3 Nerd-Its - +

Academic Wank

Comment a comment by Barry (Occams), published on 17 November 2009
Navigate to the top level to view all replies to the article Money as Symbolic
other nerds have left 12 comments below

Thanks David, I enjoyed that.

However, although I don’t disagree with any of what you have said, I can’t help feeling that it is an academic wank. By that I mean that your learned colleagues manage to read much more into this thing than is really there.

Nevertheless, this line of thought might still be worthwhile if it helps us to understand how money affects our lives and the things we should avoid in using it. I doubt that you have done this yet because it seems to boil down to the old saws that “money cannot buy happiness”, and “you can’t take it with you”. Every kid understands that.

Money is merely a convenient tool for trading. The alternative of bartering has so many limitations that the modern world could not function that way.

The fascinating implications of money, morality and mortality that you discuss are merely an outcome of the trading system and human nature. Even the divisions that money creates in our society are an outcome of the trading system and money is not the real cause. That is avarice or competition, money is only the indicator.

Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
3 Nerd-Its - +
RE: Academic Wank by davidcgore :: NR6

Occams,

It is certainly academic work. Reading more into something than is there is, in some ways, a working definition of academic work (except any academic will tell you that it’s there, you just have to attend to it). Academicizing a problem is nothing that needs apologizing for. And there are academic “uses” that have nothing to do with everyday uses: thought experiments that remain just that, arguments that hone our analytic skills, looking into the history of a subject, examining the controversies surrounding the subject, &c. As Stanley Fish has noted, an academic inquiry does not ask, “What is the right thing to do?” but “Is this account of the matter attentive to the complexity of the issue?”

Politicians, doctors, lawyers, engineers, I leave it to them to ask the first question. I tried to make my analysis above answer the second question with regard to treating money as a symbol. I have actually thought a lot about how this is useful to my everyday life in a not strictly academic sense. For example, you say this is just the old saws of children, but then you go right back to money as merely a tool for trading. It may be a mere tool, but I contend the tool has symbolic power. I nowhere advocated for a world without money. That would make the wheels of life grind to a halt. I only ask here for a world that attends to the symbolic of money, to its power as a motive, and our impulse to seek money as an end.

I think you’re probably right that money is not the real problem, but I think that is what I was saying all along here. The symbol of money – the, to use your words, trading systems, avarice, and competition indicated and implied by money are the real source of our woes. ’Tis true. But perhaps by attending more to the symbolic power of money we might imagine different trading systems, or realize that so much of our present economy depends, in fact, on temperance – not avarice, cooperation – not competition.

See that pesky loop we’re in when we think symbolically. The money symbol divides as well as unites. All symbols, actually, do this. That lesson is an important one, both academically and for everyday.

DG

The Showcase

Nerd-Its   Nerd Trends   Last Ten  

  1. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  2. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  3. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  4. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  5. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  6. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  7. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  8. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  9. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  10. RE: Discussing Book of Mormon anachronisms in God before Country in the Military

What is OmniNerd?

Omninerd_icon Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.

Voting Booth

The Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to regulate?

5 votes, 0 comments