"Being rich isn't about how much you have, but how much you can give."

[Coolydudey]

I thought that was a nice quote. A little one-sided perhaps, and in places lacking truth, but a good quote nonetheless. Anyone care to disagree or provide a personal opposing perspective?

 

[Hadoblado]

What is good about it?

 

[Black Rose]

What is good about it?

sharing is caring

 

[Coolydudey]

What is good about it?

What is bad about it?

Also, perhaps this should have been in the psychology section? I always do this...

Spoiler

As for what's good, I think that for various psychological/emotional reasons that hold true with the vast majority of people in the long term, the quote is quite true. Its pleasant, cutting phrasing is what then makes it a good quote.

Side topic: What is a good quote?

 

[Hadoblado]

It's a little one-sided perhaps, and in places lacking truth.

If a quote is biased and wrong, these are good reasons for dismissal. I am wondering what specifically makes this quote a good one despite its professed short-comings.

I was not saying it was a bad quote if that was your inference. I was asking a genuine question.

 

[Anktark]

I prefer "Being rich is not about what and how much you have, but what you can do without".

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Is this like some sort of self-fulfillment mindset? I give a great deal to people but feel poor. :/

Halp

 

[Coolydudey]

It's a little one-sided perhaps, and in places lacking truth.

If a quote is biased and wrong, these are good reasons for dismissal. I am wondering what specifically makes this quote a good one despite its professed short-comings.

I was not saying it was a bad quote if that was your inference. I was asking a genuine question.

Case in point about the weaknesses of the quote : proxy's post. Yet what I am claiming is that it's short-comings are not very significant, I.e. It's largely true and a good quote. I am inviting people to then disagree for an informal debate perhaps, or just to see different perspectives.

So, proxy: any more details? How would you feel different if you gave less? Do you feel you are giving too much? Are you giving out of obligation?

 

[nexion]

My quote would go more along these lines:

"Being rich isn't about how much you have, but how effectively you can use it to effect change in a sphere of influence."

In that sense, I question how blindly giving away money could really be helpful or purposeful. You need a direction and a goal.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'll take you up on that.

Being rich is about having more money than you need. You may decide to give it away, but that's superfluous. There are plenty of people that are rich without giving away money, not giving money away is likely even causal in them becoming rich. This quote is just one person's idea of what they should do when they're rich, you may share it, but that doesn't make it true for everyone.

 

[Polaris]

@OP: Rich as in material wealth, or symbolic (as Anktark hinted)?

 

[Coolydudey]

@Polaris, we're clearly talking symbolic wealth here.

@Hadoblabo, you're clearly missing this point. An argument to the contrary must refute/downplay the importance of the emotional/mental "wealth" and satisfaction generated by giving.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Maybe wealth is how much you are given in return? Positive reciprocation.

You could give all you have and in the end, having nothing more to give, become forgotten. What is willingly shared with you is valuable.

 

[Absurdity]

"Being rich isn't about how much you have, but how much you can give."

rich - adj., having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.

 

[TimeAsylums]

rich - adj., having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.

adjective?

But in the phrase "being rich," rich is describing "being" ( a verb ), which makes "rich" an adverb.



[bimgx=300]http://i.imgur.com/k4O4oGy.jpg[/bimgx]

cuz u know, the intpf Phil goes deep, and hard.

 

[Coolydudey]

rich - adj., having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.

[bimgx=400]http://www.focusst.org/forum/attachments/off-topic/29928d1389065502-we-allowed-talk-about-sex-875d1374620718-grom-here-jackie-chan-my-brain-full-fuck-meme-blank-template-lol-wtf.jpg[/bimgx]

Sorry to be a little insulting with that (couldn't find a more appropriate meme), but at least engage on a basic level with the thread if you want to post in it. It's clearly talking about something very different...
EDIT: and if you disagree anyway, why not substantiate a little more?

 

[Coolydudey]

Maybe wealth is how much you are given in return? Positive reciprocation.

You could give all you have and in the end, having nothing more to give, become forgotten. What is willingly shared with you is valuable.

Very true. The quote is referring solely to the case where what you receive in return is gratitude from the other person and an emotional satisfaction for having helped them out.

 

[Absurdity]

Sorry to be a little insulting with that (couldn't find a more appropriate meme), but at least engage on a basic level with the thread if you want to post in it. It's clearly talking about something very different...

