The Wisdom of Frugality Quotes

“One never gets any fun Out of things you haven’t done.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“For while asceticism is certainly an important strand in the frugal tradition, so, too, is the celebration of simple pleasures. Indeed, one argument that is made repeatedly in favor of simple living is that it helps one to appreciate more fully elementary and easily obtained pleasures such as the enjoyment of companionship and natural beauty. This is another example of something we have already noted: the advocates of simple living do not share a unified and consistent notion of what it involves. Different thinkers emphasize different aspects of the idea, and some of these conflict. Truth, unlike pleasure, has rarely been viewed as morally suspect. Its value is taken for granted by virtually all philosophers. Before Nietzsche, hardly anyone seriously considered as a general proposition the idea that truth may not necessarily be beneficial.26 There is a difference, though, between the sort of truth the older philosophers had in mind and the way truth is typically conceived of today. Socrates, the Epicureans, the Cynics, the Stoics, and most of the other sages assume that truth is readily available to anyone with a good mind who is willing to think hard. This is because their paradigm of truth—certainly the truth that matters most—is the sort of philosophical truth and enlightenment that can be attained through a conversation with like-minded friends in the agora or the garden. Searching for and finding such truth is entirely compatible with simple living. But today things are different. We still enjoy refined conversation about philosophy, science, religion, the arts, politics, human nature, and many other areas of theoretical interest. And these conversations do aim at truth, in a sense. As Jürgen Habermas argues, building on Paul Grice’s analysis of conversational conventions, regardless of how we actually behave and our actual motivations, our discussions usually proceed on the shared assumption that we are all committed to establishing the truth about the topic under discussion.27 But a different paradigm of truth now dominates: the paradigm of truth established by science. For the most part this is not something that ordinary people can pursue by themselves through reflection, conversation, or even backyard observation and experiment. Does dark matter exist? Does eating blueberries decrease one’s chances of developing cancer? Is global warming producing more hurricanes? Does early involvement with music and dance make one smarter or morally better? Are generous people happier than misers? People may discuss such questions around the table. But in most cases when we talk about such things, we are ultimately prepared to defer to the authority of the experts whose views and findings are continually reported in the media.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“AESTHETIC SIMPLICITY For some people simplicity is an aesthetic value, so one further sense that might be attached to the notion of simple living is a preference for an uncomplicated, uncluttered living environment. Imagine, for instance, an apartment with white walls, white trim, bare wood floors, simple wooden furniture, plain white kitchenware, white towels in the bathroom, and white blankets on the simple wooden beds. Or a house where the brick walls and overhead beams are left exposed, the furniture is rustic, and any artwork on display is clearly local and amateurish. Or a study containing nothing but a desk and a chair. All these are interiors that people deliberately create for themselves. Simplicity of this sort is not necessarily frugal. The uncluttered apartment could be in the center of Paris; the plain wooden furniture might be custom-made. Wittgenstein designed a house in Vienna for his sister Margaret characterized by austere, almost minimalist aesthetic lines, yet built with no concern for cost. But although such setups may not be cheap, they make no exhibition of expense. And the styles have symbolic significance. They bespeak sympathy with the plain, the unpretentious, the unostentatious. They connote honesty, purity, and a mind focused on essentials. In the case of country retreats, closeness to nature may also be sought and expressed.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“One further complication in the link between self-sufficiency and simplicity is worth noting. Self-sufficiency may be part of the traditional notion and the Romantic ideal of simple living, but in fairly obvious ways using technology can simplify our lives considerably. Which is simpler, washing all your clothes and sheets by hand, or using a washing machine? Collecting and chopping wood to make a fire to cook over, or turning on the gas burner and pushing the electric ignition button? Walking across town and back to deliver a message, or making a phone call? The point here is that the concept of simple living contains crosscurrents. Reducing our dependence on infrastructure and technology may bring us closer to simple living in one sense—we are more self-sufficient—but takes us away from it in other ways since it makes basic tasks much more difficult, arduous, and time-consuming. And in some ways technology can even help us to be more self-sufficient, as when we use a washing machine to do our own laundry instead of using servants or sending it out.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“When Greek and Roman thinkers like Epicurus and Seneca talk about self-sufficiency, they typically contrast it with the first sort of dependency since they worry a good deal about the dangers of patronage. For them, being self-sufficient means, above all else, not being dependent on another person’s favor or good opinion. For much of human history, enjoying the favor of one’s social superiors has been a major avenue to success and an important defense against poverty and oppression. But of course one usually pays a price for such favor. Ideally, favor would be bestowed purely on the basis of merit, but everyone knows that the world does not typically work that way. Dependents must often flatter and fawn; they are expected to endorse their patron’s words and approve of his or her actions. This is true whether one is a courtier complimenting a king, a politician currying favor with the crowd, or an employee hoping to impress a supervisor. Dependency of this sort thus inhibits one’s ability to think, speak, and act as one sees fit. Being independent of such constraints is liberating, which is why Epicurus says that “the greatest fruit of self-sufficiency is freedom.