I received a comment the other day about making money but using it for good causes. I think this is sort of a sticky point, so I want to discuss it. First off, I think that this is often a cop-out. You like your lifestyle, you like your stuff, so surely the little that you donate to a good cause entitles you to have more stuff than the guy that doesn't donate as much as you. I think that mentality is the reason we are battling to keep up with the Joneses.
I also want to be clear that I don't think that everyone who has money is like that. I know that when I was in high school my family all moved away and I had nowhere to live. A friend's family took me in and gave me EVERYTHING! They had more money than I did and they used to to serve me. I am EXTREMELY grateful for their generosity and I'll never be able to fully express to them how much I appreciated what they did for me. If they had less money, or had not used their money to have extra room in their home, would I have been able to live there? I don't know. But I do know that I hope to someday be able to provide the same experience to a youth in a similar situation. I could think of nothing more rewarding than to use my resources to serve people as I have been served by others who have more than me.
Do you see why this just got sticky? I really like the idea of simplifying so that I can work a part time job and have more time to spend with my kids and family. But if I do that, how will I have the resources to really help people? ...I wouldn't.
If you know anything about me, you know that I'm currently working on a PhD in Health Promotion. Although it would be a fun twist of irony, I don't intend to work part time at McDonald's when I'm done here. I intend to get a job and make a reasonable salary. I want to spend my carreer helping people healthier and I hope to help people on a larger than individual level. I want to make the world a better place for those who will follow me. In so doing, I'm going to make money. By many standards, I'm going to make a lot of money.
So am I a complete hypocrite? Maybe. I'll be honest with you, I'm afraid to make more money than I currently make. I like my simple lifestyle and know that it helps me keep my priorities straight. If I have access to more money, things could certainly change, and that scares me.
Then comes the big question. If you make more than you absolutely need, what do you do with the rest of your money? I see a couple of options. You could donate it to good causes. I heard somewhere that Bill Gates makes over 50% of all of the charitable contributions made in the United States. I don't know for sure if that is true, but I do know that he does a lot of good with his money. I also know that he has a LOT left over and he has a lot of stuff. In many ways I like the idea of donating money to good causes, but I like to see what my money does. I would really like to take homeless people out to dinner or hire them to do jobs and help them build skills. Anyway, I can cross that bridge when I come to it.
Another thing to do with money is not to spend it, but to invest it so that I could retire early and spend my days farming on my little organic farm in Maine. For some reason that just seems really greedy... It also sounds a lot like something I would like to do. I suppose I could do a lot of good on my organic farm in Maine. This just got really sticky. I am glad that I can live below the poverty level for now so I can procrastinate making those decisions.
Anyway, I don't have solutions. I know that I don't want to use my money to accumulate stuff. I want to maintain simplicity and maybe help others do the same thing. I would also like to support more things that are in line with my ideals (organic beeswax soap, for example), that I just don't have the money to do now.
So what would you use your money for?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Family
I am taking the day off from school, so I'm going to make this quick. Yesterday I wrote about toys. Coincidently, my wife took pictures of the boys playing with toys yesterday. So that will be todays post, the boys playing with some toys yesterday.
This is Six-Pense playing with Legos and canning jar tongs.
The Mugwump was playing with moon sand.
This is Six-Pence in the moon sand.
Then the boys made valentines for someone (maybe you).
And of course 'Jaguar'. He doesn't play much, but people want pictures of babies. He always looks the same. He's a little wrinkly head that sticks out of a bunch of blankets. Really all babies have a similar appearance, but I will continue to post pictures to humor those who want pictures. I don't, however, know if it would matter I just posted the same picture over and over. They all look about the same to me.
This is Six-Pense playing with Legos and canning jar tongs.
The Mugwump was playing with moon sand.
This is Six-Pence in the moon sand.
Then the boys made valentines for someone (maybe you).
And of course 'Jaguar'. He doesn't play much, but people want pictures of babies. He always looks the same. He's a little wrinkly head that sticks out of a bunch of blankets. Really all babies have a similar appearance, but I will continue to post pictures to humor those who want pictures. I don't, however, know if it would matter I just posted the same picture over and over. They all look about the same to me.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Learning
I find it fascinating to watch infants. I know they don't do much, but the new baby is learning so fast. Just yesterday he figured out that if he turns his head in addition to moving his eyes he is better able to see the world around him. He's so advanced for his age. On the other hand, I was holding him last night while my wife was changing into pajamas and he kept moving his open mouth over my arm, trying to eat (rooting). He hasn't learned that Dads aren't good at that sort of thing.