It's a consolation platitude for the petty bourgeois who will never actually be rich. Thus, it has no bearing on reality, i.e. "in places lacking truth."

Simplify society down to an aggregate divided into three socioeconomic groups (poor, middle, and rich). No one is happy with their standing, except for the rich, so each groups tries to signal that it is actually in the group above it: poor try to signal that they are middle class, middle try to signal that they are rich. The rich, however, just try to signal that they are not middle class, so they spend ostentatiously. The middle obviously cannot keep up such an act for very long, so they invent stupid sayings like the thread title in an attempt to redefine rich in a more favorable and easily attainable sense.

See LW article on meta-contrarianism.

 

[TimeAsylums]

whatever happened to the good ol' "money = power"

which just so happens to be ALSO how much you can "give" ... or take.

 

[Coolydudey]

It's a consolation platitude for the petty bourgeois who will never actually be rich. Thus, it has no bearing on reality, i.e. "in places lacking truth."

Simplify society down to an aggregate divided into three socioeconomic groups (poor, middle, and rich). No one is happy with their standing, except for the rich, so each groups tries to signal that it is actually in the group above it: poor try to signal that they are middle class, middle try to signal that they are rich. The rich, however, just try to signal that they are not middle class, so they spend ostentatiously. The middle obviously cannot keep up such an act for very long, so they invent stupid sayings like the thread title in an attempt to redefine rich in a more favorable and easily attainable sense.

See LW article on meta-contrarianism.

Thanks for the post.

I have the good fortune to live very comfortably and I can tell you that one of the things I want to do with my life is help people more in need, in the process extracting a feeling exactly like the quote says. I am more a feeler than the average person here, but I would definitely feel all the richer - as a person and with respect to my overall mental and emotional world - for having given a good proportion of what I have to "good" causes.

 

[Architect]

Saccharine, but it if makes you happy.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

"Being rich isn't about how much you have, but how much you can give."

The highlighted, underlined word is in there for a reason. Read the quote without it and it takes on a meaning that would be more precise if we are assuming that was the intent. Would need the context of the quote before making that assuption.

But if I do..

My first take on the quote was to think it is merely trying to put precedence of one definition of rich (spirit) over another (material). Subjective.

 

[Absurdity]

Thanks for the post.

I have the good fortune to live very comfortably and I can tell you that one of the things I want to do with my life is help people more in need, in the process extracting a feeling exactly like the quote says. I am more a feeler than the average person here, but I would definitely feel all the richer - as a person and with respect to my overall mental and emotional world - for having given a good proportion of what I have to "good" causes.

So you get mad at me when I don't "engage" with the topic of your thread, but when I do you ignore the substance of what I have written and instead take the opportunity to share your inane and hopelessly vague life aspirations.

Sweet.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You can only give as much as you have. If you give you can't give as much anymore. Keep.

 

[Jennywocky]

Wasn't this a line from the "Wizard of Oz" or something?

EDIT: Oh, wait, sorry, that was, "A heart is not judged by how much you love, but by how much you are loved by others." *shudder*

It all sounds alike to me after awhile.

 

[Hadoblado]

OP

Rich is rich. You might try to hijack the word for your own purposes, but there are better words for what you describe. The concept you are talking about is not complex, but what you're trying to do is actually very strange.

Richness is a word used only to speak of an abundance, not the purpose towards which that abundance is directed.

Put all these word shenanigans aside. You just want to say that giving away wealth is a good thing. The quote sounds elegant, but is sort of clumsy, and a massively broad generalisation, which leads to my next point: if being rich was about giving away wealth, you'd give away the means of your wealth too. If the people at the top were thinking about the good of all, they wouldn't spend so much time ensuring that they remain at the top. I give away *all* of my extra wealth preemptively by not exploiting people/resources in the first place. Gee, what an outstanding guy!

 

[Reluctantly]

I think it's interesting that you can't give unless you have something to give to begin with.

It made me wonder who was more moral, someone that works hard, does their job well, and is extremely reliable, but gets paid very little or someone that profits off of their work and then gives it to other people as a way to justify that they are charitable.

It seems the former person (the worker) sacrifices more, but is just as moral for giving the latter guy/gal (the profiteer) that profits off them a chance to give; however, it isn't exactly seen that way because the worker couldn't have made the choice them-self; but without the worker, the profiteer couldn't have made the choice to give either.

