greed.ambition.charity

This morning I was leaving one class for another, pondering greed. Our history class heard brief comments about this: during the 1600's a British philosophy of greed was significantly different from our view today: it involved the fact that recent years had shown justification of action in regards to what they saw as 3 sole motives: glory, love, and greed. As the 16th century was one of the bloodiest - filled with all sorts of warfare - many began to question the validity of glory and love as motivation. Greed seemed a less obtrusive and gory focus. I still can't fully wrap my mind around why they saw greed as positive.

What, specifically, would I place at the heart of greed? There are certainly many ways to define the little thoughts of life, and it's often in the definition and perspective of words that individuals dissent. Most of the discussions in which I have disagreed vehemently with other critical thinkers lead me to the conclusion that we are often either 1) without information or bias of information the other holds, or 2) define things differently; and hence occasionally argue opposite one another when we in fact have similar viewpoints. (I've had passionate conversations with others when we discovered things like this some time into the discourse. What a riot.)

What is greed? A desire for something? A motivation to acquire status, knowledge, or possessions? I've certainly always thought of it as excessive, something that negates the respect of others' rights to available or already held property or opportunity; I've seen it as selfish and covetous, even exploitative. Is there then a similar notion that doesn't necessarily involve egotistical avarice and neglect of one's fellow man? Ambition, perhaps?

When one strips language and labels (words) from the concepts learned since childhood, what is left? Isn't it the American dream to push and pry and pull oneself up? To make the most of whatever is available? If one's primary resource is will, and there are a seemingly unending supply of universities to educate, jobs to man, money to earn, and ladders to climb, what exactly is thoughtless about utilizing such favorable situations? Even when competition seems steeper in applying for positions, universities, programs, raises, grants and scholarships, teams, etc., possibilities seem numberless. So do the throngs of faceless individuals. We justify pushing to the top in our inability to process the exactness of all composite situations. (Does this make any sense?)

Sometimes I feel I'm standing in a crowded society that clamors: "we need the best of the best to roll this great world forward, we need the greatest minds in universities and workforces to study problems, lead us to solutions, and eventually help all the others that are less fortunate." The cry of progress hastens on. Ironically, in pushing forward individualistically without (supposedly) shutting-out the masses, we trod on those we seek to help. We're too busy seeking intangible solutions in a "world-view" to help the "one"s we come across. The opportunities are there. Everyone is on their own, and if some"one" isn't making it, they obviously lacked fortitude and desire.



We say that we regret our need to be exclusive. Sometimes. "We're sorry, we need the best. You see, there are a lot of people that have been left behind in this world, and we want the best available candidates in our exclusive institutions to address those issues. Eventually we'll have a solution... And... that solution will allow us to help you and yours." Maybe the solution is to find programs that help everyone. Some ambitious individuals that don't show malicious behaviour are still indifferent. Where's the summa cum laude of truth and honor in that?

the masses seem dehumanized.

our society is inattentive.

as individuals we become indifferent.

the one is lost.

Ambition and work ethic are charming, but charity will always come first in my book.