Can you enjoy life without money?

Lets say you had nothing you have now, but only enough money to buy the staples. Would you still enjoy your life to the fullest?

Already there!

Hahah yep same here, unemployment sucks, my unemployment checks are going to be running out soon. =/

No, I don't think that I would enjoy to the fullest. What I have now is great, but those wants and needs change. I always want something new, and if I was never able to do anything more than pay the light bill or buy groceries I would be a very un-happy camper!

Death and taxes - both cost money and are unavoidable. It seems unlikely I'd be happy knowing that I'd be leaving my family in debt at some future point.

JohnCL said:

I always want something new, and if I was never able to do anything more than pay the light bill or buy groceries I would be a very un-happy camper!

Click to expand...

Happiness doesn't have to be implicitly linked with material goods. It is very possible to have an enjoy lifestyle that doesn't depend on consumer consumption.

XJ-linux said:

It seems unlikely I'd be happy knowing that I'd be leaving my family in debt at some future point.

Click to expand...

How so? If you lived within your means and only spent on what you needed, you would have no reason to be in debt. The only reason people go into debt these days is because most, if not all people, live beyond their financial means. In fact, a simplistic lifestyle would be much more prone towards ensuring a debt-free lifestyle.

BlueMac, this is a very philosophical question and a good one as well. Unless you live this way, it's a very hard question to answer because most of us here are used to lifestyles where disposable income (in terms of finances that go beyond the staples) are a reality. When you become comfortable with one lifestyle, any lifestyle outside of this becomes hard to fathom unless it leads to an enrichment of your current lifestyle - this is why most people want to be rich. Financial destitution does not equate to emotional destitution. I realize that we aren't talking about destitution here but I would be willing to bet that may pro-consumerists would see a basic lifestyle as fairly equivalent to destitution.

I am not a Buddhist myself but the teachings of Buddhism illustrate well the need to move away from material attachment. The second noble truth, discussing the origin of suffering, considers this idea. To quote this page, "The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging." The argument I want to flesh out of this is that although material goods can bring temporary joy, they can also lead to distress if you don't get them or they become dysfunctional or broken (for example). If you are never given the opportunity to experience these kinds of incidents, you are free from attachment that leads to suffering.

Those who have attachments to material goods become more distressed if they are taken away - there is more to lose. A larger dependence on consumer goods leads to a much greater potential for distress and angst. In my opinion, people become accustomed to a lifestyle characterized by material grandeur - as soon as this is threatened, people become flustered and unnecessarily frustrated. Once you become accustomed to one way of life, it becomes much easier to fall that rise so to speak in terms of happiness.

So, if you only had the money for the staples of life, you may not necessarily be happier but you would be better insulated from the greed that comes with a consumerist lifestyle that can be financially supported. On top of this, much of what many of us in the group with disposable income see as normal or simple may provide happiness to those living on the basics. As such, more has the potential to make them happy because it isn't normal.

Unfortunately, Vansmith - you overlook one point of death that I think XJ may have been at least partially referring to - the cost involved.

Unless no one is alive to care about you, and you die on a desert island - in the US there is a cost - sometimes substantial - that goes along with death. Funeral expenses, coffin (or urn), and other fees can cost between 6K and 10K fairly easily. Even if you prepay, it could still cost money for some fees that aren't covered (simple example, my wifes grandfather just recently passed away - he had prepaid his funeral expenses, but there were still around $400 other fees that had to be covered at the time of his funeral) - those costs, unless you have life insurance to cover those costs (which many don't) would usually be passed on to your family members.

This is not to debate the importance or non-importance of material goods and money - just the cost involved and passed on via death - even if you have no debt to speak of when you die. Even if you have no family, and the state buries you, that cost is passed on to the tax payer because it's out of taxpayer funds (either from state or federal level) that covers things like that.

Would I love to be 100% satisfied with nothing? Sure. Is it going to happen? Probably not - I like technology and it fascinates me - even if I didn't own it if I could use it somewhere on a regular basis I'd probably be happy - but even that is costing someone money.

Nethfel said:

Unfortunately, Vansmith - you overlook one point of death that I think XJ may have been at least partially referring to - the cost involved.