The other day someone asked about toys. Boy do I have a thing or two to say about toys. I was just talking to my wife about this. During the summer it seems that they don't need toys at all. Give them a couple of sticks, a piece of string and a rock and they will spend months playing outside with or without them. During the winter, however, my wife sometimes feels like we've just played with everything that we have. Notices that is how my wife feels. The boys really don't care. They like having a couple of options, but they'll have fun playing with whatever.
So here's what we've got in our house. We have 'little people' and playmobil that encourage imaginative play. Except the old version of the 'little people' turned out to be choking hazards, now all of the little people are obese. I don't know what I think about that. We have legos, play-dough, tinker toys and kinex for building stuff. (I think this is cool, it's a computer that plays tic-tac-toe made entirely from tinkertoys.) Ironically the boys have lots of toy cars that they love playing with, but they still know that if we are getting ready to go somewhere they better go get their bike helmet. We also have one doll and lots of stuffed animals because we think it's important that the boys have the opportunity to play with dolls if they want. I think it's interesting how they will play with the doll when my wife is pregnant. It's like they know they need to practice for the real thing. We have some dress-up outfits so the boys can pretend to be something during their play. We also have a core set of books for the boys to read. Well, for us to read to the boys at this point. We are actually trying to keep our book collection fairly small and then use the library regularly.
Our toy buying principles are fairly simple. Number one (my wife is a HUGE supporter of this) no commercial characters. Cars, Nemo, Power Rangers; are they movies/shows or are they the most powerful marketing tool that businesses could come up with? Anyway, we don't keep commercialized characters around our home. I think it's interesting when my oldest boy plays cars (he has seen the movie), he will often play with Thunder McQueen and Fire McQueen (one for each hand) who will help out the other (unnamed) cars. But the character in the movie was 'Lightning McQueen'... Yeah, we're not sure what happened to him.
Number two buying principle, nothing that takes batteries. Or if it does 'take' batteries the toy must undergo a battery-ectomy (removal of batteries) before the toy enters the house. We do have a couple alphabet boards where the boys touch letters and it makes sounds and whatnot. We keep those in the van for when the boys need to be entertained without much of our help. We haven't been in the van for two weeks now... those toys don't get used much, but they are handy. I think I missed one in the list of toys above, we also have musical instruments. You see, the lack of batteries isn't because the noises drive me nuts (although that is true), it is because without batteries the boys have to use the toy rather than just being entertained by it. The musical instruments sometimes drive me nuts as well, but I bear it because it's "music" or at least the exploration of music and probably better than what I'll have to put up with when they are teenagers.
Our final big buying principle is far more vague. We just don't buy stuff. My wife and I have passed many birthdays and Christmases where we simply didn't buy our kids anything. Some people may think that's harsh, but we get more than enough from grandparents. We will occassionally buy a legos set that is on a good sale (voila, my addiction to plastic reappears). For example, the older two boys got a lego set from the baby when it was born so that it put some attention on the older boys and not just the baby.
We also maintain a principle to get rid of stuff when it becomes excessive. When the drawers and cabinets start overflowing with toys, we go through and eliminate some. We can then either re-gift them or give them to the Goodwill or whatever. Is it hard to give away things that were given to us? Yes, it absolutely is. We recognize that a toy is more than a material, it is the thought of a relative and hopefully reminds our kids of their distant family that they should remember. But we just can't keep stuff forever. If it is time for us to get rid of something we will do our best to get it to someone who can continue to use.
Wow, for something so simple as toys, I had a lot of complex principles that I use to regulate their flux through our home.
Sorry about the spelling mistakes, my spell checker on the blogger page won't work and my spelling and typing just isn't very good.
The other day someone asked about toys. Boy do I have a thing or two to say about toys. I was just talking to my wife about this. During the summer it seems that they don't need toys at all. Give them a couple of sticks, a piece of string and a rock and they will spend months playing outside with or without them. During the winter, however, my wife sometimes feels like we've just played with everything that we have. Notices that is how my wife feels. The boys really don't care. They like having a couple of options, but they'll have fun playing with whatever.