And yet the profiteer will try and make it look like they are the better person simply because they made the choice to give, a moral standard to be weighed against other people. And then I think that they are not the better person because the worker allowed it to happen and the worker should also be credited in that choice...now the profiteer is a narcissistic...

 

[redbaron]

Mud cake is rich.

 

[Red myst]

I think it's interesting that you can't give unless you have something to give to begin with.

It made me wonder who was more moral, someone that works hard, does their job well, and is extremely reliable, but gets paid very little or someone that profits off of their work and then gives it to other people as a way to justify that they are charitable.

It seems the former person (the worker) sacrifices more, but is just as moral for giving the latter guy/gal (the profiteer) that profits off them a chance to give; however, it isn't exactly seen that way because the worker couldn't have made the choice them-self; but without the worker, the profiteer couldn't have made the choice to give either.

And yet the profiteer will try and make it look like they are the better person simply because they made the choice to give, a moral standard to be weighed against other people. And then I think that they are not the better person because the worker allowed it to happen and the worker should also be credited in that choice...now the profiteer is a narcissistic...

The profiteer could have started out working just as hard, but saved his money instead of giving it away. Then risked his saving on a business idea that gave 10 other people jobs. What rich means and "how much you can give" is really a lame feelgood platitude. Nothing to live by and nothing to judge morality by.

 

[Coolydudey]

So you get mad at me when I don't "engage" with the topic of your thread, but when I do you ignore the substance of what I have written and instead take the opportunity to share your inane and hopelessly vague life aspirations.

Sweet.

I was simply showing by counter-example that your sweeping statement was just that - sweeping. I could have given other counter-examples of people in different social classes or whatever, but I simply felt that one to be the most pertinent. Further analysis as to what the truth is was left to other posters if they wish to so engage, as has always been the point of the thread...

 

[Absurdity]

I was simply showing by counter-example that your sweeping statement was just that - sweeping. I could have given other counter-examples of people in different social classes or whatever, but I simply felt that one to be the most pertinent. Further analysis as to what the truth is was left to other posters if they wish to so engage, as has always been the point of the thread...

How is what you wrote in any way a counter example?

 

[Coolydudey]

OP

Rich is rich. You might try to hijack the word for your own purposes, but there are better words for what you describe. The concept you are talking about is not complex, but what you're trying to do is actually very strange.

Richness is a word used only to speak of an abundance, not the purpose towards which that abundance is directed.

Put all these word shenanigans aside. You just want to say that giving away wealth is a good thing. The quote sounds elegant, but is sort of clumsy, and a massively broad generalisation, which leads to my next point: if being rich was about giving away wealth, you'd give away the means of your wealth too. If the people at the top were thinking about the good of all, they wouldn't spend so much time ensuring that they remain at the top. I give away *all* of my extra wealth preemptively by not exploiting people/resources in the first place. Gee, what an outstanding guy!

That's not what I'm trying to say though, being a nihilist (I mean I'm not trying to promote this point of view. I see it as a purely psychological thing). And of course any quote like this is a generalisation - but anyway, we were arguing about something else fundamentally. And in your next point, you make the fallacy of assuming that once you've given away your wealth you won't be "rich". And by no means of course are we saying that people who are rich in resources are "rich" by whatever we want this to mean, or are thinking of the good of the general population.

To ditch the wordplay though - I still posit that for many people under many circumstances they will derive a greater feeling of wealth, perceived in many different ways, by acting altruistically to an individual and appropriate degree, than otherwise. It's a weakening of the quote, but hey, real life.

 

[Coolydudey]

How is what you wrote in any way a counter example?

Not to the whole post - but to the bit "the rich try to signal that they are not middle class by spending". For the rest I expected the reader to fill in the gaps (it's clearly a bit sweeping anyway), cause I wanted to focus on that specific sentiment in the first place, it being relevant.

Edit: ok, I was not sufficiently clear. I can provide a personal counter-example to what you say though. The post is besides the point of the thread really anyway, you're talking reality, I'm talking conceptually.

 

[Absurdity]

Not to the whole post - but to the bit "the rich try to signal that they are not middle class by spending". For the rest I expected the reader to fill in the gaps (it's clearly a bit sweeping anyway), cause I wanted to focus on that specific sentiment in the first place, it being relevant.

Edit: ok, I was not sufficiently clear

You must have missed the fact that I prefaced the entire post with this:

Simplify society down to an aggregate divided into three socioeconomic groups (poor, middle, and rich).

