On p. 143, Walter states, "There ain't no causes - there ain't nothing but taking in this world, and he who takes the most is smartest - and it don't make a damn bit of difference how." Do you think that this is true? Why or why not?
I think that this is true. I think it's true because everything in life is taken.
For example, wealthy people. Take into account three different kinds of wealthy people: one who worked hard for it, one who was given it, and one who stole it. It doesn't matter how you got it, you still have a lot of money. Sure, you could have consequences from stealing it, like going to jail, but you still had the money at one point. You might even take the riches for granted if you were given it, but you still have the money. It's real life, and you don't get a redo.
So, yes, everything in life is for the taking and it doesn't matter how you get it.
I agree with your statement, everything is taken in this world. Do you think it should be this way though? Do you think you could take from others so you could have? Do you know people who you are close to that have? If so did it affect you or did you have an opinion about it?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it should be this way. I think it's awful that we live in a dog-eat-dog world, but that's reality. I would like to think that I couldn't take from others, but we all do just by, for example, eating the food that migrant workers pick.
DeleteI feel like its unfair to say that everything in life must be taken. while its true that there's a lot of greed in the world, there are also things like sharing and charity. You even said that some wealthy people didn't do anything to earn their money, they were just given it.
DeleteI agree with this statement made by Walter because, yes, it is certainly true that mostly everything in life is taken yet you mentioned in the example that someone is given the money, so that makes me wonder if it is really taken money if someone is given it.
ReplyDeleteI think it is taken because you accept it and you have it. Everything's for the taking, because someone's gonna have that money, whether it's given to you or not.
DeleteI agree with that money is money no matter how you get it. On the other hand, I feel like there is a certain level of morality and integrity that most people have, where money is more valuable if it is earned and deserved rather than stolen.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, but the money goes to someone whether it's stolen or not.
DeleteI agree but its was saying "he who takes the most is the smartest", there is such thing as a dumb rich. a person who is rich at one point, but doesn't put the time to invest and spends it all away, one could argue that is a type of dumb rich.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I thought about when I wrote my post. To answer your question, there are plenty of ways to get rich without intelligence being involved. The person in question doesn’t even need to make bad decisions with their money; just the fact that they acquired the money with their limited skill set is enough to make them, as you said, “dumb rich.” Do people who have become rich through means that didn’t require as much hard work or education as others really deserve the money they have?
DeleteI agree that everything is for the taking, and since everyone takes something whether it be air or money, then everyone is a taker. However, the main controversial statement within this question is that whoever takes the most from this world is the smartest, and you did not address that. Do you think that the person who takes the most is the smartest?
ReplyDeleteYou specifically talked about monetary gain as your example, and I have noticed that the majority of comments up at this present moment address whether or not intelligence is required in taking the most money in this world rather than in the taking of something else instead. While Walter having personally had money taken from him was the cause of this reflective line of thought, he specifically said whoever takes the most in this world, which implies that it is not just the taking of money but of other things in this world. Therefore, I think that Walter was not referring specifically to money but rather reflecting on what he believed to be a common true.
I think it is not taking in the form of monetary gain but rather, personal gain that Walter was referring to because the value of an object is in the eye of the beholder. What I mean by this is that the intrinsic value of an object is worth more than the objective value of an object because a person wants an object based on how much they think it to be worth rather than what it is actually worth in objective reality. When Walter says, "...here ain't nothing but taking in this world, and he who takes the most is smartest...", I think he means that whoever is able to get the biggest percentage of their personal desires is the smartest. In this case, I agree with Walter because a part of achieving this personal gain would be mental in that logically, if a person gets something, they don't want to lose it unless it is a conscious decision to give their money away and they were aware of the consequences. Also, people want more than money- I think people strive for love, for friendship, for metaphysical things that cannot be bought if they are to be genuine at the beginning. I think people want to be content with themselves more than anything, so if a person can achieve that, then I think they are most certainly the smartest. However, this content feeling is still taking because it is at the cost of others wellbeing because once a person is content with themselves, they are not as amiable to the desires of others due to them no longer feeling the need to actualize people's desires in order to feel more secure within their social circle, because they won't feel the need to make up for insecurity with material objects hence lessening spending costs and hurting the economy even if in a minuscule way, and because once they are content with themselves and their position in life, they will not contribute as much to the world due to them no longer having that core intrinsic motivation to do so.
What do you think of my idea that what is to be taken is not purely monetary but rather, for personal gain and that whoever takes the largest percentage of what they want is the smartest?
Yes, but do you agree with Walter on the fact that he was saying that no matter what you take or who you take it from you have no consequences. Do you agree with his point on that?
ReplyDeleteDo you really think that everything in life is taken? We all have something that we can always hold on too forever if you want. I just don't understand what you mean by "everything in life is taken."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paloma. But there are also smart rich people, who actually take the time to make investments.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that you take EVERYTHING? What about the things that define you as a person?
ReplyDeleteWell, I believe that you take things that define you as a person from your experiences and your surroundings. These are not physical things that you take, and no one misses them. You, however, pull things that define you from your experiences and previous knowledge.
DeleteIt was once said that "the moon belongs to everyone, the best things in life are free" when this was sung people were looking to the stars for something they can call their own when the looters were taking everything. Now the looters are planning to monopolize the very rock in the sky people looked to for hope in a world where there was none that wasn't stolen by the looters.
ReplyDelete