Is fame like gold? (Quote from Page 92 of The Biblical Clock)

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The following excerpt is from page 92 of my copy of The Biblical Clock:

To those who valued and sought fame, [Rabbi Rashi's] actions no doubt would have seemed puzzling. However, the rabbi knew that fame was like gold--beautiful to the beholder, useful for relatively few things, coveted far beyond what it merited, and capable of driving people to great folly and sin.

Do you agree? Do you think fame and financial riches both in a parallel ways tend to be overvalued, overcoveted, and folly-inducing?

[LuckyR]

The following excerpt is from page 92 of my copy of The Biblical Clock:

To those who valued and sought fame, [Rabbi Rashi's] actions no doubt would have seemed puzzling. However, the rabbi knew that fame was like gold--beautiful to the beholder, useful for relatively few things, coveted far beyond what it merited, and capable of driving people to great folly and sin.

Do you agree? Do you think fame and financial riches both in a parallel ways tend to be overvalued, overcoveted, and folly-inducing?

They do have similarities but also significant differences. The similarities run along the lines you pointed out, that is on folk's attitudes about them. The most important differences lie in their practical uses. Fame is difficult to quantify and to convert into practical actions, whereas wealth is the opposite.

[Sculptor1]

Seems to me like an everyday gratuitous platitude.
If you are obsessed with fame then you think it is good.
Some people like fame some people do not. The most important thing about gold is that no matter if you like it or not it has exchange value. Fame is not like that in any sense.
Friedman is wrong about gold, and about fame. Gold's uses are legion. I imagine that these comments reflect his own personal covetousness for fame - not surprising for a man of such narcisism that he self-publishes his own books.
There's really nothing more to say.

[Alias]

In or order to balance the analogy, I think we need to substitute wealth for gold.
(Gold, like any natural substance, has practical applications that a concept like fame cannot.)
Fame and wealth can both be evil in the means of their acquisition - e.g. Hernán Cortés de Monroy y Pizarro Altamirano
https://www.history.com/topics/explorat ... nan-cortes and how they are used to exploit and oppress other people.
They can also be acquired by honest means and used to benefit others. https://people.com/tag/jane-fonda/
It is not the fame and wealth that corrupt the person; it is bad people that corrupt fame and wealth.

Beware facile aphorism!

[Count Lucanor]

There's an old Latin American saying: "crea fama y acuéstate a dormir". Create fame and go to sleep.

[Sushan]

The following excerpt is from page 92 of my copy of The Biblical Clock:

To those who valued and sought fame, [Rabbi Rashi's] actions no doubt would have seemed puzzling. However, the rabbi knew that fame was like gold--beautiful to the beholder, useful for relatively few things, coveted far beyond what it merited, and capable of driving people to great folly and sin.

Do you agree? Do you think fame and financial riches both in a parallel ways tend to be overvalued, overcoveted, and folly-inducing?

They do have similarities but also significant differences. The similarities run along the lines you pointed out, that is on folk's attitudes about them. The most important differences lie in their practical uses. Fame is difficult to quantify and to convert into practical actions, whereas wealth is the opposite.

One is quantitative and the other one is qualitative. Yet, people have frequently argued what is more important, is it wealth or your honor (let's say 'fame' here). So it seems like the fact of being able to quantify or not has a low value in this comparison. As per my understanding, this comparison is quite accurate.

[Alias]

One is quantitative and the other one is qualitative. Yet, people have frequently argued what is more important, is it wealth or your honor (let's say 'fame' here).

I don't see how you substitute fame for honour. Though neither can be equated to, or compared with wealth, fame and honour are very different. You may acquire both fame and wealth at the cost of your honour, but once you have compromised honour, no amount of fame and wealth will bring it back.

[Sushan]

One is quantitative and the other one is qualitative. Yet, people have frequently argued what is more important, is it wealth or your honor (let's say 'fame' here).

