Visit a photography forum and observe what they are discussing. — MondoR

You might be confusing satisfaction with meaning.

My expectation is that the 1% are ordinary people as far as psychology goes. Unlike what Brett seems to think, I don't get the impression that anyone here is saying that the 1% got where they are by being evil. They just didn't get there by being some kind of special super-hardworking genius either.
1h — Pfhorrest

My posts have been made to try and demonstrate what these people might be about. I haven’t tried to say that they’re better than us, nor that they’re parasites or sociopaths, as some have done.

I didn’t pose the question I just responded to it. I did make the point that not all the wealthy inherited money, which is true and I posted evidence for that.

They’re are probably many people who have the same traits who don’t take part in the corporate world, NGO’s for instance. I’m not saying they’re the only ones who have these traits.

If you think that they have the same psychology as us and you think they’re parasites and sociopaths then I guess you would have to say that wealth turned them, because you can’t see how anyone like us could make all that money. And the answer to why we the ordinary person can’t make that money us because we weren’t lucky enough to inherit wealth, which is not always the case as I tried to show.

Of course you can’t make that sort of wealth merely by working long hours. It requires something more, which not all of us have or even care about.

Really, it's fun! There emotion of fun? — MondoR

Can that really be all to the meaning of life? We’re here just to have fun?

I can understand that someone might go to another country and take photos of unusual cultures or locations and then that person brings them home to show others how the world is different out there. But that’s not what you’re saying. You’re saying just the act of taking photos gives meaning to life. But I don’t see how.

To see something in a new way — MondoR

Do you think you need a camera to do this?

Of course one does. Every skill requires study. There are differences of course, but the process of gradual accumulation of knowledge is the same. — MondoR

I don’t see how doing photography is going to give you any leads into questions about life.

So that’s the meaning of life?
— Brett

Pretty much. We study, we learn, we experiment, we create new things. All of this is happening all of the time, and it is quite enjoyable to learn more about ourselves and the universe we live in. — MondoR

It’s seems to me that you think the meaning to life is just doing things. We study, we learn, we create new things. For what purpose?

If you go to take a photograph then you go to a place that already exists. Instead of sitting and being part of it you instead take some photos. Why?

One does not study photography like one studies philosophy. What do you learn from photography?

It's called evolution. — MondoR

So that’s the meaning of life?

How?
— Brett

By study. — MondoR

You’ll need to explain that.

Just observe what everyone is doing. — MondoR

What is everyone doing?

Photography teaches how to look at the world differently, — MondoR

How?

And what would it’s meaning be?
— Brett

To learn, to grow, to evolve. That is what we we are all doing. — MondoR

How do you know that’s the meaning for life?

How does photography do it?

Photography can do this, eating food, breathing the air?

And what would it’s meaning be?

How about doing something with your life so it has some meaning? — MondoR

Such as?

What is meaningful then is not an individual identity or life, but everything and nothing, without prejudice.
— Possibility

Yes, this is right. Which means that life does not have to be competition.
— Brett

Agreed. Nor does it have to be about survival. — Possibility

Having reached some agreement about this and giving it more thought I still have a snag.

Living the ascetic life, living the life of a Buddhist monk or a Christian in a monastery, it seems to me to be a realm separated from the world, where the walls are a boundary. Life inside is sustained by what is given to them. I know some produce food for themselves with gardens and whatever else they may take part in, but their survival is guaranteed by the outside world, which they do not have to contend with. So the problem of life being competition to survive, or in @schopenhauer1 relentless struggle through the day still seems to ring true to me.

So life doesn’t have to be about competition or survival, but for who?

We will find a way. — frank

So you have faith in human nature.

Well there is obviously an evolutionary path there, things blossom then they die away. However I don’t see any market, even a free market, happening without a particular individual to drive it. Maybe it’s possible. But I’d like to know if you think that the free market and Capitalism evolved together at the same time or whether the free market existed first. Because if it did and Capitalism evolved from it then aren’t we destined to go in a circle again.

Imagine if there was a way out of this. What sort of people do you think might make it happen, maybe people who are conscientious, extroverts, innovative, more emotionally stable, and get joy in what they do.

In what context do we give a shit how it's seen by some? — frank

I’m not sure what you mean.

What do you think? — frank

I think it’s possible that Capitalism has served its purpose. It pulled a lot of people out of poverty, but now it’s like some top heavy dinosaur that crashes around crushing everything underfoot. The desire for Socialism is understandable but that too has failed to offer a real alternative to Capitalism. Where do we go from here? Do we just have to wrestle with our circumstances until something workable evolves out of it, just as it has in the past? Strangely enough I do have faith in us finding a way through this.

I think people on the second tier of fortune might be a little like that: trapped by their own ambition. — frank

That’s interesting. Though it might be seen by some as making excuses for the behaviour of the wealthy.

Wouldn't the answer to that bear on whether there's no any point in being leftist? — frank

Can you elaborate on that?

