Net-worth and self-worth: what is difference?

[coberst]

Net-worth and self-worth: what is difference?

The difference between net worth and self worth to my mind rests on that which is extrinsic and intrinsic to our humanity.

Abraham Maslow defined a hierarchy of needs to be:

1) Biological and Physiological (water, food, shelter, air, sex, etc.)

2) Safety (security, law and order, stability, etc.)

3) Belonging and love (family, affection, community, etc.)

4) Esteem (self-esteem, independence, prestige, achievement, etc.)

5) Self-Actualization (self-fulfillment, personal growth, realizing personal potential, etc.)

I think that the needs 1 thru 3 are extrinsic needs. While needs 4 and 5 are to a large degree intrinsic needs. They are intrinsic in the sense that we can survive without fulfilling such needs but they are needs that will enhance our sense of self worth.

Capitalism tends to accentuate needs 1 thru 3 with little thought to 4 and 5 because such an economic system recognizes little about anything but net worth. Net worth is valuable especially if it allows us to accomplish needs 4 and 5.

“Presupposition that the work of art, as an autonomous organism, stands beside nature on equal terms and, in its deepest essence, devoid of any connection with it, in so far as by nature is understood the visible surface of things.” Wilhelm Worringer author of Abstraction and Empathy

[luciferjohn]

coberst;1238135 wrote: Net-worth and self-worth: what is difference?

The difference between net worth and self worth to my mind rests on that which is extrinsic and intrinsic to our humanity.

Abraham Maslow defined a hierarchy of needs to be:

1) Biological and Physiological (water, food, shelter, air, sex, etc.)

2) Safety (security, law and order, stability, etc.)

3) Belonging and love (family, affection, community, etc.)

4) Esteem (self-esteem, independence, prestige, achievement, etc.)

5) Self-Actualization (self-fulfillment, personal growth, realizing personal potential, etc.)

I think that the needs 1 thru 3 are extrinsic needs. While needs 4 and 5 are to a large degree intrinsic needs. They are intrinsic in the sense that we can survive without fulfilling such needs but they are needs that will enhance our sense of self worth.

Capitalism tends to accentuate needs 1 thru 3 with little thought to 4 and 5 because such an economic system recognizes little about anything but net worth. Net worth is valuable especially if it allows us to accomplish needs 4 and 5.

“Presupposition that the work of art, as an autonomous organism, stands beside nature on equal terms and, in its deepest essence, devoid of any connection with it, in so far as by nature is understood the visible surface of things.” Wilhelm Worringer author of Abstraction and Empathy


i feel 4 and 5 would be examples of self worth because of the fact that the modern societies dont care about them , but i do agree networth is only valueable if it helps to gain self worth.

[gmc]

coberst;1238135 wrote: Net-worth and self-worth: what is difference?

The difference between net worth and self worth to my mind rests on that which is extrinsic and intrinsic to our humanity.

Abraham Maslow defined a hierarchy of needs to be:

1) Biological and Physiological (water, food, shelter, air, sex, etc.)

2) Safety (security, law and order, stability, etc.)

3) Belonging and love (family, affection, community, etc.)

4) Esteem (self-esteem, independence, prestige, achievement, etc.)

5) Self-Actualization (self-fulfillment, personal growth, realizing personal potential, etc.)

I think that the needs 1 thru 3 are extrinsic needs. While needs 4 and 5 are to a large degree intrinsic needs. They are intrinsic in the sense that we can survive without fulfilling such needs but they are needs that will enhance our sense of self worth.

Capitalism tends to accentuate needs 1 thru 3 with little thought to 4 and 5 because such an economic system recognizes little about anything but net worth. Net worth is valuable especially if it allows us to accomplish needs 4 and 5.

“Presupposition that the work of art, as an autonomous organism, stands beside nature on equal terms and, in its deepest essence, devoid of any connection with it, in so far as by nature is understood the visible surface of things.” Wilhelm Worringer author of Abstraction and Empathy


Maslows hierarchy of needs is a simplistic explanation of what motivates people and doesn't really do much to explain the way people behave. A marxist view of capitalism is only one viewpoint usually purported by people who haven't bothered to study themselves and reach their own conclusions

[luciferjohn]

gmc;1239183 wrote: Maslows hierarchy of needs is a simplistic explanation of what motivates people and doesn't really do much to explain the way people behave. A marxist view of capitalism is only one viewpoint usually purported by people who haven't bothered to study themselves and reach their own conclusions


i believe that is because thier being thought of in a stationary way yet as we all know at different times different things are our priorities, for example when you make an emotional connection with someone, they become the priority, you dont care about much exept them, thats on an emotional level so 3 would come first in that senerio, you have to accept the alternating of these rules for them to make total sense, im not sure what a marxist view of capitalism is or how it applies here, but we alternate those needs, with 4 and 5 being cared about by only us.

[Lon]

gmc;1239183 wrote: Maslows hierarchy of needs is a simplistic explanation of what motivates people and doesn't really do much to explain the way people behave. A marxist view of capitalism is only one viewpoint usually purported by people who haven't bothered to study themselves and reach their own conclusions




Along about the time (early 70's) that I first studied Mazlow's Hierarchy I also read Thomas Harris M.D. book "I'm Ok Your OK" which I think has some answers as to why people behave the way they do. Also, Maxwell Maltz's "Psycho Cybernetics". All three of these had a profound and positive influence on my life.

[gmc]

luciferjohn;1239199 wrote: i believe that is because thier being thought of in a stationary way yet as we all know at different times different things are our priorities, for example when you make an emotional connection with someone, they become the priority, you dont care about much exept them, thats on an emotional level so 3 would come first in that senerio, you have to accept the alternating of these rules for them to make total sense, im not sure what a marxist view of capitalism is or how it applies here, but we alternate those needs, with 4 and 5 being cared about by only us.






I would basically agree with you-that's what I meant by it being simplistic. Like you, I suspect, i can think of numerous examples where people will risk all on a point of principle or life and limb in a common venture that has no long term benefit for themselves.

Marxism takes a mechanical view of society and consequently sees capitalism as doing the same and interprets it in the same vein whereas the reality is a bit more complex. You can put a good case for capitalism and socialism having the same intellectual roots. Marxism is but one branch that seemed to also offer a mechanism for change. The one with the loudest opinion doesn't necessarily know what they are doing. I find often times when you ask people what they mean by capitalism-or marxism they come away with what they have heard rather than what they have read for themselves.

posted by lon

Along about the time (early 70's) that I first studied Mazlow's Hierarchy I also read Thomas Harris M.D. book "I'm Ok Your OK" which I think has some answers as to why people behave the way they do. Also, Maxwell Maltz's "Psycho Cybernetics". All three of these had a profound and positive influence on my life.


I've read them too, I'm sure I still have maltz around somewhere.