So here's what we've got in our house. We have 'little people' and playmobil that encourage imaginative play. Except the old version of the 'little people' turned out to be choking hazards, now all of the little people are obese. I don't know what I think about that. We have legos, play-dough, tinker toys and kinex for building stuff. (I think this is cool, it's a computer that plays tic-tac-toe made entirely from tinkertoys.) Ironically the boys have lots of toy cars that they love playing with, but they still know that if we are getting ready to go somewhere they better go get their bike helmet. We also have one doll and lots of stuffed animals because we think it's important that the boys have the opportunity to play with dolls if they want. I think it's interesting how they will play with the doll when my wife is pregnant. It's like they know they need to practice for the real thing. We have some dress-up outfits so the boys can pretend to be something during their play. We also have a core set of books for the boys to read. Well, for us to read to the boys at this point. We are actually trying to keep our book collection fairly small and then use the library regularly.
Our toy buying principles are fairly simple. Number one (my wife is a HUGE supporter of this) no commercial characters. Cars, Nemo, Power Rangers; are they movies/shows or are they the most powerful marketing tool that businesses could come up with? Anyway, we don't keep commercialized characters around our home. I think it's interesting when my oldest boy plays cars (he has seen the movie), he will often play with Thunder McQueen and Fire McQueen (one for each hand) who will help out the other (unnamed) cars. But the character in the movie was 'Lightning McQueen'... Yeah, we're not sure what happened to him.
Number two buying principle, nothing that takes batteries. Or if it does 'take' batteries the toy must undergo a battery-ectomy (removal of batteries) before the toy enters the house. We do have a couple alphabet boards where the boys touch letters and it makes sounds and whatnot. We keep those in the van for when the boys need to be entertained without much of our help. We haven't been in the van for two weeks now... those toys don't get used much, but they are handy. I think I missed one in the list of toys above, we also have musical instruments. You see, the lack of batteries isn't because the noises drive me nuts (although that is true), it is because without batteries the boys have to use the toy rather than just being entertained by it. The musical instruments sometimes drive me nuts as well, but I bear it because it's "music" or at least the exploration of music and probably better than what I'll have to put up with when they are teenagers.
Our final big buying principle is far more vague. We just don't buy stuff. My wife and I have passed many birthdays and Christmases where we simply didn't buy our kids anything. Some people may think that's harsh, but we get more than enough from grandparents. We will occassionally buy a legos set that is on a good sale (voila, my addiction to plastic reappears). For example, the older two boys got a lego set from the baby when it was born so that it put some attention on the older boys and not just the baby.
We also maintain a principle to get rid of stuff when it becomes excessive. When the drawers and cabinets start overflowing with toys, we go through and eliminate some. We can then either re-gift them or give them to the Goodwill or whatever. Is it hard to give away things that were given to us? Yes, it absolutely is. We recognize that a toy is more than a material, it is the thought of a relative and hopefully reminds our kids of their distant family that they should remember. But we just can't keep stuff forever. If it is time for us to get rid of something we will do our best to get it to someone who can continue to use.
Wow, for something so simple as toys, I had a lot of complex principles that I use to regulate their flux through our home.
Sorry about the spelling mistakes, my spell checker on the blogger page won't work and my spelling and typing just isn't very good.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Another weakness
I brought my glass jar to school so that I can drink out of it. I could have gone with the canning jars that we have, but they have those goofy two piece lids that are great for canning, but I was envisioning spilling my water on the laptop. So I opted for the spaghetti sauce jar (Tomato Basil flavored Ragu, if you wanted to know the specifics). I'm now going to be real honest; I feel a little weird drinking from a jar. I actually hesitated several times to take the jar from my bag, fill it with water and put it on my desk. It's there now... And so far nobody has asked about it.
In the comments I had people advise on metal containers. I think they're good, but here's the thing. I already have the glass jar and the plastic. Every day I can use the jar without issue. On a relatively infrequent basis I will need something more durable, and I have the Nalgenes for that purpose until I find an innexpensive used metal bottle or my Nalgenes break (thanks Vertigo for the insight, that was funny).
