It's a well known psychological phenomenon though. Losing a given sum of money is more painful than earning that same amount. if you find a $20 banknote on the sidewalk, you wont be as happy as the guy who lost lost it is pissed off.
Did you note that the OP said it is a well known psychological phenomenon and not some utopian enlightened state that most of us can only aspire to attain?
And fwiw, Schopenhauer knew about Buddhism very well and talks about it in length in his essays on pessimism. What he means by attachment here is in fact, the Buddhist equivalent of craving. What you own can add to your vanity, but it is what you do not have or are longing for(in this case more money) that shows your true inclination, which Schopenhauer describes as worth. It does not mean that money has no worth, it means that the money that you already own has way less worth than what you don't. Aphorisms are pithy for a precise reason ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You seem confused. The "utopian enlightened state" as you weirdly mischaracterize it is about overcoming the well known psychological phenomenon.
You wouldn't call every non-instinctive skill (from reading to playing piano to shooting a basketball) that you learn in life a "utopian enlightened state", would you?
It is indeed a way to overcome the "well known psychological phenomenon", and also I wouldn't call reading or playing piano as non-instinctive or for that matter a "utopian enlightened state". My retort was more towards the mischaracterization of a pithy quote.
And I go to the Buddha if I want to know about Buddhism. Schopenhauer did not understand the difference between the Hindu's denial of self and the Buddha's idea of "not self".
> So if I never loose my money it is worthless! Ha!
Maybe not but, you probably had to earn it in the first place and that is why you know its value.
I think if you were born rich and never had to worry about money in an existential way, then you would not really know the value of it. Not even from observing the pain of others. I think the only way is to really experience it first hand.
Even if a rich person tried to "simulate" it by not allowing themselves to spend more than x amount of money for say a month or something it still would not be the same. At all. Because no matter how bad that month would be, they still know all along that it's not a real threat and that the money is right there waiting for them.
But if you had to go through a lot of real pain, then you know the real value of money. I wonder, however, if with time we would forget still. I dunno, I have never been wealthy yet.
"But if you had to go through a lot of real pain, then you know the real value of money. "
The more pain and suffering I have the more I realize money is not important at all and that money might be the cause of most of the pain and suffering in the world.
(Is that not a religious soul left on the internet?)
I think you're being down voted because it appears you're missing the point that in certain societies, without money you can not feed yourself or your family, let alone be sitting having this discussion on Hacker News.
Money is important if you want a roof over your head, your children to have uniform for school and food on the table. If you want to be able to spend time with them rather than working 3 jobs to pay your rent, or put fuel in the car you drive to work, lest you have to catch the bus and spend even less time with them.
If you're fortunate enough to live where you don't need money for these things, I'm happy for you, if you're not turn you either have more money than these people do, or you're otherwise looked after.
When people get philosophical about this, they are generally trying to avoid materialism and thus not thinking in the terms I am about to use, but I wonder how investment fits in with that attitude.
From one perspective your money can sit idle in a brokerage account, from another it is put to use by someone else.
You could take out capital gains and dividends, and spend them, leaving your starting balance the same. That starting balance could continue making you money.
In other words there are ways to imagine money never spent, sitting in an account, that isn't worthless.
Schopenhauer studied Hindu and Buddhist philosophy - of course he was aware how our attachments determine our value system and lead to suffering. Your comment is just a re-statement of the same truth. Our attachment to things are determined by the subjective weight of their loss.
"Your rude attitude" Ha! You should meet a monk sometime? Wrong audience, yes. Rude? Ha! So what! It exposes the people who are still attached to their ego.
If you do not understand it is just you who does not understand. Misinterpretation? No, just a deeper understanding.
Sorry I interrupted the death porn. I will go now.
Sorry, no. It is our attachment to things that determine their worth.