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“More recent reflections on the importance of our link to the natural world have given rise to the “biophilia hypothesis,” first suggested by Erich Fromm and later developed by E. O. Wilson in his 1984 work Biophilia, according to which human beings have a deep-seated impulse to affiliate with other life-forms.58 This notion may be a little too speculative for some, but a body of empirical evidence seems to support the more modest hypothesis that human beings benefit from proximity to natural surroundings and are susceptible to what Richard Louv has called “nature-deficit disorder:”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“Philosophers like Heidegger have even argued that our scientific understanding of the world, which is essentially aimed at domination and control, has been bought at the price of a damaged relationship between humanity and nature: in Wordsworth’s phrase, “we murder to dissect.” Another ancient argument, and one that remains relevant today, is that the pleasures of appreciating and studying nature are readily available to nearly everyone in almost any circumstances. This consideration also grounds a further subtle argument advanced by Epicurus: studying nature makes us happier because it leads us away from envy, resentment, and dissatisfaction over what we lack compared to others. It does so because it leads us to take pride “in the good things of our own minds rather than in our circumstances.”56 The idea here is that readily available pleasures have a beneficial equalizing function. Ocean-front mansions may be exclusive to the rich, but most facets of nature—trees, wildflowers, birds, insects, beaches, rivers, mountains, stars—are open to all. In an often-cited passage in Albert Camus’s The Stranger, Meursault reflects, while in prison, that he could be content to spend his time simply looking up through a hollow tree trunk at the clouds and birds passing overhead. His thought captures not just the easy and equal accessibility of the pleasures nature offers but also their inexhaustibility.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“The advocates of self-reliance undoubtedly have a point: doing things for oneself can be immensely satisfying. Apart from the simple pleasure of being immersed in a task—achieving what psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls “flow”53—one derives satisfaction from a sense of competence and accomplishment, and with this comes an enhanced and pleasurable feeling of independence. Feelings of dependency, by contrast, easily breed negative emotions such as alienation and resentment.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“Most people who find themselves impoverished hate having to accept charity; yet recipients of unearned income from inheritances and trust funds rarely suffer from any analogous sense of inadequacy.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“It takes a very independent mind and strong personality to uncouple one’s self-perception from how one is regarded by others. For most of us, the extent to which we and our circumstances are respected by society at large decisively influences how we view ourselves.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“People who are dependent on the favor of others will almost inevitably be anxious about how they are viewed by their patrons. This anxiety is unpleasant in itself and constrains what they feel comfortable doing or saying. Ultimately it is likely to affect—one might well say infect—their thinking. As Upton Sinclair famously observed, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”52 Thus when Epicurus says that “the greatest fruit of self-sufficiency is freedom,” he primarily has in mind freedom from any such inhibitions or anxieties, a condition he views as both conducive to moral integrity and necessary for peace of mind.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“We noted earlier that among advocates of frugal simplicity there are two main notions of self-sufficiency: not being excessively dependent on another person’s favors or good opinion, and doing things for oneself as opposed to relying too heavily on someone else’s services or on technology. When classical thinkers like Epicurus and Seneca praise self-sufficiency, they do not primarily have in mind doing everything for oneself after the fashion of Robinson Crusoe; after all, some of them had servants and slaves. Rather, they conceive of self-sufficiency as meaning, above all else, not being dependent on another person’s patronage. One way to achieve this, of course, is to be like Seneca or Marcus Aurelius and hold wealth or power in one’s own right; but the more secure way is to follow the example set by the likes of Socrates and Diogenes and become indifferent to the material benefits that patronage promises.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“But it is not just the aesthetic appreciation of the ordinary that simple living can encourage. Ancient philosophers also pointed out that just about any segment of the natural world, from the starry heavens above one’s fields to the spiderweb in the corner of one’s prison cell, offers abundant material worthy of close observation and poses innumerable fascinating questions to the naturally curious mind. Moreover, the contemplation of nature is recommended not just as a pleasurable activity but also as a source of spiritual refreshment readily available to everyone regardless of rank or fortune since, as Seneca points out, “from any spot whatever eyes can be raised to heaven equally well”50—an attitude that seems to have helped him deal with his own misfortune when he was exiled to Corsica. Once again, there is no reason to assume that the connection being asserted—in this case between a simple lifestyle and a heightened appreciation of the commonplace or the wonders of nature—is universal or inevitable. But prima facie it is plausible to suppose that such appreciation is more likely when we are subjected to fewer exotic and expensive diversions.