Today I want to talk about stuff. I read Jill in Alaska's post on stuff the other day (again, Thanks Vertigo) and it made me want to get rid of stuff. The main thing that I could get rid of would be clothes, and I really don't have that many clothes. This is really a dilema. I feel terrible that I had to use the biggest Uhaul available to move here from Oregon. I wish I didn't have all this stuff. The problem is that when I think of the things that I would like to get rid of, it seems like a bad decision. What are the things that filled the U-haul? Beds, a set of bunk beds I made for the boys, our bed and a crib. Kitchen table. Piano. Futon. Book shelf. Bikes. Washer and Dryer. Now you see why the truck was full. Could I do without some of those things? I suppose, but I don't want to. I don't want my kids sleeping on the floor (or me for that matter). I feel very blessed to have a piano given to us by my wife's Grandma. It's a pain to move, but I really like having a piano that my wife can play for the boys while they go to sleep, it brings a different feeling into our home. As far as living room furniture, we only have a futon and a bookshelf. If my boys get much bigger, we won't all fit on our living room furniture. I'm OK with that, but I don't think I could get rid of it.
We have shelves full of paper that the boys use for art projects. Is that wasteful? Maybe, but I feel that it's worth it so that my boys know how to express themselves in art.
So here's the point of todays post. It may be that I just want to justify my weaknesses, but I think that some stuff is worth having. I try to buy (or build) stuff that will last longer than typical. I also try to repair things instead of buying new. But in the end there are big things, and I might add lots of things, that I would rather keep so that I don't have to replace them. It seems like all these people who don't have stuff are single. I could do that. I think that it's more environmentally friendly to have stuff that you use regularly and keep for a long time than it is to "minimize" by disposing of stuff before you move so that you can get new stuff on the other end. (I'm not suggesting that everyone who minimizes does that, but I'm struggling to imagine someone who lives without a bed or a couch.)
In the comments I had people advise on metal containers. I think they're good, but here's the thing. I already have the glass jar and the plastic. Every day I can use the jar without issue. On a relatively infrequent basis I will need something more durable, and I have the Nalgenes for that purpose until I find an innexpensive used metal bottle or my Nalgenes break (thanks Vertigo for the insight, that was funny).
Today I want to talk about stuff. I read Jill in Alaska's post on stuff the other day (again, Thanks Vertigo) and it made me want to get rid of stuff. The main thing that I could get rid of would be clothes, and I really don't have that many clothes. This is really a dilema. I feel terrible that I had to use the biggest Uhaul available to move here from Oregon. I wish I didn't have all this stuff. The problem is that when I think of the things that I would like to get rid of, it seems like a bad decision. What are the things that filled the U-haul? Beds, a set of bunk beds I made for the boys, our bed and a crib. Kitchen table. Piano. Futon. Book shelf. Bikes. Washer and Dryer. Now you see why the truck was full. Could I do without some of those things? I suppose, but I don't want to. I don't want my kids sleeping on the floor (or me for that matter). I feel very blessed to have a piano given to us by my wife's Grandma. It's a pain to move, but I really like having a piano that my wife can play for the boys while they go to sleep, it brings a different feeling into our home. As far as living room furniture, we only have a futon and a bookshelf. If my boys get much bigger, we won't all fit on our living room furniture. I'm OK with that, but I don't think I could get rid of it.
We have shelves full of paper that the boys use for art projects. Is that wasteful? Maybe, but I feel that it's worth it so that my boys know how to express themselves in art.
So here's the point of todays post. It may be that I just want to justify my weaknesses, but I think that some stuff is worth having. I try to buy (or build) stuff that will last longer than typical. I also try to repair things instead of buying new. But in the end there are big things, and I might add lots of things, that I would rather keep so that I don't have to replace them. It seems like all these people who don't have stuff are single. I could do that. I think that it's more environmentally friendly to have stuff that you use regularly and keep for a long time than it is to "minimize" by disposing of stuff before you move so that you can get new stuff on the other end. (I'm not suggesting that everyone who minimizes does that, but I'm struggling to imagine someone who lives without a bed or a couch.)
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
My weaknesses, I'll start with just one
Yesterday there was a little discussion on what is enough. I liked it. I've been thinking of what I could write more on the subject and come up blank. I certainly don't think that I've exhausted the subject, and I'm pretty sure I'll return to it, but that's not what has been eating at my brain today.
