Money Wisdom #511

 "Money has value only when immanent in circulation (payment or exchanges), but on the other hand seems to be a stable, value-embodying substance only as a transcendent entity, by being withheld from circulation, possessed. Circulation is necessarily communal, whereas possession is generally by the individual. Our thinkers (whether Greek or Indian) vary in the extent to which their cosmisation of money is of circulation (i.e. from a communal perspective) or of value (i.e. from an individual perspective). [We can] describe theses cosmisations in the descending order of their prioritisation of circulation by Herakleitos and ending with the extreme prioritisation of value by Parmenides. But each of the two essences of money (exchanged and possessed value) produces when projected onto the world an unacceptably one-sided account (Herakleitos excludes stable identity, Parmenides excludes motion and multiplicity). This presents an intellectual problem. But in practice money must both have value and the power to circulate: the two aspects interpenetrate. And so we shall see that in fact comisations of ciculation cannot exclude value and cosmisations of value cannot exclude circulation." 

Richard Seaford The Origins of Philosophy in Ancient Greece and Ancient India (2020) p.322

Money Wisdom #510

 "The single, invisible, homogeneous power that inheres in money is uniquely responsive to my will, and so occupies the boundary between internal and external space, closer to my inner self than are the objects I possess."

 Richard Seaford The Origins of Philosophy in Ancient Greece and Ancient India (2020) p.309

Money Wisdom #509

 "As for psychology and politics, a crucial part in Plato's account is played by the desire for money, which is - beyond even the unruly desires of the body - unlimited. That is, as recognised earlier by Solon, potentially disruptive of the polis. Plato recognises that it is also potentially disruptive of psuchë. The two superior parts of the psuchë - the rational and the spirited - will, he says, always preside over the third, appetitive part, 'which is most of the psuchë in each person and by nature most insatiable for money'. It must be controlled by the rational philosophic part of the psuchë, just as in the polis the money-making class must be controlled by the class of philosophers. But the appetitive and money-loving element may dominate the inner self. Socrates in the Apology contrasts maximising wealth with perfecting the psuchë.

Richard Seaford The Origins of Philosophy in Ancient Greece and Ancient India (2020) p.302

Money Wisdom #508

 "The ideal entities having shed matter through the process of abstraction are not in a direct sense part of the empirical world... the ideal entities of the cultural and religious world are made part of the self, or, with other words, they transform the self in accordance with their nature."

Cavallin (2013) p.96 quoted in Richard Seaford
The Origins of Philosophy in Ancient Greece and Ancient India (2020) p.287