Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Psychic Ability & Powers of the Mind
Happiness
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Grayson" data-source="post: 5779" data-attributes="member: 18"><p><strong>Happiness</strong></p><p></p><p>Curious that you should mention shoes, it sparked this off in my mind.</p><p></p><p>Aristotle, elaborated on the principle of moderation by postulating the principle of diminishing returns, as applied to the monetary sphere. Being an astute observer of human traits, he stipulated that an upper limit is imposed on the utilitarian use to which money can be applied. Since money is a human invention, human nature determines the measure of such optimums </p><p></p><p>If we have no shoes at all, we suffer from pain and discomfort. We will be inefficient in the pursuit of our objectives, such as hunting for game. Such complete lack of shoes represents life below the threshold of minimum necessities and puts our life at risk. </p><p></p><p>If we own one pair of shoes, we can function rather effectively, but we cannot compete for food or other essentials if our shoes are wet or if they need repairs. </p><p></p><p>If we have two pairs of shoes, we can be certain of having proper footgear at all times, a condition representing the optimum combination of needs and resources. </p><p></p><p>If we acquire more than the optimum of two pairs, we conflict with the law of diminishing returns. Three pairs of shoes will provide only a slight advantage because it may provide the opportunity to rotate shoes to avoid blisters. We need to weigh this slight advantage against the cost of acquiring, maintaining and safeguarding the extra pair of shoes. </p><p></p><p>The principle of diminishing returns will become even more obvious when we insist on acquiring the fourth, fifth and sixth pair of shoes. Since we can only wear one pair of shoes at a time, these additional shoes will not increase the quality of our life but will, instead, make us more concerned about their potential theft.</p><p></p><p>If the possession of shoes is a matter of survival, and if many needy people have no shoes at all, they will incur considerable risk to separate us from our unneeded shoes. Ultimately, to possess 300 pairs of shoes in the spirit of Ismelda Marcos, will lead to ridicule or even disaster, as she discovered to her chagrin.</p><p></p><p>This illustration illuminates the Aristotelian principle of diminishing returns as it pertains to man, his money and his possessions: Total lack of money, signifying the lack of physical resources that money represents, can mean deprivation or even death. A minimum of resources will keep us alive but will provide little in the way of life?s joys. An optimum match of human resources and human needs will provide us with all necessities for survival and will provide us with the opportunity to enhance our happiness by reducing or eliminating most adversity and pain from our existence.</p><p></p><p>Beyond this optimal point, we burden ourselves with anxiety about the potential loss of our resources, with the additional cost of acquiring them, with disproportionate benefits and with the additional burden of protecting our possessions from predators or from the hazards of time and decay.</p><p></p><p>All that from one pair of shoes, shame on you for provoking me with that article of clothing. :lol:</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grayson, post: 5779, member: 18"] [b]Happiness[/b] Curious that you should mention shoes, it sparked this off in my mind. Aristotle, elaborated on the principle of moderation by postulating the principle of diminishing returns, as applied to the monetary sphere. Being an astute observer of human traits, he stipulated that an upper limit is imposed on the utilitarian use to which money can be applied. Since money is a human invention, human nature determines the measure of such optimums If we have no shoes at all, we suffer from pain and discomfort. We will be inefficient in the pursuit of our objectives, such as hunting for game. Such complete lack of shoes represents life below the threshold of minimum necessities and puts our life at risk. If we own one pair of shoes, we can function rather effectively, but we cannot compete for food or other essentials if our shoes are wet or if they need repairs. If we have two pairs of shoes, we can be certain of having proper footgear at all times, a condition representing the optimum combination of needs and resources. If we acquire more than the optimum of two pairs, we conflict with the law of diminishing returns. Three pairs of shoes will provide only a slight advantage because it may provide the opportunity to rotate shoes to avoid blisters. We need to weigh this slight advantage against the cost of acquiring, maintaining and safeguarding the extra pair of shoes. The principle of diminishing returns will become even more obvious when we insist on acquiring the fourth, fifth and sixth pair of shoes. Since we can only wear one pair of shoes at a time, these additional shoes will not increase the quality of our life but will, instead, make us more concerned about their potential theft. If the possession of shoes is a matter of survival, and if many needy people have no shoes at all, they will incur considerable risk to separate us from our unneeded shoes. Ultimately, to possess 300 pairs of shoes in the spirit of Ismelda Marcos, will lead to ridicule or even disaster, as she discovered to her chagrin. This illustration illuminates the Aristotelian principle of diminishing returns as it pertains to man, his money and his possessions: Total lack of money, signifying the lack of physical resources that money represents, can mean deprivation or even death. A minimum of resources will keep us alive but will provide little in the way of life?s joys. An optimum match of human resources and human needs will provide us with all necessities for survival and will provide us with the opportunity to enhance our happiness by reducing or eliminating most adversity and pain from our existence. Beyond this optimal point, we burden ourselves with anxiety about the potential loss of our resources, with the additional cost of acquiring them, with disproportionate benefits and with the additional burden of protecting our possessions from predators or from the hazards of time and decay. All that from one pair of shoes, shame on you for provoking me with that article of clothing. :lol: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Psychic Ability & Powers of the Mind
Happiness
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top