3.14chan

A board for social sciences and humanities history, philosophy, anthropology, psychology...

Posting mode: Reply

File: Embedded Video

Materialism is good. Anonymous 29/5/2009(Fri)09:12:21 No.49980

Why is materialism supposed to be wrong? We are part of the material world and apart from our sapience it may well be pretty much all we are, it is impossible to solve problems, fulfil hedonistic desires, discover the truth or whatever it is that you've set your heart on without embracing this fact.

It is unethical to ignore reality in favor of blunt abstract ideology because only rational thinkers are capable of making the realistic physical changes needed, not just to people's behaviour but to the infrastructure, technology, organisation and industries of nations. I believe anyone who is not a materialist is inherantly immoral and corrupt.

Expand All Images

Anonymous 01/6/2009(Mon)07:35:44 No.51754

File: 107878.gif - (8.78kb, 466x466, yinYang.gif)

Anonymous 02/6/2009(Tue)09:51:01 No.52377

>>51754
Presumably the opposite of materialism is spirituality. Can you explain what's so great about spirituality?

James Madison 03/6/2009(Wed)08:35:34 No.53390

File: 110830.jpg - (16.01kb, 322x390, JamesMadison.jpg)

>>52377
You are unbalanced sir!

Anonymous 03/6/2009(Wed)11:26:14 No.53485

>>53390
You're unbalanced. Spiritualism is just a superstition that unbalances you from the materialist ideal.

Anonymous 05/6/2009(Fri)07:33:52 No.54921

File: 129468.jpg - (27.72kb, 282x400, HomelessFamily.jpg)

>>53485
"Spiritualism" need no be a religious notion. As an atheist I can tell you how it feels good to give, to help another for no other gain than satisfaction. It makes me feel good inside. Some would say it enriches their spirit, though the wording doesn't matter to me. I just know its a real, valid and healthy thing to feel and do.

And haven't you ever heard of the phrase "You can't take it with you?"
It happens to be true. Don't get me wrong of course, I can meet you half way because I must. We need a certain amount of material things to make it in this very material world, but as the Taoist symbol suggests, there NEEDS to be a balance. Currently unchecked Materialism has lead to much (more) suffering in the world. Are you truely blind to this, or was this some way for you to get some essay material?

Anonymous 15/6/2009(Mon)09:30:35 No.67083

You need to take care of yourself before you can take care of others, that's a truism. But if you take greed as an end rather than a means, you're a fool.

What evil doesn't have selfishness at its root?

Anonymous 17/6/2009(Wed)11:27:21 No.74020

File: 166015.jpg - (21.57kb, 300x400, flame_longcat.jpg)

You aren't talking about materialism ITT.
You are trying to talk about capitalism, selfishness and "balance" simultaneously.
Longcat is not amused.

Re:54921 - "Spiritualism" Ad Verbera 18/6/2009(Thu)05:15:04 No.76423

First of all, what you said about "spiritualism" (mostly in the first paragraph...) can also be attributed to materialism as well. For example, if one is an "objectivist", as I am, and as well as Milton Friedman (from the OP...) is, then one considers the self-satisfaction, the "spiritual" feeling that gets from the unselfish act of giving as an extension of the ego and self-esteem in pursuing ones own happiness, and sharing with others willfully. There is nothing wrong with be materialistic, and then willingly sharing, in a material way - i.e. money, clothing, food, shelter, etc. - with someone else. Why? Because, selfishly, it makes on feel good.

On the other hand, one can argue that "altruism" is to blame for more suffering in the world. It is the mistaken belief that if one person succeeds, then another must fail, or suffer at his/her expense. To remedy this false notion, the "altruist" philosophy is then that everyone must share in "giving" to those less fortunate in success. As Marx, an "altruist", has said, "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need."

The naive constantly mistake "altruist" philosophies - Marxism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, etc... - as somehow more spiritual than "selfish capitalism" and because it creates an artificial equality. In reality, what it does is rob people of freedom. Freedom to pursue to their own materialistic happiness. The freedom to choose whether or not to share in that happiness with others. And also the freedom to chose to whom, and how much to share that happiness (materialism..) with, and get that self-affirming, self-satisfying ego boost you talked about as an added bonus.

Altruism is the complete opposite of the rational philosophies of materialism and spiritualism. To force others into doing charity (Obama's "altruist" re-distributional policies come to mind...) does two things - one, it robs people of their material (property - i.e. income, wealth, real estate, businesses, ect..) via over-taxation, and two, it blackens the spirit when the choice of who to give to, how much to give, and when to give is taken away.

So that "spiritualism" you mentioned, is only "spiritual" and noble when one is un-coerced into doing so, and that is a cornerstone of a materialistic, and capitalistic philosophy.

Anonymous 19/6/2009(Fri)09:24:16 No.77876

>It is unethical to ignore reality in favor of blunt abstract ideology because only rational thinkers are capable of making the realistic physical changes needed, not just to people's behaviour but to the infrastructure, technology, organisation and industries of nations. I believe anyone who is not a materialist is inherantly immoral and corrupt.