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“The second main argument to support the idea that simple living enhances our capacity for pleasure is that it encourages us to attend to and appreciate the inexhaustible wealth of interesting, beautiful, marvelous, and thought-provoking phenomena continually presented to us by the everyday world that is close at hand. As Emerson says: “Things near are not less beautiful and wondrous than things remote. . . . This perception of the worth of the vulgar is fruitful in discoveries.”47 Here, as elsewhere, Emerson elegantly articulates the theory, but it is his friend Thoreau who really puts it into practice. Walden is, among other things, a celebration of the unexotic and a demonstration that the overlooked wonders of the commonplace can be a source of profound pleasure readily available to all. This idea is hardly unique to Emerson and Thoreau, of course, and, like most of the ideas we are considering, it goes back to ancient times. Marcus Aurelius reflects that “anyone with a feeling for nature—a deeper sensitivity—will find it all gives pleasure,” from the jaws of animals to the “distinct beauty of old age in men and women.”48 “Even Nature’s inadvertence has its own charms, its own attractiveness,” he observes, citing as an example the way loaves split open on top when baking.49 With respect to the natural world, celebrating the ordinary has been a staple of literature and art at least since the advent of Romanticism in the late eighteenth century. Wordsworth wrote three separate poems in praise of the lesser celandine, a common wildflower; painters like van Gogh discover whole worlds of beauty and significance in a pair of peasant boots; many of the finest poems crafted by poets like Thomas Hardy, Robert Frost, Elizabeth Bishop, William Carlos Williams, and Seamus Heaney take as their subject the most mundane objects, activities, or events and find in these something worth lingering over and commemorating in verse: a singing thrush, a snowy woods, a fish, some chilled plums, a patch of mint. Of course, artists have also celebrated the extraordinary, the exotic, and the magnificent. Homer gushes over the splendors of Menelaus’s palace; Gauguin left his home country to seek inspiration in the more exotic environment of Tahiti; Handel composed pieces to accompany momentous ceremonial occasions. Yet it is striking that a humble activity like picking blackberries—the subject of well-known poems by, among others, Sylvia Plath, Seamus Heaney, and Richard Wilbur—appears to be more inspirational to modern poets, more charged with interest and significance, than, say, the construction of the world’s tallest building, the Oscar ceremonies, the space program, or the discovery of DNA’s molecular structure. One might even say that it has now become an established function of art to help us discover the remarkable in the commonplace”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“This observation is connected to the phenomenon psychologists have labeled “hedonic adaptation.” Over time, people generally get used to changes in their circumstances, whether positive or negative, and tend to revert to the same level of happiness they had before the change.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“Boethius is a paradigm example. Born around 480 CE into a noble Roman family, he became a senator at the age of twenty-five and consul at thirty. Thus he lived his first forty years as a member of the privileged elite. Yet when in 522 he was charged with treason, imprisoned, and sentenced to death, his reaction was thoroughly sanguine. Instead of cursing and lamenting his sorry fate, he spent his last days writing The Consolation of Philosophy, a classic statement of the view that happiness depends on one’s inner state, not on one’s external circumstances.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“Seneca, along with other advocates of frugality, actually advises us to practice systematic deprivation of luxuries: Set aside a number of days during which you will be content with plain and scanty food and with course and crude dress, and say to yourself, “Is this what frightened me?” It is in time of security that the soul should school itself to hardship, and while Fortune is benign it should gather strength to meet her harshness.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“The idea that we should not concern ourselves unduly about the future because “expectancy is the main impediment to living” has to be qualified for other reasons too. At the societal level, too much focus on present goods, like lower taxes or gas prices, at the expense of future goods such as a cleaner environment and an adequately funded welfare state, is hardly praiseworthy, and we would do well to worry about the consequences of this shortsightedness. With respect to both individuals and communities, it is hard to make significant plans and engage in long-term projects without worrying about the ways in which they might be derailed. This is true whether one is raising a child, planting crops, running a business, carrying out research, writing a book, building an organization, or working for a cause. Yet immersing ourselves in such projects and bringing them to fruition yields some of our most valuable experiences and accomplishments. It hardly makes sense to eschew long-term enterprises on the grounds that they usually produce anxiety as well as (one hopes) satisfaction. And it is hard to really throw oneself into a project without worrying about its prospects for success. The advice not to worry unduly about the future thus has to be quite restricted if it is to be reasonable. It amounts to telling us not to spoil the present through excessive anxiety about the future, and not to worry unduly about the loss of things that do not really matter. One of the merits of simple living is that it demonstrates how little we need to possess in order to be content, and how much of what we consider necessary is in fact superfluous. Keeping these points in mind may help us become, in Epicurus’s phrase, “fearless of fortune,” at least with respect to wealth and possessions. But it is less obvious how living simply helps one to achieve greater detachment from other things one values, such as loved ones, meaningful projects, or political causes.