I completely agree with this.'
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 3:03:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hmmm..

I don't understand most of your second paragraph, but I would say that I agree with the statement 9/10.

Basically, avarice in the past led to starvation and death, along with all the petty jealousy that typically accompanied it - wealth was mainly measured in food production. Today, we have developed a lot of ways to stem this kind of death (refrigeration, dehydrated foods), and wealth is no longer solely measured by food production - it is much more focused on manufacturing capacity.

You can watch "The One Percent" by Jamie Johnson - he opines about this too, that even in modernity, wealth is seen as a measurement of survival (i.e., Johnson would probably rate your statement a 2/10). Personally I don't think this necessarily has to be the case anymore, although some sort of system would have to materialize that would make this a reality.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 9:09:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 8:51:23 AM, Cermank wrote:
To what degree do you agree with the following statement?

Context: Evolution of capitalism from pre capitalist form of societies.

" Within the identifying theme of history of capitalist development, a crucial element involves changes in attitudes towards acquisitiveness itself. Above all, the disappearance of the ancient concern with good and evil as the most immediate and inescapable consequence of wealth gathering. The change took place because of the gradual reinterpretation of dangerous 'passion' of avarice as a benign 'interest', capable of steadying and domesticating social intercourse rather than disrupting and demoralising it."

Id say 7/10. I live in a pretty conservative/ religious community, and I have seen a fair share of people overriding opportunity of acquisition of profitable properties because the ' numbers are bad', or the ' timing is bad', or the ' rahu is in the fifth house', among innumerable reasons. Plus, any new acquisition is first cleared with a priest first.

I was wondering if I was a anomaly. How would you rate the truth of a statement, on the scale of 1-10. 10 being 'I completely agree with this.'

Societies, pre-captitalistic and otherwise, are rarely encumbered by religious taboo (what I think is meant by 'evil' in this context) in the acquisition of property.

Religions have made bungled attempts to slow economic progress, such as usury under Islam, but avarice always prevail in the end.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it