Unless no one is alive to care about you, and you die on a desert island - in the US there is a cost - sometimes substantial - that goes along with death. Funeral expenses, coffin (or urn), and other fees can cost between 6K and 10K fairly easily. Even if you prepay, it could still cost money for some fees that aren't covered (simple example, my wifes grandfather just recently passed away - he had prepaid his funeral expenses, but there were still around $400 other fees that had to be covered at the time of his funeral) - those costs, unless you have life insurance to cover those costs (which many don't) would usually be passed on to your family members.

Click to expand...

It could also be argued that paying for inhumation is a basic fee in life. Since everyone has to die eventually, everyone will have to pay for it at some point. As such, I would consider it a staple of basic finance in many societies. For me, anything that you have to pay for is a basic financial requirement, funeral services included.

To be picky as well, the question posed was whether limited material attachment would make someone happy. To be fair, if you're dead, you're not enjoying life anymore. The question was posed as to whether you would enjoy life, not your family. If you've passed away, personal finances are irrelevant to you . Whether you enjoy life or not is irrelevant because you aren't alive. True, happiness can be found in knowing that you're family will not suffer undue fiscal hardship because of your death. To go back though to what I said earlier, funeral services are an essential financial burden. It could therefore qualifies as a staple of life (despite the irony of funeral services as a requirement of life).

Another question would be one's definition of "staples of life". More importantly, who tells ME what MY staples of life should be? Is "3 hot's and a cot" good living to you? It doesn't sound very fun to me. Then again, it might be possible to truly embrace sustenance living if one's mind was somehow erased of past experience and notions. Or, if one was forced to live that way out of powerlessness of the situation. The old "Once the pig's seen the big city, it's hard to go back to the farm." folk-ism kind of seems to apply here for me - I know what I'm going to be missing. And where are all these "staple needs" being met, and by whom? A Communist regime? A prison system? Religion? It's kind of hard to imagine some Utopian benevolent institution actually working in the long run, given history's examples of how we behave over time. That's just me though. It's a nice thought.

I love money.

Village Idiot said:

I love money.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

Village Idiot said:

I love money.

Click to expand...

+1!

I'm happiest when I'm waiting on something coming through the door!

If I had no money, I think I'd be pretty depressed.

I watched a show on TV a few days a go, 'Rich, successful and homeless' where a bunch of successful people got put on the street with nothing for 7 days. What they went through was unbelievable and to think with the recession etc, some people really aren't far away from being there. Put it this way, if I seen a homeless guy on the street I'd certainly got to an atm and get them some cash.

Unfortunately No.

Things become a lot easier when you have it, there is no getting away from the fact.

For me to be happy it is simple as enjoyment of what I do and making sure that those around me are enjoying their lives. I can and have been putting aside my own needs to help with the needs of others.

I think I can be happy as long as I have something to paint on. ^-^"

Village Idiot said:

I love money.

Click to expand...

mdfuller said:

Ditto.

Click to expand...

martyp said:

If I had no money, I think I'd be pretty depressed.

Click to expand...

My question for you three then is this: if you never had the money, would you ever know the kinds of "joy" it brings you? Probably not - you'd cope and find alternate ways to be happy. People without money don't just accept being unhappy.

Do you not think happiness can at any level be had without money? It's doesn't cost money to be complemented but it makes me pretty happy (this is just one example). Can you genuinely say that if you were living on a subsistence style income, you wouldn't be able to find any shred of happiness? Not to be mean, but if you can't, you're living a fairly shallow life characterized by superficial happiness.

Money isn't the only "green" that keeps me happy

DarkArt said:

Money isn't the only "green" that keeps me happy

Click to expand...

What are these other "greens" that you speak of?

vansmith said:

Can you genuinely say that if you were living on a subsistence style income, you wouldn't be able to find any shred of happiness? Not to be mean, but if you can't, you're living a fairly shallow life characterized by superficial happiness.

Click to expand...

I think the OP referred to "enjoying life to the fullest", and not a "shred of happiness". And, actually, there wasn't a qualification on the type of happiness, superficial or otherwise.

The short answer: No.