Money and the Intellectual

An intellectual, said Aldous Huxley, is someone who has found something more interesting than sex. I would like to revise that opinion: I think an intellectual is someone who has found something more interesting than money.

This is not to denigrate money. I think money is a wonderful and necessary tool. I am also in awe of its unifying properties: when the question is of money, as Voltaire said, everybody is of the same religion. Neither do I think that intellectuals are obligated to be poor. Indeed, Voltaire himself invested so wisely that he became very rich.

Rather, my thoughts are about two different categories of individuals which have been appearing more and more starkly to me as I go through life.

The-Money-Comes-First-Type

The first, more common type, is the person whose primary interest is in making money. Everything they do is geared towards this purpose, and nothing else makes sense or is worth their time.

Interestingly, very poor people I have met are not really rabid examples of this type. These people are usually looking to make a decent living, not endlessly searching for fabulous riches. It is the people with a decent living who are dreaming of finding Aladin's lamp. It is this type which I meet quite often and find fascinating.

A person from this category looks upon education as a punishment to be endured for the acquisition of a job, and at a job as a punishment to be endured for the acquisition of a salary.

The ideal scenario, for such a person, is one where they would not have to go to school or do a job. In practical terms, since some schooling is almost unavoidable, this translates to becoming financially independent, and being able to retire as soon as possible ('escape the 9 to 5 trap').

This is a very popular life-goal for a large number of people and the reading market is flooded with (self-help) books on the topic. The typical goal of this person is to own a lot of real estate, companies, cars, yachts, etc.

The-Money-Comes-Later-Type

This, rarer, type is the person whose primary interest is in something other than money. That something could be a passion (e.g. for singing), a cause (e.g. eradicating disease), a great ability they have (e.g. mathematical talent).

They may or may not end up turning this interest into money, but even if they do, the acquisition of money always remains secondary to the indulgence in the cause. Their defining characteristic is that they love what they do.

They think of a job, not as a punishment, but instead as a showcase for their abilities, as an opportunity for growth, as a way to give back to society, as a way to advance human knowledge and capabilities, as a way of taking pleasure in coordinating with their fellow human beings, etc. etc..

This type is by no means financially incompetent. Some of them are millionaires (and still keep working their jobs). Many of those who are not save well, invest wisely, and do not experience undue hardship since they make enough for their modest wants and needs.

Some even forego more lucrative positions because they love the one they already have (some very famous people fall into this category; I just finished reading a biography of Madonna who gave up a very lucrative gig in France at the beginning of her career and went back to a relatively poor life in New York because she was more interested in developing her own artistic vision and personality). I sometimes suspect they would even be willing to pay their employers to let them do their jobs. They are often the ones dreading retirement; some of them avoid it successfully by working until they die.

When the Twain Meet

Interesting things happen when the two types of people described above meet. Because the first type is in a majority, it tends to assume that it is the only type. When it meets the second type, it assumes immediately that the only worthwhile topic of conversation is making money and 'achieving retirement'.

The person of the second type is faced with - the almost impossible - task of disabusing the first person that their assumptions are not universal. In fact, the person of the first type begins to look upon the second with pity and patronage and begins to offer various suggestions for how they can retire early and raise their standard of living (buy beach houses and fancy cars). This is, of course, the fate dreaded by type two.

Sometimes, for fun, and for curiosity, type two injects topics about things like books into the conversation. The response is often a question about where the book sells for the least price, or how many copies it has sold, or how much money it made the author. No questions about what the book is actually about are asked.

Concluding Thoughts

I like to think of the first type as people who are interested in the art of life, and of the second type as those who are interested in the life of art (there are often overlaps, of course). I think both types are required to run the world. The world would be a boring place if everyone became a shopkeeper, and it would be a dysfunctional place if everyone became a poet.

I am also fascinated by what roles nature and nurture play in determining an individual person's mindset in this regard. I have seen several examples where artistically-minded children have rebelled against being sucked into the family business, as well as business-minded youth emerge from highly intellectual families.

I rather suspect that there is an evolutionary process at work here, which regulates the ratio of the two types for some survival advantage to society as a whole.