Philosophers Who Like Stuff Their case against frugality By Emrys Westacott | HUMANITIES , Fall 2017 | Volume 38 , Number 4 A Still Life of a Tazza with Flowers by Jan Brueghel the Younger . — Private Collection / Johnny Van Haeften Ltd . , London / Bridgeman Images + Click on image to enlarge . In Allegory of Avarice by Jacopo Ligozzi , avarice is represented as a woman holding a bag of money and flanked by images of death and murder . — Metropolitan Museum of Art / Gift of Eric Seiler and Darcy Bradbury , and Edward A . and Karen S . W . Friedman , 1991 + Click on image to enlarge . Marco Polo the younger being presented to Kublai Khan by Tancredi Scarpelli . — Private Collection / © Look and Learn / Bridgeman Images + Click on image to enlarge . The gilded textures of Versailles : An immoral display of wealth or a righteous commission for the artisans who made these furnishings ? — Gigile / Flickr , Creative Commons + Click on image to enlarge . Allegory of Generosity by Francesco de Mura . — De Agostini Picture Library / A . Dagli Orti / Bridgeman ImagesFrom ancient times to the present , philosophers , religious teachers , and moralists of every stripe have praised frugality and simple living . Champions of frugal simplicity include Lao Tze , Buddha , Socrates , Plato , Epicurus , Jesus , Seneca , Epictetus , Plutarch , Boethius , Muhammad , More , Montaigne , Spinoza , Franklin , Rousseau , Thoreau , Nietzsche , Tolstoy , and Gandhi . These sages offer an impressive battery of arguments in support of their views , the most important of which can be classified as either religious ( simple living brings you closer to God ) , moral ( it fosters virtue ) , or prudential ( it will make you happier ) . As one would expect , they also tend to be highly critical of luxury and extravagance . This philosophical consensus down through the ages is rather surprising . After all , it isn ’ t obvious that the best life is one of frugal simplicity . Indeed , if people ’ s behavior is the best indicator of what they believe , millions appear to reject this idea . In fact , though , if one looks more closely , one can find intellectual countercurrents , also ancient , but typically less moralistic , that constitute an alternative tradition that rests on more worldly values , and admires , applauds , or at least gives conditional approval to superfluities and prodigality . This tradition has deep roots and can be found in some of the oldest texts . Homer , for instance , frequently offers detailed and admiring descriptions of fabulous luxury . This passage from Book IV of the Odyssey is fairly typical : Helen emerged from her scented , lofty chamber — striking as Artemis with her golden shafts — and a train of women followed . . . Adreste drew up her carved reclining chair , Alcippe brought a carpet of soft - piled fleece , Phylo carried her silver basket given by Alcandre , King Polybus ’ wife , who made his home in Egyptian Thebeswhere the houses overflow with the greatest troves of treasure . The king gave Menelaus a pair of bathing tubs in silver , two tripods , ten bars of gold , and apart from thesehis wife presented Helen her own precious gifts : a golden spindle , a basket that ran on casters , solid silver polished off with rims of gold . one finds the same enthusiastic tone in the Bible ’ s description of Solomon ’ s wealth : And king Solomon made two hundred targets of beaten gold : six hundred shekels of gold went to one target . And he made three hundred shields of beaten gold ; three pound of gold went to one shield : and the king put them in the house of the forest of Lebanon . Moreover the king made a great throne of ivory , and overlaid it with the best gold . The throne had six steps , and the top of the throne was round behind : and there were stays on either side on the place of the seat , and two lions stood beside the stays . And twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other upon the six steps : there was not the like made in any kingdom . And all king Solomon ’ s drinking vessels were of gold , and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold ; none were of silver : it was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon . ( Kings I , 10 , 16 – 21 ) Marco Polo ’ s awestruck description of the palace of Kublai Kahn at Xanadu belongs to the same genre . These accounts certainly express aesthetic appreciation . But it is not just beauty that is being praised ; there is also unabashed admiration for grandeur , size , quantity , and costliness . A twenty - first - century Homer singing about the exploits of stockbrokers and bankers would not fail to mention their Rolex watches . one might think that the ordinary people ruled by Menelaus , Solomon , or Kublai Kahn , many of whom would be poor peasants and farmers scratching out a meager existence , might be irked by their rulers ’ extravagance . This can occur — witness the French Revolution . But ordinary people may also take pride in the wealth and prodigality of their princes , enjoying a degree of reflected glory . The splendor of Versailles , after all , expresses the greatness of the French king and thereby of France . This way of thinking persists today . There are shocking levels of poverty in contemporary America ; but few suggest that , in order to save money , visiting heads of state be taken to a greasy spoon rather than