The other day someone mentioned that being wealthy is not the same as being rich. Ever since then I have been thinking a lot about the difference between these two words. It also reminded me of the quote which I posted in my first entry on this blog, where William Henry Channing states to be wealthy, not rich. At first I thought there wasn't much difference between the two as they are used interchangeably most of the time. But the more I thought about it, I realized that someone can be wealthy, but not necessarily be rich, and the other way around. I think wealthy is more of a state of being, as defined by "characterized by abundance." That being a very general definition, there is a lot of room to play with the word abundance. Abundance could be a lot of anything; money, love, happiness, material objects... Therefore, I believe, to be wealthy is to be full of.. something desirable. Someone who has a life full of substance is wealthy. It doesn't mean they necessarily have a lot of money or material objects, it means that they live a life where they are content with what they do have.
Rich is a bit more difficult to define because it can be used in many different contexts. For example, something can be rich in color or in taste, or to be pure. For arguments sake I'm talking about the definition of rich as "having abundant possessions and especially material wealth." I wish the definition I found didn't use the word wealth but it's a great example of how often the words are used interchangeably. The difference in the definitions is therefore characterized by the adjectives used. To be wealthy is to have a life full of abundance, and to be rich is to have abundant possessions and material wealth. I think the difference between these is that being rich directly relates to having money or material objects while being wealthy does not.
This post has taken me so long to write because each time I write something I feel it sounds a bit contradictory. Comments and opinions are greatly appreciated on the topic!