One of the coments on the blog yesterday was a compliment that I really appreciated followed by some comment expressing that she hopes I'm not just a really good liar. Boy, I hope the same thing. I want to be clear, my efforts are pure and sincere and I don't feel that I lie on my blog, but I fear that I have painted an overly glorious portrait of myself. Oddly enough, I prefer to blog on topics that I'm doing well at. Who doesn't? So today I want to tackle my biggest obstacle. Plastic.
This has seriously been gnawing at me all day. I use plastic for everything! Don't get me wrong, I do my best to minimize the plastic that I throw away, but I still microwave my lunch everyday in a plastic container. I have a plastic Nalgene bottle that I drink from every day. I use plastic bags from the grocery store as garbage bags (although we do reuse bags most of the time so we're not being over-run by plastic bags). I am addicted to plastic.
On the positive side, I don't consume drinks that come in plastic bottles. I make a point of refusing bottled water, even if I would like a drink.
So here's my problem; plastic is far more convenient than any other option. I carry my lunch to school every day in my messenger bag. I use plastic for two big reasons. 1) Plastic doesn't break very easily (except the one that fell out of the bag on the road, it broke). 2) Plastic is far lighter than glass (which I assume to be the only other viable option).
Do I have glass containers that I could use to carry my lunch? Yes. Could I get them to school without breaking them? Besides the lunch that slid along the road and one crash last year, I cannot think of a single time when my glass container would have broken. Would I have to do dishes more often? Yes. Do we have enough glassware to hold all of the leftovers that I need in order to survive at school? No. Well, we have enough, but then they would be at school and my wife wouldn't have anywhere to put the leftovers that are produced when I'm not there. So an investment in glassware would be a positive step for me. I'll discuss it with my wife.
Wait, we need to discuss the weight issue first. I generally carry 2 or 3 lunches to school each day (I commute 25 miles a day and teach 10 activity classes a week, it takes a lot of food to prevent me from losing weight). Three glass containers would be heavy in my bag and they may make my back hurt. The glass is also bulkier than plastic, so it wouldn't fit as well. OK, I'll stop whining, I think I can do it and will work toward that change.
Now comes the water bottles. I haven't seen any really good science on it, but I would have to believe that drinking water out of a carcinogenic petroleum product (plastic) is not the healthiest choice. Glass would be better. I'm sure I could get a glass or jar up to school to use instead of my plastic bottle. Where I run into a problem is hiking and stuff. I'm afraid that glass would break in my backpack. I use my plastic Nalgene bottles to play baseball with rocks, I sincerely believe that they are indestructible (close anyway). I suppose I could carry a glass jar up to school and save the plastic for hikes and other excursions that require something a little less breakable. Consider it done.
Now that I've written this, I want to define weakness. This is based almost entirely on what I've just written, so take it for what it is. A weakness is a bad habit that you know that you have, that you could change with little effort, but don't. So what are your weaknesses?
One of the coments on the blog yesterday was a compliment that I really appreciated followed by some comment expressing that she hopes I'm not just a really good liar. Boy, I hope the same thing. I want to be clear, my efforts are pure and sincere and I don't feel that I lie on my blog, but I fear that I have painted an overly glorious portrait of myself. Oddly enough, I prefer to blog on topics that I'm doing well at. Who doesn't? So today I want to tackle my biggest obstacle. Plastic.
This has seriously been gnawing at me all day. I use plastic for everything! Don't get me wrong, I do my best to minimize the plastic that I throw away, but I still microwave my lunch everyday in a plastic container. I have a plastic Nalgene bottle that I drink from every day. I use plastic bags from the grocery store as garbage bags (although we do reuse bags most of the time so we're not being over-run by plastic bags). I am addicted to plastic.
On the positive side, I don't consume drinks that come in plastic bottles. I make a point of refusing bottled water, even if I would like a drink.
So here's my problem; plastic is far more convenient than any other option. I carry my lunch to school every day in my messenger bag. I use plastic for two big reasons. 1) Plastic doesn't break very easily (except the one that fell out of the bag on the road, it broke). 2) Plastic is far lighter than glass (which I assume to be the only other viable option).
