There seems to be a fundamental error in being emotionally attached to it, don't you think?
Well, you can play the semantics game all you want and you can argue some bizarre philosophical concept about how it is wrong to get emotionally attached to a metaphysical object, but the simple fact is, if you were to go home one day and tell your wife that you liquidated all of your assets and handed them over to a bum on the street, I suspect that you would get an emotional response. I would be a nickel that your wife would get an emotional response from you if she did the same. The real life smell test to the idea that you can't, shouldn't or won't have some emotional attachment to money really just boils down to more mental masturbation that belongs on the shelf with existential philosophy. What I think is that you and ahhaha might actually be trying to argue something else. As a matter o'fact, I think I already identified it when I brought in the movie reference. The point with the movie reference wasn't about what is right and wrong in an intimate relationship, but how to acquire the things that you desire. You will note that I didn't say that the main character stays emotionally detached from his intimate partner, but that he stays emotionally detached from his desire for women. And in the context of the movie, it is pursuing new female intimacies, so there is no intimacy established at the time of detachment. Anyway, we have all heard "you want it too much" as a reason that we didn't get something, whether it is to win a sporting event, or a potential girlfriend/boyfriend or a stock trade. And it is concept that I do understand and believe in. But it is different to deny any emotional attachment than it is separate oneself from the emotional attachment in the pursuit of making a buck. |