Are you saying abstract thinking is irrational? Are all of the things you mentioned not more abstract in our understanding of their mechanisms than they are physical? I do not think it is an opinion to say that all these things are most understood by models, some of which are theoretical, and others of which are invisible. The rationale needed to maintain any of these things is mostly abstract.

>it is impossible to solve problems, fulfil hedonistic desires, discover the truth

I agree about hedonistic desires, but disagree with the other two. Hedonism is the "will to pleasure". I believe the two other things you mentioned, in the way that you must have meant them so as to go along with your statement, could easily correlate with the will to power, the desire to control the world. However, everything we do, because we are conscious, is permeated with the desire for meaning. Western society is materialistic, and yet, a large fraction of our motivations are purely abstract, and while we do live in a material world, we have to rationalize everything we do, we have to justify ourselves personally, by utterly arbitrary, innately absurd beliefs, as well as in the eyes of our peers. Our lives are a means to an end that is necessarily abstract and amaterialistic simply because we are aware of our own material existence--abstractly.

Anonymous 19/6/2009(Fri)03:13:04 No.78146

Oh, well if you're going to redefine the topic There's no point in talking to you is there

Anonymous 21/6/2009(Sun)12:14:27 No.79583

>>54921
The example you give is an example of someone giving to charity for the reward of emotional pleasure, it does not correlate with the stoic definition of spirituality, if anything it is hedonism which is inherantly materialistic.

Materialism leads to suffering, but we inhabit a material world and you talk as though you can just white wash over it with spiritual enrichment and atheism, in the words of Milton Friedman "just tell me where in the world you'll find these angels who are going to organise society for us?", while I'm not an angel I do know the first step to solving a problem is to admit there is one. We can barely control ourselves, even those of us with a legitimate sense of ethics manage to delude themselves and get things wrong, the only way we can achieve any of our dreams and ambitions is by embracing the 99.99% of our world that revolves around materialism, the remaining 0.01% that constitutes our sapience is just too insignificant to have an effect, as important as it may seem to us.

>>67083
Of course materialism should not be the sole end but unfortunately the vast bulk of problems in the world can only be solved by embracing it.

>>74020
Materialism has philosophical connotations does it not? Do we need your permission to discuss these? Every theory has holes, the theories your computer is based on are still incomplete. Does this stop people utilising them?

>>76423
Spirituality is a broad term, I think the kind of spirituality we are looking for is stoicism. Also I would say altruism is an effect of a bigger problem inherant in tyranny which is denial of fallibility.

>>77876
Abstraction is useful but not perfect, information not included in the final analysis may prove to be important in the future as new information and theories come to light, this is especially so in humanities.

The desire for meaning could be attributed to the evolutionary benefits of curiosity, also we don't have to rationalise everything we do, this could be attributed to the indoctrination of morals which have a profound effect on us psychologically. Then there are those people who obviously don't care that they are selfish and irrational. Even if both of these assumptions are true it may be that there is a natural desire for meaning provoked by the acknowledgement of our very existence and all the metaphysics that spring from that.

hmm

Anonymous 21/6/2009(Sun)05:49:33 No.80505

>>79583
Wrong. How about "Love" Can that be quantified? Is that a substance one buys at the store?

It may be too ephemeral a concept for you to grasp, so I suggest you stop spouting off about it, and live your "happy" little masculine world without us sissy boys

Anonymous 27/6/2009(Sat)04:15:08 No.88284

>>80505
Love can't be quantified simply because it cannot be measured, or at least not with any accuracy since we do have methods of detecting brain activity.

Perhaps you cannot reason correctly and confuse love with the property of being sapient which cannot be measured whatsoever. Whatever you are arguing I must be right since I included that in my original argument, which is that although there may be more than a material world we have very little control over it, even over ourselves, so communism and so forth won't work. We need to embrace materialism.

Anonymous 28/6/2009(Sun)08:48:45 No.89665

File: 183422.gif - (2.25kb, 310x300, yin_yang.gif)

>>88284
I hadn't finished readign your argument, so I reacted too quickly. There is alredy an answer to thiI hadn't finished readign your argument, so I reacted too quickly. There is already an answer to this threads question

It need not be explained again

Jaroslav Van Houten 02/7/2009(Thu)04:17:57 No.96679

What people typically call materialism is the heartless, amoral quest for luxury and/or power.

I think both are/were driven by the lack of a large-scale, well-organized system which guarantees human survival.

That is the point of civilization (to achieve the large-scale presence and organization of such a system).

Edited at 03/7/2009(Fri)02:02:32

	[ File Only] Password
Description
Post Text Description Duration (in days; 0 is indefinite) Board Ban Host Name Ban Image Hash Delete Post
Move To

3.14chan Google Search��

share.chan3 imageboard banner exchange

pichan 314chan 3.14chan πchan

[sci / ssh / geek / sug]