Do I have glass containers that I could use to carry my lunch? Yes. Could I get them to school without breaking them? Besides the lunch that slid along the road and one crash last year, I cannot think of a single time when my glass container would have broken. Would I have to do dishes more often? Yes. Do we have enough glassware to hold all of the leftovers that I need in order to survive at school? No. Well, we have enough, but then they would be at school and my wife wouldn't have anywhere to put the leftovers that are produced when I'm not there. So an investment in glassware would be a positive step for me. I'll discuss it with my wife.
Wait, we need to discuss the weight issue first. I generally carry 2 or 3 lunches to school each day (I commute 25 miles a day and teach 10 activity classes a week, it takes a lot of food to prevent me from losing weight). Three glass containers would be heavy in my bag and they may make my back hurt. The glass is also bulkier than plastic, so it wouldn't fit as well. OK, I'll stop whining, I think I can do it and will work toward that change.
Now comes the water bottles. I haven't seen any really good science on it, but I would have to believe that drinking water out of a carcinogenic petroleum product (plastic) is not the healthiest choice. Glass would be better. I'm sure I could get a glass or jar up to school to use instead of my plastic bottle. Where I run into a problem is hiking and stuff. I'm afraid that glass would break in my backpack. I use my plastic Nalgene bottles to play baseball with rocks, I sincerely believe that they are indestructible (close anyway). I suppose I could carry a glass jar up to school and save the plastic for hikes and other excursions that require something a little less breakable. Consider it done.
Now that I've written this, I want to define weakness. This is based almost entirely on what I've just written, so take it for what it is. A weakness is a bad habit that you know that you have, that you could change with little effort, but don't. So what are your weaknesses?
Monday, February 4, 2008
ENOUGH
I love that title, it makes me seem mad, and to a certain extent I am. However, the real point of the post is going to be what is enough. I'll give credit where credit is due.... The ideas for this post come directly from Sara who often has some very insightful posts. You should visit her.
Anyway, I like to discuss simplicity and how to live with less. Then comes the big question, how much is enough? I really get torn on this topic. A book that I highly recommend, Your Money or Your Life, suggests that 'enough' depends on the individual person and their circumstances. Everyone likes that, it's cute and it means that I can say, "Yeah, I'm at that level so I don't have to do anything to change". Then I can live a stagnant life and think real highly of myself for my conformity to ideals that I like.
I really don't like relativism. My personal views of this world are pretty black and white. I think there is truth and error. It doesn't depend on what you believe, what religion you belong to or how much money you have. There is truth and if it isn't truth it is error. You can criticize me for that if you want, but you're wrong. (that was an attempt at philosophical humor.) In all honesty, one of the truths that I hold at the greatest value is that of respect. Even if you don't agree with me, I respect your views. In fact, I would like to hear your views because I don't claim to have a monopoly on truth. I may want to discuss our differences and that may be perceived as an argument (my appologies for that), but I do want to know why you believe what you do and I'm unwilling to accept your idea of truth without questioning it.
I got off task, that relativism is a tough subject for me. What really gets to me is the idea that we can do whatever we want and still think we're doing everything right. Isn't this life about growing and improving? So shouldn't we set our sights on an idealistic goal and pursue it? Sure we may never make it, but I would rather live a life striving for purpose than to live a life of complacency.
I want to live a simple life. I have read Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse and I admire that level of simplicity. Abandoning all of your possessions except a loin cloth. Relying on the kindness of others for food and all of your needs. There's something beautiful about it. On my visit to Wikipedia, I just noticed that Siddhartha means, "he who has attained his goals", I like that. Is that my goal in life? I don't think so. I have a wife and family that I want to support. They are of the utmost importance to me and I want them to be a part of my simple lifestyle.
So here I am, still stuck. How much is enough? In this story a loincloth was enough for the man. If I say that I need more than that to have enough, doesn't that mean that I'm taking a relativist approach? I really don't like relativism. Hypothetically we'll say that the story took it too far. In reality a 1,000 square foot house is the perfect size for a family of 4. Does that mean I get another 250 square feet because I just had another kid? Does that mean that all of the people in the world who have less than 250 square feet each don't have enough? Oddly enough, many of those people with 'less' are happier and, as far as the important things in life go, they have more.
