Indeed Dear Prof. Kheepe Lawrence Moremi

I agree that "...most philosophers and academics can be rich if they choose to, but this is not what most of them (~99%) care about.

Full agreement; we found others pleasures in life than the boring accumulation of material wealth in a few hands.

The wisdom of finance is to self-finance our basic needs: freedom, health and some wealth.

No, I do not agree with this statement

For this statement, we can neither prove it rigorously nor disprove it. It is not a scientific hypothesis. It is only a personal belief, sn opinion, an idea

I agree; I don't think they do it for money. But the "drive" is the same (without the money) and that is: do the least to receive the most. I this case - knowledge.

Lou

En esencia si estoy de acuerdo con esa afirmación.

Al leer la biografía de Carlos Marx, conocer su relación entrañable con Einstein, la historia de vida de muchos otros filósofos se hace evidente esta frase "los filósofos y los académicos pueden ser ricos si así lo desean, pero esto no es lo que les importa".

El saber educa en la idea de que para la vida humana lo importante no es cuanto tenemos sino lo que hacemos con lo que se tenga. Y el saber es una de las mas grandes riquezas.

Gracias por tan interesante interrogante en tiempos de tanta riqueza acumulada que de muy poco sirve a la vida.

Academics and philosophers are more inclined towards knowledge acquisition and dissemination, than they do towards wealth

A few academics and philosophers are equally inclined towards knowledge acquisition and dissemination, as well as wealth accumulation

Thank you for your time and participation Joseph Tham . You opinion is very important. Your belief in the above response is clear and unequivocal, but I cannot say the same thing about your justification.

Thank you for the kind words Mirtha Juliana Yordi García . I am happy to hear that you found the question refreshing. Thank you for your expression.

Kheepe Lawrence Moremi

Chinaza Godswill Awuchi

In my field (life science), I saw quite a few renown academic scientists become some start-up companies' CEO.....

It should be kept in mind here that even if it is not for money, ego is still very active; publications are a form of "show and tell" just as well as a new house with swimming pool.

Lou

Yes, I agree

There is a famous philosopher, who shall remain nameless, that my grad school once tried to engage as a speaker. When telephoned he asked "how much?" and when an answer couldn't be given at that point he said in a surly tone "speak to my agent".

Thank you for the anecdote Karl Pfeifer . It drives the message home. The question though, is how widespread is that specific action? More importantly, though, would you associate that with a quest to be rich or to earn a living?

Kheepe Lawrence Moremi I think that many academics start out as idealists, though there is also a quest for fame and leaving a legacy. But once there is the opportunity for fortune (and the luxuries that it makes possible) in addition to fame, it can for many become part of the quest. You don't see many tenured professors living an ascetic lifestyle.

Yes, they can be rich. For example if they were able to develop a product, patented, and commercialized, they will be receiving a royalty for life.

Thank you Rose Asayas Arceño . Your argument is that they can be rich if they wanted to? Do most want to?

Yuan-Yeu Yau

Thank you for your participation and insights. What percentage of philosophers and academics "start companies" or involved in start ups?

Thank you Prof. Pedro L. Contreras E.

What would your response to Karl Pfeifer be?

Academics and philosophers are often more interested in making impacts, solving problems, making discoveries, and acquiring more knowledge. They rarely focus on wealth acquisition

Some academics and philosophers are also interested in wealth acquisition

Thank you Chinaza Godswill Awuchi Vadim S. Gorshkov

Chinaza Godswill Awuchi your submission is that "academics and philosophers rarely focus on wealth acquisition, some do"? How big a base is the latter?

Vadim S. Gorshkov

Thank you for your participation. You made two (2) submissions. Is one an elaboration of the other?

Sure, I totally agree with what you said. The primary purpose of the academics is to serve society, they usually don't aim at being rich.

Thank you Solomon Melesse Mengistie for your time and contribution.

Dear Prof. Kheepe Lawrence Moremi

Interesting to compare the "..famous philosopher "how much?"..." about which Prof Karl Pfeifer speaks, & some country´s cash offers to engage distinguished faculty to work in certain not very conventional fields.

To my knowledge in vzla during our democracy period, the most expensive person was pdvsa (oil & gas) main chief (~ 320.000 US yearly included air plane, credit cards & food) But according to some journals nowdays some distinguished faculty earn much more than that.

Prof. Karl Pfeifer is right when he says that "...we don't see many tenured professors living an ascetic lifestyle..." but there are some faculty that earn much more than tenure professors, I guess.

Kheepe Moremi @ Things have changed substantially since Aristotle the Great. I do not know about philosophers, but in many countries the university faculty is fairly well paid. Some countries also give cash awards for publications, theses supervision, and other academic/administrative activities.

