Materialism

[Pelafina]

I think I'm going to try to emulate the main character in The Gospel According to Larry.

Reducing my possessions to 75 items, including clothes, would be interesting.

[Sir Meta Knight]

Originally Posted by Hidden

There are also interesting considerations on how materialism has changed our mindsets in dealing with the world.

It was suggested to me some time ago that a fundamental understanding of how we interact with outside objects in the world changes with the onset of materialism--that is, the ability to "possess" objects; possession, which is rather vaguely defined but in some instances can be reduced to "I am standing on this plot of land with my gun, so you'd better go find another plot of land to stand on." To possess an object is to label something not apparently attached to me as "mine"--and that is the full extent of the interaction. To possess an object, I do not need to have made it, I do not need to understand it, and I do not even need to use it. It is an entirely self-satisfying connection, and it is nine-tenths of the law. Somehow, it gives me power over the object possessed.

But try to imagine a world in which possession, for most people and most things, does not exist as a plausible form of interaction with objects--a world in which you are not in a position to say "this is mine" and back it up with a gun, or perhaps materials are simply too scarce for individual ownership. To interact with objects in this world it is necessary to establish those connections discarded by (or at least secondary to) possession--"I made this," "I know this," or "I use this;" more tangible connections, and perhaps more useful to existing in a world rather than simply owning it.

Make no mistake though, these interactions are also power interactions to their own extents--perhaps knowledge most of all has been used as such. In older Chinese tradition, to know the name and character of an object was to hold a certain power over it, and this is not the only instance of the "name-knowing" game--Odysseus played a similar one with the Cyclops. Possession, though, seems to hold a premium position, perhaps in part because of its ambiguity--what did the god of Genesis actually do in giving the beasts and plants of the world to Adam and Eve?

This is not a revolutionary idea for a utopia--such a world, where possession is not the dominant form of interaction (by necessity or otherwise) has and likely continues to exist, and it is not necessarily better. It is useful, however, in taking into consideration that materialism has wider-reaching effects than the oft-attacked vices of consumerism--it can really shape how we interact with 'our' world.

Well, "owning" an item really means you can defend it, or you have some sort of factor that prevents others from taking it. In an extremely basic world, violence is going to be the only way to defend your "possession". Is it really self-defining it when you can defend the possession? Something that hurts someone else is very defining to others, I think. Although the rest of the things you said are very true, I just think that saying that the only thing you really need to do is stand there and label it "mine" is a little short. You have to back up the claim with a way to defend it.

[Frozen Fate]

I'm materialistic. Everyone is a bit materialistic.

The things I care most about is anything I have relative to basketball.

[Johnny Stooge]

I've a slave to consumerism. And I don't care.

I happily buy what I want. Comic books, DVD's, video games, collectibles, all things which take my hobbies.
It may be excessive, but it makes me happy and I have the money.

[Gavin]

This is my opinion in regards to 'economic materialism'. Materialism has ebbed itself within todays society as a predator to our youth. I agree with what many have said in this thread, it is simple we are all in someway a materialist as such. Personal gain of common luxuries isn't so much the "bad egg" of the equation in my opinion. But more so it's ability to make us succumb to popular franchises, our addictive behaviors as such. Anyhow I pursue my collection of video games, Anime and manga etc. because I want to, it's for my own personal gain.

[Geocillin]

Hm...in philisophical terms I would reject Materialism as the metaphysical view defining the world as I don't believe it's all physical and there's nothing else. Seems unlikely that we're just a bunch of chemical reactions happening in the brain. Emotions are a result of an addiction to a chemical your brain releases. It doesn't really give an explanation I can accept that shows how our networks actually define our personality and how imagination works. It seems probable that something outside just the physical exists which would explain these things.

Also, I kinda dislike the materialistic scientists who justify materialism when they don't have an answer that they 'will' have an answer as proof for a situation that can't currently be explained in terms of motion and matter.

[bamak93]

It just makes you feel satisfied knowing you bought something with your own money. It's just so darn fulfilling.

[Square Ninja]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stooge

I've a slave to consumerism. And I don't care.

I happily buy what I want. Comic books, DVD's, video games, collectibles, all things which take my hobbies.
It may be excessive, but it makes me happy and I have the money.