Regardless, the extent to which a rich individual and a middle class individual, keeping with the categories outlined in my second post, "help people in need" are vastly different. A middle class kid studies abroad in Guatemala and helps some impoverished village build a septic tank. Bill Gates creates a gigantic nonprofit and tries to eradicate malaria.

 

[Reluctantly]

The profiteer could have started out working just as hard, but saved his money instead of giving it away. Then risked his saving on a business idea that gave 10 other people jobs.

But what's strange about economics is that even if you start a successful business that creates 10 other jobs, you're also effectively taking revenue away from another area of the economy. Then justifying the transfer of that revenue from one area to another can become sketchy; though in theory, if you can make something cheaper, you should create more wealth for everyone.

But if instead you are simply taking someone else's business away, rather than making things cheaper, say if you make a restaurant to compete with mine for roughly the same costs and take all my customers while knowing that I can't afford to lower prices in order to compete, it's only helping yourself to become rich by taking away what I had; and then taking from people (the people in my business) and then giving back to them (those same people) does not make one generous or moral. It makes them two-faced and narcissistic, even if your business provides something that people seem to prefer over mine in this case. Thus it's only when prices lower are you actually giving anything of value back to people. Then being rich does mean giving back because even though you made money, you helped everyone else that uses your business become richer by not having to spend as much.

 

[Coolydudey]

You must have missed the fact that I prefaced the entire post with this:



Regardless, the extent to which a rich individual and a middle class individual, keeping with the categories outlined in my second post, "help people in need" are vastly different. A middle class kid studies abroad in Guatemala and helps some impoverished village build a septic tank. Bill Gates creates a gigantic nonprofit and tries to eradicate malaria.

Indeed, but again, you're talking reality.

I think the more interesting argument is the one about having to give vs not having in the first place, as a choice. Clearly the person who has to give makes a larger individual contribution (if he so chooses), but as long as they both make similar effort to act altruistically then I think in terms of moral standing and position with respect to the quote they're just about the same.

Now, the economy being as complex and in places inefficient as it is, it's hard to quantify the whole profiteer/worker argument etc. I would stick to "it depends"

 

[Hadoblado]

And in your next point, you make the fallacy of assuming that once you've given away your wealth you won't be "rich". And by no means of course are we saying that people who are rich in resources are "rich" by whatever we want this to mean, or are thinking of the good of the general population.

To ditch the wordplay though - I still posit that for many people under many circumstances they will derive a greater feeling of wealth, perceived in many different ways, by acting altruistically to an individual and appropriate degree, than otherwise. It's a weakening of the quote, but hey, real life.

No such fallacy was committed. I just put forward the notion that if you're not sharing the means of your wealth, you're giving away your piss drippings. You're not some hero that actually risked anything. You're comfortable in life and the only way you'll get more comfortable is by buying some moral high-ground. If you do nothing to change the system that makes these people unfortunate in the first place, you basically do nothing at all. It's foppish.

 

[Coolydudey]

No such fallacy was committed. I just put forward the notion that if you're not sharing the means of your wealth, you're giving away your piss drippings. You're not some hero that actually risked anything. You're comfortable in life and the only way you'll get more comfortable is by buying some moral high-ground. If you do nothing to change the system that makes these people unfortunate in the first place, you basically do nothing at all. It's foppish.

Ok, sorry to have misinterpreted your post (I was slightly scared it might happen), but I'm still then not quite sure what you're getting at - though I can see it's a good point.

EDIT

Oh, I think I see. You're saying that giving away wealth and helping people in that way is unimportant because the system that generates these inequalities is still there. Fair. I disagree though. What if an efficient economy requires such inequalities to be generated. What if we must rely on the wealthy acting altruistically or the government helping them out with it, if we are to alleviate the problem?

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't know your circumstance, so I'm held back from giving real criticism. I'll address this by giving the caveat that I'm not talking about you specifically, but anyone who fits the description of giving away money they don't need.

I think giving your leftovers to the poor isn't enough to feel good about. Especially if you do little to maintain a high standard of living. If you're not actually working to give to others, you're not doing anything for others. You've merely reached the point at which all other avenues of satisfaction are ticked.

 

[Coolydudey]

I don't know your circumstance, so I'm held back from giving real criticism. I'll address this by giving the caveat that I'm not talking about you specifically, but anyone who fits the description of giving away money they don't need.