But how do we define richness in monetary terms; I mean where do we place the limit? And is there a guarantee that any one of us obtaining that target would not want more? Amassing extra wealth over one's needs, leaving behind "something" for children, economically outpacing colleagues, friends and relatives, attaching ego with wealth, ....are wishes with no end.

I have observed scientists who turned their interest to building wealth, and their interest in contributing knowledge and serving others was reduced drastically. What you focus on directs your attention and creates your world. Academics are primarily interested on advancing knowledge and sharing it. It's more difficult to keep your feet dipped in both worlds.

Thank you for your contribution Scott Alan Woodward . Profound answer. It makes sense, one who serves two (2) masters must cheat one of them.

Nowadays, some academics are also building wealth, sharing knowledge, and developing theories at the same time

I agreed

Questions about the counter-factual are almost impossible to answer.

Thank you for your contributions Joseph Tham Ashfaq Ahmad Khan Chinaza Godswill Awuchi

C. Phillips, editor-in-chief of CampusReform has this interesting post Dear Prof. Kheepe Lawrence Moremi

https://twitter.com/cabot_phillips/status/1261382989574860800

"...A growing number of professors are being arrested for selling research and military secrets to the Chinese government. Here's a countdown of some of the craziest ones..."

I guess that spy behavior is not just for patriotism to a specific doctrine, money counts as well :)

Thank you Prof. Pedro L. Contreras E.

It sounds pretty complicated. Having said that though, I suspect this only small subset of populations of philosophers, researchers and academics.

Dear Kheepe Moremi

I agree with the proposed answer that academics and philosophers can be rich, but precisely many are not rich because they do not care. I give additional arguments to support that assertion:

• Being a philosopher means being a lover of knowledge (natural factual, emotional, spiritual), not of having the tangible and that is obtained with money (material goods)
• Philosophers exist to inquire and know the why of natural phenomena, the why of life, which is life, which means to live: Again, its existence is centered more on being than having.
• Academics, for their part, have a lot of philosophers and are used to living in a world where the balance between being and having is considered.
• Academics know how to make money but in general, they are not interested in being rich and not very rich either. Just enough to do his job, have financing for his projects. They travel with scholarships or support from institutes and universities to present the results of their work.
• Most academics don't waste time looking to make money and often ask themselves the following question; like philosophers, how much (capital, money, material goods) does it take to be happy?

Regards

José Luis

Thank you for a detailed and argued response José Luis García Vigil

Thank you M. Qasim Jan for your time and contribution.

Not in total agreement with this subject matter. Academics and Philosophy didn't choose to be poor and lack of interest in riches doesn't make lack the quest to have better income. You can not have a remedy of being poor and still be poor.

Not in total agreement with this subject matter. Academics and Philosophy didn't choose to be poor and lack of interest in riches doesn't make lack the quest to have better income. You can not have a remedy of being poor and still be poor.

Thank you for your time and contribution Taiwo Alare

I agree with it in some extent, however, may be it also depended to overall environment of a philosopher and academics.

Thank you for your time and contribution Md Shams Shahriar

Would you be kind enough to give an example of an environment that the truthfulness or lack of depends on?

Thank you to all those that took part in this thread. Your contributions were very insightful. Thank you: Md Shams Shahriar Taiwo Alare José Luis García Vigil Chinaza Godswill Awuchi Prof. Pedro L. Contreras E. Joseph Tham M. Qasim Jan Ashfaq Ahmad Khan

This thread is officially closed.

My pleasure, Prof. Kheepe Lawrence Moremi.

Thank you Prof. Pedro L. Contreras E.

Agreed with José Luis García Vigil

Rhank you for your time and contribution Tanvir Singh

In order to compare rich to what a person cares about would require a definition of rich. The question in itself is more complex that the initial appearance of comparison. Is rich a state of mind or lifestyle? Is rich merely a whole number? In the latter case would not the whole number depend, at least in part, on the value given the whole number? Does not this value depend on culture which is a state of mind or lifestyle in a sense?

In view of the complexities I would have to choose either what I believe to matter in life on an equivocal level or capitalist demeanor. I am sure there are some philosophers and academics who care more about whole number richness than richness of deeper thought and connectivity of context. I must put my faith in the belief that is not what the general audience of academics and philosophers care about the most.

When one thinks about legacy they may think monetary but it is what one passes on to others. Legacy is how knowledge is passed down and around. Knowledge is a fundamental key to survival, growth, and humanity in every land. I believe gaining and teaching knowledge is what philosophers and academics care about.

Thank you for a considered and profound response B.E.I. Johnson