YOU'RE ONLY TRYING TO FILL THE VOID

[Shadow Denizen]

Possessions aren't everything.

They're the only thing.

[Sir Meta Knight]

Originally Posted by Shadow Denizen

Possessions aren't everything.

They're the only thing.

Are they? Really? I think the mind overpowers the body. I don't think possessions are everything, really, or the only thing. You don't have to own something to be happy.

For example, my birthday is in two days, but I'm not asking for anything. Why? Because I don't like to get new shit, really.

[Shadow Denizen]

Originally Posted by Sir Meta Knight

Are they? Really? I think the mind overpowers the body. I don't think possessions are everything, really, or the only thing. You don't have to own something to be happy.

For example, my birthday is in two days, but I'm not asking for anything. Why? Because I don't like to get new shit, really.

Yeah about that. Sarcasm.

Seriously though, you have to think outside of the box. Sure it's nice to have an iTouch or something, but you should pay more attention to what's around you rather than what's in your hand.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Sir Meta Knight

Well, "owning" an item really means you can defend it, or you have some sort of factor that prevents others from taking it. In an extremely basic world, violence is going to be the only way to defend your "possession". Is it really self-defining it when you can defend the possession? Something that hurts someone else is very defining to others, I think. Although the rest of the things you said are very true, I just think that saying that the only thing you really need to do is stand there and label it "mine" is a little short. You have to back up the claim with a way to defend it.

Indeed, it certainly helps to have a gun when you're informing others that this is your land, not theirs. But that is an interaction with others. The connection that is self-satisfying is the connection to the actual object possessed--your having a gun really has nothing to do with how you interact with that land.

Consider why it is that possession is the only form of interaction that must be defended in some way--a gun is not necessary to affirm that you made an object, know an object, or use an object. That is because all of these are defined by interactions with that object. Possession, however, is not an interaction with an object; it can only be defined (when it is) by an interaction with others--namely, others cannot interact with that object except by your assent.

All of this said, the problem with materialism -as a state of mind- is that it is an attempt to interact with the world through possession; this, on its own, is not possible, and it brings us to the position that we can own the world yet have no idea how to work with it.

Originally Posted by Rhythm of Apathy

People certainly don't need a lot of the things they have, but I'm not entirely sure I can disagree when it's said that Materialism is the key to Power.

Ownership and power are synonymous in today's society and probably always has been. With enough money you can practically get anything, minus those sentimental things, but can't they be classified as a need anyway?

Materialism is the key to Power by common consent--power lies where it is believed to lie. However, as brought up by Sir Meta Knight, materialism (reduced to possession or ownership) is itself entirely dependent upon another factor--the ability to defend possession. So, it could be argued that possession of the world is nothing if one cannot use a gun.


To address Geocillin's take, I regard the philosophy of materialism in a similar light to nihilism--a sometimes useful starting point, but limited in potential for itself.

[Just put the Knife DOWN]

Originally Posted by Sir Meta Knight

I think the mind overpowers the body.

I disagree.

[kabal]

Originally Posted by Shadow Denizen

Most of us who live in the US are materialists. Americans have such closed minds.

That's not why. It's because materialism is more believable than something that hasn't been proven.

[Sir Meta Knight]

Originally Posted by Hidden

Indeed, it certainly helps to have a gun when you're informing others that this is your land, not theirs. But that is an interaction with others. The connection that is self-satisfying is the connection to the actual object possessed--your having a gun really has nothing to do with how you interact with that land.

Consider why it is that possession is the only form of interaction that must be defended in some way--a gun is not necessary to affirm that you made an object, know an object, or use an object. That is because all of these are defined by interactions with that object. Possession, however, is not an interaction with an object; it can only be defined (when it is) by an interaction with others--namely, others cannot interact with that object except by your assent.

All of this said, the problem with materialism -as a state of mind- is that it is an attempt to interact with the world through possession; this, on its own, is not possible, and it brings us to the position that we can own the world yet have no idea how to work with it.

Oh, now I see what you're saying. That makes sense now.

Originally Posted by Rhythm of Apathy

I disagree.

Explain.

Originally Posted by kabal

That's not why. It's because materialism is more believable than something that hasn't been proven.

I don't understand you. Philosophy isn't science, and it doesn't need to be proven, only thought out. Explain, maybe?