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“Given this obvious objection, a more nuanced understanding of the seemingly less prudential approach is perhaps in order. The idea behind the words of Jesus and Seneca is presumably not that we should eschew future planning entirely; after all, some of Jesus’s best-known parables, which describe activities like manuring a fig tree, or repairing garments to make them durable, seem to applaud forward-looking prudence. The key idea is, rather, that we should cultivate habits of mind which make us less attached to things we may well lose, especially material possessions. We will then be less anxious in the present, and better prepared to deal with adversity when it comes. That is how they connect simplicity to serenity.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“The best-known poem of More’s contemporary Henry Howard (who, like More, met his end on Henry VIII’s scaffold) is “The Means to Attain a Happy Life,” which praises whatever produces “the quiet mind” as the key to happiness: The equal friend, no grudge, no strife; ​No charge of rule, nor governance; Without disease, the healthful life; ​The household of continuance; The mean diet, no delicate fare; ​True wisdom join’d with simpleness; The night discharged of all care, ​Where wine the wit may not impress.35”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“Among philosophers, however, the identification of the good life with a life of mental and emotional tranquillity is almost a commonplace.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“These critical observations on Epicurus’s claim that satisfying one’s basic needs suffices for happiness do not mean that his thesis is entirely wrong. It offers a useful perspective, a reminder that prods us into reflecting on the way we live with an eye to identifying wants and habits that are foolish, wasteful, unnecessary, or inauthentic. The truly valuable idea it contains is that the key ingredients for happiness are usually within easy reach for those of us not mired in awful circumstances. When we fail to realize this, we assume that happiness lies in the acquisition of what we do not already have. This is the mistake that leads us to step off the path toward contentment and onto the hedonic treadmill.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“The last observation leads to a further reason why we find it hard today to be content with Epicurus’s bare necessities: we now need more in order to sustain our self-respect. This matters because self-respect is, by common consent, a necessary condition of happiness. In A Theory of Justice the political philosopher John Rawls makes it one of his “primary goods”—that is, one of the things that every rational person can be assumed to want, whatever his or her life plan might be. Rawls in fact suggests that self-respect may be the most important primary good, for without it individuals lose a sense of their own moral worth and are liable to feelings of shame.32”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“But this fails to recognize that the substance of our conception of happiness is affected by the way the world changes.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“Second, the warning against insatiable desires makes more sense with respect to some desires, less sense with respect to others. It seems most reasonable when the object of desire is something like territorial conquests, wealth, power, fame, glory, influence, sex, expensive art objects, fancy clothes, sports cars, and so on. But what if the object of desire is knowledge, understanding, artistic satisfaction, the eradication of a disease, or the elimination of injustice? Is the fact that these desires cannot be finally satisfied a reason for reining them in? Isaac Newton famously lamented that his quest for insight into the nature of things could be compared to the actions of a boy playing on the seashore “whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” Would it have been better for him to have kept his desire for understanding in check so as to avoid this abiding feeling of disappointment? The accomplished and acclaimed novelist Zadie Smith offers this advice to fellow writers: “Resign yourself to the lifelong sadness that comes from never being satisfied.”28 Should she, instead, advise her readers never to even try? This argument can be taken in two ways. One way is to see it as supporting the previous objection: there are kinds of pleasure and happiness that are invariably tied to feelings of dissatisfaction, and the Epicurean guidelines fail to appreciate this. The other way is to see it as placing a question mark against the prioritizing of happiness. The insatiable desire of Newton for understanding, of Beethoven for adequate artistic expression, of Shackleton for adventure, or of Harriet Tubman for justice may not have brought them happiness; it may even have interfered with their capacity to be happy. But such examples remind us that happiness may not always be a rational person’s primary goal.