I don't see how you substitute fame for honour. Though neither can be equated to, or compared with wealth, fame and honour are very different. You may acquire both fame and wealth at the cost of your honour, but once you have compromised honour, no amount of fame and wealth will bring it back.

fame is the state of being known or talked about by many people, especially on account of notable achievements.

honor is high respect; great esteem

So, if the fame has been earned in a good way, then it comes with honor too. So I think the two can be equated in some occasions. And both can be earned using gold.

[Sushan]

Seems to me like an everyday gratuitous platitude.
If you are obsessed with fame then you think it is good.
Some people like fame some people do not. The most important thing about gold is that no matter if you like it or not it has exchange value. Fame is not like that in any sense.
Friedman is wrong about gold, and about fame. Gold's uses are legion. I imagine that these comments reflect his own personal covetousness for fame - not surprising for a man of such narcisism that he self-publishes his own books.
There's really nothing more to say.

Quite a strong comment, yet I think that it is true. This author has gone after fame rather than looking for gold, by writing and self-publishing his book. If he wanted any approval for his book and it to be honored by the readers, then he would have gone to an editor or a publisher. But he has skipped that and I think he has simply aimed for fame. Quite a nice way to say it

[Sculptor1]

Seems to me like an everyday gratuitous platitude.
If you are obsessed with fame then you think it is good.
Some people like fame some people do not. The most important thing about gold is that no matter if you like it or not it has exchange value. Fame is not like that in any sense.
Friedman is wrong about gold, and about fame. Gold's uses are legion. I imagine that these comments reflect his own personal covetousness for fame - not surprising for a man of such narcisism that he self-publishes his own books.
There's really nothing more to say.

Quite a strong comment, yet I think that it is true. This author has gone after fame rather than looking for gold, by writing and self-publishing his book. If he wanted any approval for his book and it to be honored by the readers, then he would have gone to an editor or a publisher. But he has skipped that and I think he has simply aimed for fame. Quite a nice way to say it

I would think that it is almost universally true that all people who self publish, be that books, music or other media, have already tried the existing means of publishing and their offerings have been found wanting.
So for some reason the media has either no market, or where such markets exist, for say books, then no publisher thinks that the work in question is worthy of publishing.
From my way of thinking the most basic outline of the book is incoherent, and I would think that publishers felt the same way.

I do not know exactly how these books get chosen for consideration by this Forum, but I find the other choices of much the same calibre. Life is far too short to spend time reading self-published books (or shifting through such dross until you find the rare gem), whilst there are so many great works of philosophy, many of them way past copyright, so may be acquired for pin money.

[Sushan]

Seems to me like an everyday gratuitous platitude.
If you are obsessed with fame then you think it is good.
Some people like fame some people do not. The most important thing about gold is that no matter if you like it or not it has exchange value. Fame is not like that in any sense.
Friedman is wrong about gold, and about fame. Gold's uses are legion. I imagine that these comments reflect his own personal covetousness for fame - not surprising for a man of such narcisism that he self-publishes his own books.
There's really nothing more to say.

Quite a strong comment, yet I think that it is true. This author has gone after fame rather than looking for gold, by writing and self-publishing his book. If he wanted any approval for his book and it to be honored by the readers, then he would have gone to an editor or a publisher. But he has skipped that and I think he has simply aimed for fame. Quite a nice way to say it

I would think that it is almost universally true that all people who self publish, be that books, music or other media, have already tried the existing means of publishing and their offerings have been found wanting.
So for some reason the media has either no market, or where such markets exist, for say books, then no publisher thinks that the work in question is worthy of publishing.
From my way of thinking the most basic outline of the book is incoherent, and I would think that publishers felt the same way.

I do not know exactly how these books get chosen for consideration by this Forum, but I find the other choices of much the same calibre. Life is far too short to spend time reading self-published books (or shifting through such dross until you find the rare gem), whilst there are so many great works of philosophy, many of them way past copyright, so may be acquired for pin money.

