Axil Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 In AS, Franscisco D'Anconia gives a speech on the meaning of money. He seems to imply a direct relationship between productiveness (the cause) and money (the effect). My question is not whether this is correct (I believe it isn't) but on whether corruption can enter said relationship and what to do when it does. Can the pursuit of money become a harm to someone, even if the wealth is legal and benifits the material environment of a person moreso than if he/she had not made it their main goal? Can a leaf disconnect from a root and what happens when it does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 My question is not whether this is correct (I believe it isn't) but on whether corruption can enter said relationship and what to do when it does. Can the pursuit of money become a harm to someone, even if the wealth is legal and benifits the material environment of a person moreso than if he/she had not made it their main goal? Can a leaf disconnect from a root and what happens when it does? I think you were answered by Rand in that very same essay. "Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil? "Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deviadah Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Don't know how relevant it is but the Money Speech starts with Bertram Scudder saying: "You know, money is the root of all evil – and he's the typical product of money." In 1 Timothy, 6:10, of the New Testament (KJV) it says that "the love of money is the root of all evil", but contrary to this it’s more common to say that "money is the root of all evil". The difference is that the former, and probable originator of the concept, tells us that to love money is wrong but not to use it. The latter merely states that money is wrong altogether. In conclusion, as I understand it, the Bible and Rand are in agreement because Ayn Rand, as I understand it, thinks money is nothing more than a payment for efforts that can be exchanged for the product of the efforts of others. Or am I lost in the woods? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterrose Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 What about Matthew 19:21-24? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deviadah Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 What about Matthew 19:21-24? Yes, there it is obvious it does not go along with Rand, but I was only talking about the actual phrase Root of All Evil and where it comes from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 In conclusion, as I understand it, the Bible and Rand are in agreement because Ayn Rand, as I understand it, thinks money is nothing more than a payment for efforts that can be exchanged for the product of the efforts of others.If you want to find your way out of the woods, start by grasping the significance of the fact that Rand does not agree with the Bible. The quote also comes from Jimbo Taggart and our favorite channeler Francisco; if you pay attention to the context, you will see that Rand is actually not endorsing the biblical ascetic view, she is repudiating it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.