Dialectic Conversation on “It’s better to rich than famous.”
E: Do you think it is better to be rich than famous?
D: It is better to be rich than famous.
E: Why do you think so?
D: It is better to be rich than famous because wealth alone does not involve the opinion of others.
E: Do you believe that there is more than one definition for wealth?
D: Yes. Wealth can involve love, money, family, passions, or anything that fulfills you.
E: So you believe that wealth can mean more than just “rich?”
E: What do you define rich as then?
D: Being rich involves many aspects of life that are not necessarily as invasive as fame.
E: But you believe wealth and richness are similar or synonymous?
D: They are similar in the sense that richness can refer to an excessive quantity of money while wealth can be an emotional quantity.
E: So they are synonymous in the sense that both involve vast quantities of something? Like money perhaps?
E: And before we said wealth could involve any number of things like love and family or passion?
D: Yes, wealth and richness can refer to both.
E: Do you think fame is a kind of wealth?
D: Well, no. Because fame refers to popularity in the public eye.
E: Would you agree that being famous or “popular in the public eye” involves an excess amount of people who know about you?
D: Yes, it involves an excess amount of people knowing about me but richness does not necessarily mean people will know about your wealth.
E: But you could say fame is a kind of wealth because it has a large quantity of people either way?
D: No, fame does not involve richness because richness or wealth relies on a common ground between two parties. With fame, the people know me but I do not know them. There is no connection. Wealth involves knowledge of the things that I have a lot of “excess” of.
E: Do you believe that some people can have a wealth of love and not know about it, therefore missing the connection? Is this no longer wealth or richness?