So maybe the goal isn't how to limit stuff, but rather how to maximize happiness. I truly believe that happiness comes through simplicity and spending time with and interacting with people rather than stuff. So who is the happiest person alive? I don't have a clue. I doubt that it corresponds with money or stuff. I would consider myself a competitor for the happiest man alive (although I really don't know how to measure it), and I am pretty sure I'm below the poverty line. What I lack in money, I more than compensate for with a wonderful family and being able to spend time with them. There is a lot I still want to do with my life, especially in the area of simplifying.
Maybe that is the underlying truth. Maybe it is the pursuit of truth that brings happiness. I really like that idea, except that different people have different ideas of truth which leads us back to the problem of relativism. I don't have answers (which anyone who reads this blog regularly already knew), but I want to know what you think.
Anyway, I like to discuss simplicity and how to live with less. Then comes the big question, how much is enough? I really get torn on this topic. A book that I highly recommend, Your Money or Your Life, suggests that 'enough' depends on the individual person and their circumstances. Everyone likes that, it's cute and it means that I can say, "Yeah, I'm at that level so I don't have to do anything to change". Then I can live a stagnant life and think real highly of myself for my conformity to ideals that I like.
I really don't like relativism. My personal views of this world are pretty black and white. I think there is truth and error. It doesn't depend on what you believe, what religion you belong to or how much money you have. There is truth and if it isn't truth it is error. You can criticize me for that if you want, but you're wrong. (that was an attempt at philosophical humor.) In all honesty, one of the truths that I hold at the greatest value is that of respect. Even if you don't agree with me, I respect your views. In fact, I would like to hear your views because I don't claim to have a monopoly on truth. I may want to discuss our differences and that may be perceived as an argument (my appologies for that), but I do want to know why you believe what you do and I'm unwilling to accept your idea of truth without questioning it.
I got off task, that relativism is a tough subject for me. What really gets to me is the idea that we can do whatever we want and still think we're doing everything right. Isn't this life about growing and improving? So shouldn't we set our sights on an idealistic goal and pursue it? Sure we may never make it, but I would rather live a life striving for purpose than to live a life of complacency.
I want to live a simple life. I have read Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse and I admire that level of simplicity. Abandoning all of your possessions except a loin cloth. Relying on the kindness of others for food and all of your needs. There's something beautiful about it. On my visit to Wikipedia, I just noticed that Siddhartha means, "he who has attained his goals", I like that. Is that my goal in life? I don't think so. I have a wife and family that I want to support. They are of the utmost importance to me and I want them to be a part of my simple lifestyle.
So here I am, still stuck. How much is enough? In this story a loincloth was enough for the man. If I say that I need more than that to have enough, doesn't that mean that I'm taking a relativist approach? I really don't like relativism. Hypothetically we'll say that the story took it too far. In reality a 1,000 square foot house is the perfect size for a family of 4. Does that mean I get another 250 square feet because I just had another kid? Does that mean that all of the people in the world who have less than 250 square feet each don't have enough? Oddly enough, many of those people with 'less' are happier and, as far as the important things in life go, they have more.
So maybe the goal isn't how to limit stuff, but rather how to maximize happiness. I truly believe that happiness comes through simplicity and spending time with and interacting with people rather than stuff. So who is the happiest person alive? I don't have a clue. I doubt that it corresponds with money or stuff. I would consider myself a competitor for the happiest man alive (although I really don't know how to measure it), and I am pretty sure I'm below the poverty line. What I lack in money, I more than compensate for with a wonderful family and being able to spend time with them. There is a lot I still want to do with my life, especially in the area of simplifying.
Maybe that is the underlying truth. Maybe it is the pursuit of truth that brings happiness. I really like that idea, except that different people have different ideas of truth which leads us back to the problem of relativism. I don't have answers (which anyone who reads this blog regularly already knew), but I want to know what you think.
Friday, February 1, 2008
True Simplicity
I think that I live a fairly simple life. I do my best to go without a car, I don't have a television and we try to spend lots of time as a family, interacting and enjoying time together. I certainly feel that I have a long way to go, but for where I am in life, I'm pleased with my efforts to live simply.