I think giving your leftovers to the poor isn't enough to feel good about. Especially if you do little to maintain a high standard of living. If you're not actually working to give to others, you're not doing anything for others. You've merely reached the point at which all other avenues of satisfaction are ticked.

Ah but what if you're not living comfortably but giving away money you could live more comfortably with? Or making an active effort to make a difference? Not a common occurrence though, I must agree, you make a good point.

 

[Hadoblado]

Ah but what if you're not living comfortably but giving away money you could live more comfortably with? Or making an active effort to make a difference? Not a common occurrence though, I must agree, you make a good point.

Then I'd reconsider.

 

[Reluctantly]

Oh, I think I see. You're saying that giving away wealth and helping people in that way is unimportant because the system that generates these inequalities is still there. Fair. I disagree though. What if an efficient economy requires such inequalities to be generated. What if we must rely on the wealthy acting altruistically or the government helping them out with it, if we are to alleviate the problem?

Honestly, if people require someone to act for them in their benefit, we have greater problems than economics; we have an inability to do what's in our best interest and will allow someone to act as a dictator over us in order to get what we need. And this dictator is now encouraged to never look for avenues to allow us to help ourselves because we are seen as unable to do so to begin with. It's a bad precedent. This is mainly why I'm so against government providing for so many things because as it provides for people, it starts to fit this role of being a provider and I do not see how this is good.

I'm of the position that being rich isn't about how much you can give to other people, but how much you can help other people to become wealthier and give themselves. Ideally though, if a rich person were to invest a portion of their wealth into making economic costs lower, they'd both be giving and allowing other people to become wealthier and give as well. Over time this would balance out any major inequalities in wealth, while also increasing the overall combined wealth that everyone has; otherwise I'd say a rich person that gives simply to give is supporting economic inequality and is simply doing a political maneuver to justify their economic inequality by showing how "generous" they are, even if they aren't aware of what they are doing.

 

[Red myst]

But what's strange about economics is that even if you start a successful business that creates 10 other jobs, you're also effectively taking revenue away from another area of the economy. Then justifying the transfer of that revenue from one area to another can become sketchy; though in theory, if you can make something cheaper, you should create more wealth for everyone.

But if instead you are simply taking someone else's business away, rather than making things cheaper, say if you make a restaurant to compete with mine for roughly the same costs and take all my customers while knowing that I can't afford to lower prices in order to compete, it's only helping yourself to become rich by taking away what I had; and then taking from people (the people in my business) and then giving back to them (those same people) does not make one generous or moral. It makes them two-faced and narcissistic, even if your business provides something that people seem to prefer over mine in this case. Thus it's only when prices lower are you actually giving anything of value back to people. Then being rich does mean giving back because even though you made money, you helped everyone else that uses your business become richer by not having to spend as much.

Ok, makes sense to me, but if you have a hamburger joint, and I open up a Pho` House restaurant, and our prices are pretty much the same, I may not be giving the community a cheaper alternative, but what I have to "give" is a choice rather than just a cheaper burger. I don't like the idea of cut throat or dog eat dog capitalism. Some people will feel like eating Pho` sometimes, and sometimes burgers. And some people who would not ordinarily eat out may now be curious and want to see what Pho` is like. And some people will never want to try anything new so the will keep on going to the burger joint.

 

[Coolydudey]

I'm of the position that being rich isn't about how much you can give to other people, but how much you can help other people to become wealthier and give themselves. Ideally though, if a rich person were to invest a portion of their wealth into making economic costs lower, they'd both be giving and allowing other people to become wealthier and give as well. Over time this would balance out any major inequalities in wealth, while also increasing the overall combined wealth that everyone has; otherwise I'd say a rich person that gives simply to give is supporting economic inequality and is simply doing a political maneuver to justify their economic inequality by showing how "generous" they are, even if they aren't aware of what they are doing.

Nice, particularly the bolded bit. I do not think I have anything else to add to this great opinion.

 

[Red myst]

Nice, particularly the bolded bit. I do not think I have anything else to add to this great opinion.

Reluctantly is already "Rich" in attitude. And if that attitude is not recognized by others, Reluctantly is still "Rich".

 

[Absurdity]

Indeed, but again, you're talking reality.

I think the more interesting argument is the one about having to give vs not having in the first place, as a choice. Clearly the person who has to give makes a larger individual contribution (if he so chooses), but as long as they both make similar effort to act altruistically then I think in terms of moral standing and position with respect to the quote they're just about the same.