Me neither have no idea how this forum choose a book to be discussed in a particular month, yet I think that they have to be approved by the moderators and the books that they feel which are worth discussing are getting chosen to this forum. I do not think that they consider the fact the book being self-published because these days most authors choose self-publishing not purely because of their books are rejected by publishers, but for many other practical difficulties when you go to a publisher, and also because of the many options that you get for easy self-publishing these days.

[Sushan]

There's an old Latin American saying: "crea fama y acuéstate a dormir". Create fame and go to sleep.

I have never heard of this quote, so I googled it. Here is what I got as the first search result.

Cría fama, y acuéstate a dormir. Translation: Create fame, and then go to bed, meaning once you have a reputation, you can't do much to change it (good or bad).

I cannot say that I agree with this explanation (if it is correct). As far as I believe it is far more hard to protect your reputation rather than building it for the first time. When you have a good reputation, you have to be careful of each and every of your acts, unless you do not care about your good name.

But from the practical scenarios we see that, if we have a bad reputation, then of course we can go to sleep because even you try hard, it is difficult to change that bad reputation. So it is easy to keep and you have nothing much left to do when you have a bad reputation.

So I think whoever said this wanted to highlight the gravity of having a bad reputation.

[Alias]

fame is the state of being known or talked about by many people, especially on account of notable achievements.

honor is high respect; great esteem

That''s one definition; a superficial, or external one. The more personal aspect of honour is being true and faithful to one's beliefs, affiliations and obligations; being fair in your dealings with others and keeping your promises.

So, if the fame has been earned in a good way, then it comes with honor too.

It might. But nothing about fame itself suggests the manner and means of its acquisition. Think of all the famous names you can remember without effort. How many 'earned' their fame in 'a good way'?

So I think the two can be equated in some occasions.

It's a carefully chosen occasion - not an interchangeable definition.

And both can be earned using gold.

Absolutely not!!!
Buying it has never been a 'good way' to 'earn' fame. And do we know how the gold was acquired?

If you mix definitions, you'll confuse concepts.

[Sushan]

fame is the state of being known or talked about by many people, especially on account of notable achievements.

honor is high respect; great esteem

That''s one definition; a superficial, or external one. The more personal aspect of honour is being true and faithful to one's beliefs, affiliations and obligations; being fair in your dealings with others and keeping your promises.

So, if the fame has been earned in a good way, then it comes with honor too.

It might. But nothing about fame itself suggests the manner and means of its acquisition. Think of all the famous names you can remember without effort. How many 'earned' their fame in 'a good way'?

So I think the two can be equated in some occasions.

It's a carefully chosen occasion - not an interchangeable definition.

And both can be earned using gold.

Absolutely not!!!
Buying it has never been a 'good way' to 'earn' fame. And do we know how the gold was acquired?

If you mix definitions, you'll confuse concepts.

Buying fame and honor may not be a good way to acquire it, yet it is a very much possible way to do that.

I know a person who helps his community spending a lot of money. So the people love and honor him very much and he has earned a good name. But the rumors say that what he has earned has come from drug dealing. But the people in his community does not care about that and I do not see that he has lost any fame or honor. I know that morally what he is doing is wrong. Yet he has quite a fame, honor, and a substantial amount of gold (money), and he is using that gold (money) to earn more fame.

[Alias]

Buying fame and honor may not be a good way to acquire it, yet it is a very much possible way to do that.

Fame, yes. Honour, NO.

I know a person who helps his community spending a lot of money. So the people love and honor him very much and he has earned a good name.

That's not his honour; those are 'honors' awarded to him; mere trappings of external validation.

But the rumors say that what he has earned has come from drug dealing. But the people in his community does not care about that and I do not see that he has lost any fame or honor.

He may have gained fame, but he threw away his honour in the very first drug deal. He's trying to buy it back, and that's impossible. However, by doing good, he might begin to make amends and eventually redeem his honour.
But he would have to actually, physically go out and help the victims of his drug traffic - not just throw their money around.

You really don't see the difference between honour - integrity, constancy, fairness, veracity, faithfulness - and kudos?