I took a moment to watch my new son. He was sleeping. He does a lot of that. When he's done sleeping he usually wakes up ready to eat. He cries... or lets call it an obnoxios screatching... until my wife feeds him. While he's eating he makes little noises of contentment. You can just tell that he is happy. When he's finished eating, he poops. This is associated with some grunts and pushing. After the work of eating and pooping he goes back to sleep so that he can start the process over again in a couple hours. I can't believe that I think I have a simple life.
The world would really be boring if all anyone did was eat, sleep and poop. So can a life be too simple? I think that it can. I think the human interactions are the greatest thing in life, but they also act to complicate life. The complications of human interaction are generally good. I have very much enjoyed what No Impact Man has said on the topic recently.
As I read that post by No Impact Man, I started to think of a conversation I had with a man in France while on the train. He was on his way home after work to have dinner with his family. I don't recall how the topic came up, but he told me that he would spend 3 hours eating dinner with his family. (He was actually quite skinny, if you were wondering.) I was amazed! Who eats dinner for 3 hours? He explained that they don't spend the whole time eating, they eat the first course, and then talk a while. Then they eat a second course and talk a little more. I don't know how many courses there were, but there were several. I then asked if this was a Thursday night thing, or if it was like this every night. He said that it was typical, except Sundays when they would have a larger meal that would take a bit longer.
First off, this was not typical of all French families that I met, but I would certainly say that meal time is different over there. How would your life be different if you had a 3 hours dinner with your family every night? I think it would get back toward the simplicity that my new baby has with the addition of positive family relations. I think it's great. I don't think I could do it. I like to be doing stuff. Although I often wish that I were better at relaxing and doing nothing, I think it would be quite difficult for me.
What would that three hours of eating replace? TV, kids' sports leagues, reading the paper, playing games, wrestling on the floor. OK, I like wrestling on the floor, but I think a lot of those after work activities could be done away with and it would benefit the family. I think about that man often and wonder if he still does it (I would guess that he does). I wonder how many other families in Europe are like that. I wonder how the world would be different if everyone lived like that. I still don't think I could do it and I don't know that it's the perfect situation, but it's an interesting thought. Could you do it?
I took a moment to watch my new son. He was sleeping. He does a lot of that. When he's done sleeping he usually wakes up ready to eat. He cries... or lets call it an obnoxios screatching... until my wife feeds him. While he's eating he makes little noises of contentment. You can just tell that he is happy. When he's finished eating, he poops. This is associated with some grunts and pushing. After the work of eating and pooping he goes back to sleep so that he can start the process over again in a couple hours. I can't believe that I think I have a simple life.
The world would really be boring if all anyone did was eat, sleep and poop. So can a life be too simple? I think that it can. I think the human interactions are the greatest thing in life, but they also act to complicate life. The complications of human interaction are generally good. I have very much enjoyed what No Impact Man has said on the topic recently.
As I read that post by No Impact Man, I started to think of a conversation I had with a man in France while on the train. He was on his way home after work to have dinner with his family. I don't recall how the topic came up, but he told me that he would spend 3 hours eating dinner with his family. (He was actually quite skinny, if you were wondering.) I was amazed! Who eats dinner for 3 hours? He explained that they don't spend the whole time eating, they eat the first course, and then talk a while. Then they eat a second course and talk a little more. I don't know how many courses there were, but there were several. I then asked if this was a Thursday night thing, or if it was like this every night. He said that it was typical, except Sundays when they would have a larger meal that would take a bit longer.
First off, this was not typical of all French families that I met, but I would certainly say that meal time is different over there. How would your life be different if you had a 3 hours dinner with your family every night? I think it would get back toward the simplicity that my new baby has with the addition of positive family relations. I think it's great. I don't think I could do it. I like to be doing stuff. Although I often wish that I were better at relaxing and doing nothing, I think it would be quite difficult for me.
What would that three hours of eating replace? TV, kids' sports leagues, reading the paper, playing games, wrestling on the floor. OK, I like wrestling on the floor, but I think a lot of those after work activities could be done away with and it would benefit the family. I think about that man often and wonder if he still does it (I would guess that he does). I wonder how many other families in Europe are like that. I wonder how the world would be different if everyone lived like that. I still don't think I could do it and I don't know that it's the perfect situation, but it's an interesting thought. Could you do it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)