Now, the economy being as complex and in places inefficient as it is, it's hard to quantify the whole profiteer/worker argument etc. I would stick to "it depends"

Oh yeah wow how silly of me to talk about reality when the the thread title is trying to redefine a perfectly understandable adjective (or adverb if your a quibbling shit like TA) that describes the relation of an individual to the worth their material assets into some feel-good nonsense.

Your "interesting argument" is also nonsensical because it begs the question. There is no ethical consensus here from which to assess altruistic behavior. That's the first step.

Your third paragraph states the obvious like it's some sagely wisdom.

 

[Mr Write]

ISFJs do nothing but give, and they're some of the most miserable people I know.

 

[Polaris]

^ Yes, I think if one expects reciprocation one would eventually be miserable. Giving too much would be exhausting, and/or expecting a return is just folly if the original motive was charitable.

Emotional giving is also exhausting for the same reason if one uses it as bargaining power. I know an ISFJ who is always miserable and bitter for that reason.

 

[Missfortune]

The "can" in the quote is rather important... I don't think I fully understand it, to be honest ,so I'm trying to work it out.

(What happens if one is rich, gives it all away and then is poor? )

Let's assume the quote is about material wealth for a second. If I'm rich, that means that there is an excess of wealth that is not needed for basic wants and needs (I am NOT getting into defining those now). The excess can be given away by definition of it being excess.

Let's say that I am in the middle class and don't care if I live as a homeless person. It's possible that while there is no excess wealth beyond that which is needed to sustain myself, I could give everything away and have given more than the rich did when they gave the excess.

If being rich is about how much one can give, and if one can give however much they are willing without going negative, then the middle class in the above scenario would be richer than the rich? So the one with fewer material possessions initially would end up being richer than the one with an initial point of more possessions. Does this somehow lead to a conclusion that the quote isn't actually about material wealth? On the other hand, if one can give how much they have instead of how much they are willing to give without going negative, then the ordering of rich and middle class would remain intact.

What if the quote isn't about material wealth? Rich in spirit, eh? Maybe 'rich in spirit' can be loosely defined as 'happy', mostly because I don't know what else to call it without getting into some massive convolution that might actually be beside the point, at least on this first pass. If someone is happy, does doing things intentionally and/or unintentionally that effects others/their environment as a result of their being happy count as 'giving'? I'm a bit unclear about that at the moment.... within the bounds of the quote and the interpretation that rich is happy, it's possible that one could be happy as a result of causing harm to others. Hurting others would be 'giving', but that seems to miss the 'spirit of the quote'.

Maybe being 'rich' in the quote means following a moral compass based on altruism. On one hand it's obvious. If one is altruistic, then they can give, give, and give. But in practice, one can only give so much before their well-being is threatened (by lack of money, time, care of ones self etc), unless there are other rich who are showering altruistic acts upon them. In that case, everyone would be altruistic to the bone and everyone would be rich.

hmm in any case, its an interesting quote.

 

[Coolydudey]

Oh yeah wow how silly of me to talk about reality when the the thread title is trying to redefine a perfectly understandable adjective (or adverb if your a quibbling shit like TA) that describes the relation of an individual to the worth their material assets into some feel-good nonsense.

Your "interesting argument" is also nonsensical because it begs the question. There is no ethical consensus here from which to assess altruistic behavior. That's the first step.

Your third paragraph states the obvious like it's some sagely wisdom.

Sorry I was a bit flaming at some point, was a bit over-excited. Can we please drop the polemic/derogatory attitude, both of us? There's no reason for pointless conflict when we can argue stuff perfectly well without it...

Well it's not silly of you but it's just kind of outside the point of the thread. Also, I would very much argue that many people would say they feel "rich" without possessing much material wealth, so it makes sense to explore ideas like these. A definition after all simply captures what people perceive the concept behind a word to be.

Ethical consensus is a different thing. We'll not get into that argument either, it's too far-fetched. But acting altruistically is very well-defined (even if not universally defined/accepted), whereas what is the most altruistic action is not. In the end, from the point of view of the quote, consensus doesn't even matter, because (almost) all that's important is that you yourself perceive your actions as altruistic.

And, I don't present any nugget of wisdom. I admit defeat in trying to explore that avenue further because I am not experienced enough with economic thought and concepts.