feted at a lavish state dinner . People prefer to be represented by and associated with the splendid rather than the tawdry . Works of costly splendor can , of course , be found beyond royal palaces . Cathedrals and temples have also often been built on an extravagant scale and at extraordinary expense . The massive cost of building and ornamenting St . Peter ’ s Basilica in Rome was a major reason that the Catholic Church needed to raise money through the sale of indulgences , a practice that helped precipitate the Reformation . The official justification for extravagance in such cases was that it served to glorify God . In modern times , though , we are more inclined to justify expenditures of that order on galleries , concert halls , and museums , or on space stations and particle colliders — further evidence , if any were needed , of the essentially secular character of modernity . It is interesting to note how the admiration for luxury and extravagance changes its character over time , especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries , when the social structure of society altered so dramatically . In the novels of Jane Austen , for instance , there are plenty of passages that lovingly describe some handsome house and its surrounding estates . But what impresses here is not size , quantity , or cost . Indeed , to mention cost would be rather vulgar . The emphasis is almost exclusively aesthetic . What matters is the beauty and charm of a building , the agreeableness of its rooms , and , very importantly , how well it fits into its surroundings . The subtext here is not applause for wealth and power but the legitimation of privilege grounded in land ownership and history . In contemporary culture we can still observe these contrasting attitudes toward the uses of wealth . Some people love bling , glitz , mansions , sports cars , and other forms of ostentatious display . Others prefer prettily restored farmhouses filled with antique furniture — still expensive , but conveying the owner ’ s good taste and traditional values rather than providing a crass announcement of one ’ s bank balance . But what about the philosophers ? Are there philosophers who praise or advocate luxury and extravagance ? They are certainly not thick on the ground ; but there are a few who , to some degree and in certain respects , stand apart from the general consensus in favor of frugal simplicity . Aristippus ( c . 435 – c . 356 BCE ) was a follower of Socrates , but he emphatically rejects Socrates ’ conception of the good life . In his view , what makes life worth living is pleasure , so we should pursue it unconstrained by social conventions ( including moral precepts ) , and we should value whatever helps us experience it . Luxuries , in this view , are obviously good and should be enjoyed to the full . According to some accounts , one way Aristippus secured luxuries was to flatter patrons like Dionysius I , the King of Syracuse , even dressing up like a woman and dancing for his entertainment when asked . From the standpoint of Socrates and Plato , this is the shameful behavior of a man enslaved by his appetites . But Aristippus believed that his clearheaded devotion to pleasure , and his indifference to convention or moral constraints , made him a free man . one saying attributed to Aristippus constitutes what is perhaps the first recorded argument in defense of extravagance . “ If extravagance were a fault , ” he says , “ it would not have a place in the festivals of the gods . ” The form of this argument would be familiar to his audience . It is strikingly similar to a line attributed to Sappho : “ If death were good , the gods would have chosen death . ” Both arguments appeal to traditional ideas , derived primarily from Homer , about the deathless gods enjoying an existence rich in pleasure . The new moralism of Socrates and Plato necessarily involved a critique of these ideas — even the idea that death is an evil . Epicurus also considers pleasure to be the chief good in life , but since he deems simple pleasures such as friendship and conversation to be sufficient for happiness , he has no great interest in luxuries . And , like Socrates , he believes it is impossible to be happy if one lacks moral virtue . This view is endorsed by Plato and Aristotle . But whereas Plato is deeply distrustful of wealth , luxury , and extravagance ( all of which , he believes , tend to corrupt the soul ) , Aristotle is less suspicious . Here , as elsewhere , Aristotle ’ s views are closer than Plato ’ s to popular opinion ( aka common sense ) , both in his time and today . Although critical of anyone who attaches too much importance to wealth , he frankly admits that wealth is useful in helping us live well ; what matters is whether one uses it wisely . The virtue relating to the use of wealth is liberality , or , as we more commonly say today , generosity . Like other virtues , liberality lies between two extremes . A person deficient in liberality is ungenerous ; one excessively generous is wasteful . According to Aristotle , these vices are not equally bad : A lack of generosity is worse than wastefulness . one reason for this is that stinginess is ( in his view ) incurable , whereas wastefulness is typically cured either by maturity or by the wastrel running out of means to waste . A more important reason , though , is that ungenerosity