My problem with your post is that it’s about what happened, not who “they” are.

there are real people making the major decisions, with real thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and values. — Xtrix

it's worth understanding exactly who they are. — Xtrix

I put up some comments about who I think these people are, that is, what drives them, why do they do it, etc.? I also put up some thoughts on what doesn’t reflect well on them.

These were ignored then finally addressed as fabrications. So I put up some research about these people. That was also ignored. Then up put up some reference to three wealthy people who did not inherit wealth but worked hard to make it. Also ignored.

I understand a lot of this, people despise these people and regard Capitalism as criminal. Fine. But it’s convenient to ignore my posts about these people to bolster their position. Which is not what you’d expect on a philosophy forum. But still that’s how it is these days. I don’t mind, but don’t expect me to accept groundless assertions based on prejudices.

You earlier seemed to agree with my elaboration upon that thought: — Pfhorrest

This all beginning to get a bit messy so I’ll need to go back over our posts.

Who are the "who" you want to identify? — Bitter Crank

I don’t know. Ask Xtrix, it was his question.

The state has the monopoly on violence. But they essentially own the state. T — Xtrix

Care to back that up, or is “essentially” your get out of jail card?

That's what the scholarship seems to suggest.
— Xtrix

Incidentally, I fail to remember you referring to anything of the sort in your initial contribution to this thread. — Xtrix

I have now. Care to respond?

o someone is given a pile of cash and then they become more extroverted, and then they become conscientious, and then they become emotionally stable, and then they become more self centred.
— Brett

Who are you arguing against? Certainly not I; I said none of those things. — Xtrix

Purposely obtuse. That was in relation to my thoughts that you were putting the effect before the cause, that money makes these people what they are instead of the other way around.

And yes, until you have checked my sources and been convinced by it yourself, you might consider an assertions of mine with the appropriate skepticism. — Xtrix

You haven’t supplied any.

The reason you are having so much difficulty answering the "who they are" question is that you are asking the question on a philosophy forum. What you will have to do is read history. — Bitter Crank

I’m asking the same question Xtrix asked.

I think it's often forgotten that behind major corporations there are real people making the major decisions, with real thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and values. Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are. — Xtrix

I am confident that you greatly exceed the necessary capacity to locate good, interesting, and economically oriented histories and read them. THEN you will know who it was that got rich and how. — Bitter Crank

And that is not the question.

This is what creative is. Yes, no?

“think in the abstract and form images of realities that are not present “ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/

What is meaningful then is not an individual identity or life, but everything and nothing, without prejudice. — Possibility

Yes, this is right. Which means that life does not have to be competition.

FWIW, we are not all that far from each other’s perspectives, I think. — Possibility

Yes, I’ve noticed that in previous OPs.

What goes on in a capitalist economy is exploitation and extraction of surplus value (the difference between the cost of the workers labor and the profit derived from the workers labor), It's not accidental; capitalism, and the legal systems of capitalist countries, is designed to enforce that system. — Bitter Crank

I’m aware of this. But the builders did not make it from scratch. Carnegie took the risk of borrowing to begin his venture. There was nothing before that, no steel, no jobs. Of course the workers built the mills and made the steel, and of course he paid them the minimum he could. Who’s denying this? Once again I’m not saying these people are right, I’m trying to determine who they are. I don’t know why this is so difficult.

Regardless of how the money was made, that which might be inherited by a lucky member of the elite was created from scratch by someone before him/her.

but being self-made is not a necessary condition of being a millionaire; — Pfhorrest

Quite so. Many people fall along the way, their dreams in ashes. Nor am I suggesting that the wealthy are innocent or that there are people who don’t inherit wealth (however, bear in mind that someone made it from scratch at some time).
What I’m saying is that if you want to change things then you need to know who your up against. It’s no good just saying they’re parasites or sociopaths, demonising them to justify your dislike.

It's easier to be emotionally stable when your life is materially stable. — Pfhorrest

I’d agree with that too. But if you read about the early life of Larry Ellison and Sheldon Adelson for instance you’ll see that’s not always the case. What I’m trying to get across is I don’t think you can generalise about these people.

But dumping a pile of cash on someone who's already spent their entire life being jerked around and treated like shit probably isn't going to miraculously make them think and act like someone who grew up wealthy, no. — Pfhorrest

No it’s not. I would suspect that even though some of these people came from hard backgrounds they came from supportive families. And I know a sharing of wealth could change that. But calling the wealthy parasites and sociopaths, threatening to take their wealth from them and refusing to consider just who they are certainly won’t.

So perhaps more emphasis can be placed on your second point. — Xtrix

It’s odd that someone as smart as you would think the effect is behind the cause.

So someone is given a pile of cash and then they become more extroverted, and then they become conscientious, and then they become emotionally stable, and then they become more self centred.

No wonder you want to give their money to others, look what it achieves.