If you have money you can think about peace, art etc. But if you have not you can think only about: where to earn.
So what is better: poor but happy or rich and unhappy
2007-12-21 06:56:26 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Psychologists have found that having enough money to meet basic human needs is necessary for happiness, but money in excess of that does not seem to make people more happy.
2007-12-21 11:06:05 · answer #1 · answered by Ace Librarian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The best is probably rich and happy, next I'll go for poor, but happy. People too often split it as a dichotomy where rich is always coupled with unhappy.
If I meet my future forever wife on a holiday in Rio and seal the love at dinner in an expensive resaurant, money has played an integral part in my happiness. In our economic system, unfortunately, a comfortable amount of money eases the path and gives you the space to do things that might make you happier. Just having it is not enough though.
There's nothing noble about being poor, it made me feel worthless and shut out.
It's partly who you are and partly money.
2007-12-21 07:47:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you can ask whether it is better to be poor and happy or rich and unhappy, then money and happiness are not synonymous.
And your last question about whether it's better to be poor and happy or rich and unhappy is too subjective for me to answer. I'd rather have excess happiness than excess wealth, but that's about as far as I'll get into it.
2007-12-21 07:10:05 · answer #3 · answered by Heather 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is what is called a subjective question.
what is better depends onthe person. Money is not synonymous with happiness. Many rich people are not happy. Happiness is also relative. What makes me happy may make you unhappy.
Nobody can say with certainty that is better than the other, only what is better to him or herself.
2007-12-21 07:04:20 · answer #4 · answered by dragonlady 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It seems the higher the corporate ladder I climb the unhappier I become. I'm surrounded by moral invalids who explain their actions as good business. They thrive on backstabbing and make believe political drama of the office.
The last time I was truly happy was when I working as a part time housepainter while going to school, driving a broken down 1967 Ford Galaxie, going to the drive-in with my girlfriend, and playing in garage bands.
2007-12-21 08:01:49 · answer #5 · answered by Alan K 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Happiness is the experience or expected experience of pleasure.
Money is currency replacing direct labor.
You can pay to get pleasure and create the 'feeling' of happiness.
You can also get pleasure from earning money and create the 'feeling' of happiness.
Money is a tool. Happiness is a goal. They are in relation but no the same.
2007-12-21 07:34:26 · answer #6 · answered by @@@@@@@@ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your premise is false. Happiness comes BEFORE money. If you're unhappy and poor, it's unlikely you'll be able to change your circumstance. If you're happy and poor, you can get money.
Many who have money and are unhappy, have an ability but not the will to become happy.
2007-12-21 07:28:10 · answer #7 · answered by livemoreamply 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
money is only a tool, no one can buy happiness or love with
money.
some think that money is everything, it is only in short run.
at the end the rich dude still is empty.
2007-12-21 07:28:43 · answer #8 · answered by not fair 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He who Binds Himself to a Joy
Does the winged life destroy
He who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in Eternity's sunrise
Desire leads to disappointment is a central theme in Buddhism
2007-12-21 07:02:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Rich, at least I would be able to be unhappy in luxury.
2007-12-21 07:07:59 · answer #10 · answered by Rabid Dog Pie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