bespeaks a base and selfish character , whereas people who are wasteful not through intemperance but simply because they are too generous may be foolish , but they are not vicious or ignoble . Moreover , while the tightfisted type benefits no one , people who are excessively generous at least benefit others , even while possibly ruining themselves . Plutarch ’ s life of Cato the Elder illustrates this thinking very well . Cato was renowned in his day for his simple lifestyle , and Plutarch admires his avoidance of luxury , his physical hardiness , and his preference for coarse clothes and plain fare . But he is disgusted by the way Cato treated his slaves , driving them mercilessly like beasts of burden , and then , to save money , simply discarding them when they were too old to work . Here , then , is an important criticism of frugal zealotry , and a reason to be indulgent with respect to at least some kinds of extravagance . Excessive frugality can indicate an unhealthy concern for money , and lead one to treat others badly , while excessive generosity toward others is surely one of the more forgivable personal failings . There is a kind of extravagance , though , that Aristotle praises as a positive virtue — the virtue of magnificence . This is a virtue that can be practiced only by the privileged few who are sufficiently wealthy . It involves lavish spending either on public goods , such as a temple , or on private projects , such as a wedding , or the furnishing of one ’ s house . one might also extend the notion to include large - scale acts of philanthropy aimed at helping people in need . Like any other virtue , it lies between two extremes and is kept there only if accompanied by wisdom . Individuals who spend excessively just to show off their wealth — the Rolex watch brigade — are guilty of vulgarity . Those who through penny - pinching fail to accomplish something fine that is within their reach are guilty of niggardliness . And anyone who attempts a display of magnificence that is really beyond their means is an idiot ! But for those who really can afford it , lavish spending done with taste and a sense of responsibility on worthwhile projects can be considered virtuous . Unlike most of the other virtues that Aristotle catalogs , however , magnificence is not an essential component of the good life . Those who are in a position to practice it are certainly fortunate ; but to be incapable of magnificence is not a misfortune , like sickness or friendlessness , since happiness does not require it . Notwithstanding Aristotle ’ s remarks on magnificence , most of the philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome associated luxury and extravagance with softness , avarice , greed , corruptibility , and vulgarity : in short , with moral decadence . once Christianity became the dominant religious framework within the West , the same vices were condemned as contrary to Jesus ’ teaching . So , although hypocrisy may sometimes have been rampant , the official positon of most Christian theologians , philosophers , and moralists throughout the Middle Ages was to endorse values such as poverty , humility , prudence , and temperance . A sea change occurred , however , in the eighteenth century , brought about by various developments that followed on the heels of the Renaissance and the Reformation . The end of feudalism , the discovery of the Americas and their riches , the revolutions in science and technology , the advent of capitalism , and the decline in the authority of religion , all required and produced new ways of thinking . Among these was a new perspective on wealth and worldly desires . one of the most influential texts to advance this new perspective was Bernard Mandeville ’ s The Fable of the Bees , which included his poem “ The Grumbling Hive . ” Through a witty and provocative account of a beehive , Mandeville argues that many traits condemned by moralists as vices in fact promote important benefits to society as a whole . For instance : The Root of Evil , Avarice , That damn ’ d ill - natur ’ d baneful Vice , Was Slave to Prodigality , That noble Sin ; whilst LuxuryEmployed a Million of the Poor , And odious Pride a Million more . . . Thus Vice nurs ’ d Ingenuity , Which joyn ’ d with time ; and IndustryHad carry ’ d Life ’ s Conveniences , Its real Pleasures , Comforts , Ease , To such a Height , the very PoorLiv ’ d better than the Rich before . In Mandeville ’ s fable , the beehive flourishes so long as it is full of vice . But eventually Jove , responding to the complaints of some of the bees , purges it of moral vices , and this disastrously weakens the hive , since the bees , not wishing to compete with one another , are no longer motivated to work . Prior to Mandeville , the standard view was that individual moral virtue and the good of society were closely connected . Good people will build a strong and healthy society ; a flourishing society will produce good citizens . This is the view paradigmatically set out in Plato ’ s Republic and presupposed by most people ever since . A radical aspect of Mandeville ’ s argument is the way it decouples individual virtue and societal well - being . Mandeville profoundly influenced early economists like Adam Smith . In The Theory of Moral Sentiments , Smith endorses the idea that when individuals single - mindedly pursue “ the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires , ” they unintentionally , as if “ led by an invisible hand , ” benefit society as a whole . Smith ’ s friend , David Hume , thinking along similar lines , criticizes “ men of severe morals [ who ] blame even the most innocent luxury , ” and offers an early defense of consumerism : The increase and consumption of all the commodities which serve to the ornament and pleasure of life , are advantages to society . . . . In a nation where there is no demand for such superfluities , men sink into indolence , lose all enjoyment of life , and are useless to the public . Similar sentiments are expressed by many others during this period . Samuel Johnson , for instance , a fervent Christian who was fiercely hostile to free thinkers like Hume , nevertheless joined in the new defense of luxury : Now the truth is , that luxury produces much good . . . . A man gives half a guinea for a dish of green peas . How much gardening does this occasion ? How many labourers must the competition to have such things early in the market keep in employment ? You will hear it said very gravely , ‘ Why was not the half - guinea , thus spent in luxury , given to the poor ? To how many might it have afforded a good meal ? ’ Alas ! has it not gone to the industrious poor , whom it is better to support than the idle poor ? As a Christian , Johnson is not entirely comfortable with his own position . Elsewhere he admits that “ there may be more virtue in giving it [ i . e . , money ] immediately in charity , than in spending it in luxury . ” Voltaire , however , has fewer moral scruples of this sort . Like Hume , who has no use for what he derisively labels the “ monkish virtues , ” Voltaire sees the desire for and the enjoyment of so - called luxuries as integral to what we call civilization . And he ridicules the reactionary moralists who see every innovation as sinful : When scissors , which surely do not date from late antiquity , were invented , what wasn ’ t said against the first people who clipped their nails , and who cut some of the hair that fell down over their nose ? They were doubtless called dandies and squanderers , who bought an expensive instrument of vanity to mar the work of the Creator . . . . It was an insult to Divinity ! Needless to say , in spite of all this , the longstanding tradition of philosophers criticizing luxury and praising the simple life remained alive and well . Rousseau viewed the desire for superfluities that economic progress encourages as a corruption of our natural , and morally better , way of being . Thoreau , in his experiment at Walden , sought to demonstrate his proposition that “ a man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone . ” But since the days of Hume and Voltaire , and especially in the era of mass consumerism , it is probably fair to say that their defense of luxuries as useful , and of the desire to enjoy them as reasonable , has become a virtually invisible part of mainstream thinking . This reflects , and is promoted by , rising incomes , rising living standards ( which continually convert luxuries into necessities — think flush toilets ) , a much greater and more affordable array of luxury items than in the past , a competitive culture , and wall - to - wall 24 / 7 advertising . Today , the advocates of frugality and simplicity are more than marginal but less than mainstream . Few politicians seek to win votes by persuading us that we don ’ t need to increase the country ’ s GDP any further , and that we would all be happier if we reduced our spending and embraced a simpler lifestyle . At the same time , critics of consumerism are legion , and there are countless books , periodicals , websites , and organizations seeking to promote the values and practices of simple living . In a dynamic society , intellectual and cultural trends are in constant motion . Sometimes old ideas come to the fore again in response to changing circumstances . So although , since the eighteenth century , the champions of luxury consumption and the continual economic growth it fuels have been ascendant , their view is not certain to prevail indefinitely . one venerable objection to people spending extravagantly on ostentatious luxuries and superfluities is that this sort of behavior can exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities and fuel popular resentment against the wealthy . As economic inequalities in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have widened in recent years , this argument has gained purchase , and concerns about inequality have become more prominent in both academic and political discourse . Who knows ? Just possibly , we may be witnessing the beginnings of another intellectual sea change . About the AuthorEmrys Westacott is professor of philosophy at Alfred University in western New York . His most recent book is The Wisdom of Frugality ( Princeton University Press , 2016 ) , which was written with support from an NEH summer stipend . Republication StatementThis article is available for unedited republication , free of charge , using the following credit : “ Originally published as ' Philosopher Who Like Stuff : Their Argument Against Frugality ' in the Fall 2017 issue of Humanities magazine , a publication of the National Endowment for the Humanities . ” Please email us if you are republishing it or have any questions .