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“The key idea here, which Epicurus takes from Plato, is to bring our desires under control. Unhappiness results when people become too invested in satisfying nonnecessary desires, especially when, as so often happens, such desires become insatiable. For “nothing satisfies the man who is not satisfied with a little.”23 Exactly how and why desires become insatiable is an interesting question. In How Much Is Enough? Robert and Edward Skidelsky hypothesize that a proclivity to always want more is rooted in human nature since it is natural to be always comparing ourselves with others, and we do this by reference to various objects of desire—for instance, wealth, income, power, or honors. In premodern societies this tendency is kept in check by religion and traditional mores. These provide a concept of the good life that sets limits to how much of anything it makes sense for a person to want. But capitalism, they argue, “has inflamed our innate tendency to insatiability by releasing it from the bounds of custom and religion within which it was formerly confined.”24 It has done this in several ways: through advertising; by encouraging everyone, not just the better off, to compete for status through buying stuff; by pushing an ideology that applauds incessant striving for more; and by “monetizing” the economy—that is, translating the value of everything into how much it yields or will sell for—a shift that encourages people to want money for its own sake.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“Very often, of course, these critics of work and champions of leisure are themselves highly productive individuals. You don’t produce an epic like Wordsworth’s The Prelude or win the Nobel Prize for literature, as Russell did, or crank out a shelf load of books after the fashion of Lafargue or Botton, without working hard. But this paradox is only apparent. What they criticize is work that one is forced to do; their own “work” is simply the worthwhile and fulfilling activity to which they devote their leisure time. Lafargue and his ilk do not insist that everyone use their leisure productively; like Baudelaire, they see loafing as a valid way of living. But others are more judgmental. Schopenhauer, for instance, is fulsome in his praise of leisure, seeing it as one of life’s greatest goods since it allows a person “to exercise his pre-eminent quality, whatever it is,” and doing this constitutes happiness. Yet he is scathing about “mere idlers” and “contemptible loafers” who have material wealth enough to be leisured but insufficient mental resources to use their free time well; instead of achieving happiness, he sneers, this type will simply be bored.12”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“But the fundamental meaning of leisure, a notion that goes back to the ancient Greeks, is time in which one is free to choose what one does, free from having to do work that is a chore, a mere means to an end. For Aristotle, leisure in this sense is a precondition of the good life, since it is obvious that freely chosen activities engaged in for their own sake—for instance, study, sport, or conversation—are more enjoyable and fulfilling than work we undertake out of necessity or simply to secure something else, such as a paycheck.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“Others have argued that moral virtue in and by itself will naturally bring happiness in its train. Plato, for instance, argues that the moral integrity of the virtuous individual constitutes a sort of inner harmony, which he contrasts with the disharmony exhibited by the wicked. Since a person cannot fail, at some level, to experience this internal condition, the virtuous will be fundamentally content, while those who lack virtue will be unavoidably dissatisfied. Plato’s conclusion is endorsed by most of the classical thinkers who came after him. The Stoics in particular insistently emphasize the supreme importance of moral virtue over all other good things. Thus Marcus Aurelius, echoing Socrates, insists that the only real harm one can ever suffer is harm to one’s character,1 while Seneca asserts that “virtue per se is sufficient for a happy life.”2 Hard-bitten cynics may think it easy to dismiss all this as a kind of wishful thinking. But in fact this view—that good people should nearly always be considered more fortunate than those who lack the moral virtues—is very plausible. Compare two people: Jill, who genuinely feels pleasure at a colleague’s success, and Jane, who feels intense pleasure at a colleague’s failure. Who would you prefer to be? Most of us will of course opt to be Jill. An obvious reason for this is that we view her as the nicer person. But what if we put aside moral considerations? We grant that Jill is the more admirable person, but who do we think it is pleasanter to be? Plato’s thinking suggests that Jill’s condition is also the more enviable. One obvious reason is that, being a nicer person, she is likely to have more friends, to have better friends, to be more confident of their affection, and to enjoy relationships not sullied by resentment. But a subtler reason, not so easy to articulate, is that Jill’s generous-spirited pleasure in another person’s good fortune is superior to—and not just in moral terms—the mean-spirited enjoyment of a colleague’s failure. Of course, it is not easy to abstract this sense of nonmoral superiority from its moral trappings. It is not a matter of the intensity or duration of the pleasure. But it is perhaps captured fairly well by Plato’s metaphor of inner harmony, a metaphor that extends beyond any particular moment of pleasure to take in the person’s total experience. Self-centered, cruel, mean-spirited individuals are never at ease with—in harmony with—themselves or the world, which is why they can never achieve lasting contentment. Generous spirits, by contrast, experience less conflict between what they in fact feel and what at least some part of them thinks they should feel; furthermore, there is less disharmony between what they experience as their inner reality and the way they present themselves to the world.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less

“Nevertheless, Schopenhauer is generally scathing about the mental shallowness of both types: “ordinary men,” he writes, “are intent merely on how to spend their time; a man with any talent is interested in how to use it.”
― Emrys Westacott, The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is More - More or Less