A question from a regular reader: “What is the Epicurean view on ambition? In the past you’ve praised the social democratic policies of the post war governments in Britain, and they resulted in a better standard of living for most people. But due to high taxes and regulations, it was hard to become wealthy, both in absolute and relative terms. Thatcher reversed this: The working class has increased in size since the eighties but so has the upper class. But isn’t the culture of being able to become seriously rich a good thing? In high tax countries you will find very few poor people but you will also find very few rich people, and lower growth overall. So should an Epicurean recognize the benefits of the ambitious neo-liberal model, or reject ambition as something that is detrimental to society? I ask this because it seems that under a socialist system, it is harder to become rich, even if being rich is a good thing”.
I’m sure you don’t mean give the impression that there only one thing in life to be ambitious about, but the question seems framed to be all about money. There are as many activities to be ambitious about as there are days in ten years. I think Epicurus would never have condemned ambition; he would have asked “ambitious about what?” Just being rich for the sake of being rich – what is the point of that, unless you do something with the money? Bill Gates, for instance, was apparently persuaded by his wife to do something useful with his money. He is using it for world health. You might argue about whether his priorities are correct, but he is trying to help mankind. The head of Apple has just announced that he will be giving away a large proportion of his $800m fortune. Good sign; we will see what and who he gives it to. Maybe he feels he is convinced that, like several “robber barons” in the 19th Century (such as Carnegie), he is more likely to become famous for what he gives away than for what he made in the first place. And hopefully he will be.
Tomorrow, I would like to return to the rich and giving.
If I may make a personal observation: my ambition is to be co-author, with my wife, of beautiful music that moves the listener, takes him somewhere else and even brings tears to the eye. It doesn’t require a lot of money, and if it works it is more fulfilling than making several million on some obscure financial manoeuvre.
What kind of music do you make?
Thank you for asking. We write mainly chamber music. Not much of it is recorded, although we are intending to do more recordings. But if you go onto hanrott.com you will can click on Chamber music or Piano Collections. The latter has a Youtube recording one of one of our piano collections (played by a pianist called Scot Hawkins). We write music because we enjoy it and enjoy working together.