posted
I think materialism is quite natural. In fact, I might even argue that it's somewhat instinctive. Nature is filled with examples of different types of characteristics that signify success or superiority, especially when it comes to attracting a mate. The accumulation of material things is just another example of this.
Personally, I don't find a materialistic attitude to be very appealing, and I don't find it to be a factor in terms of happiness. But I see no reason to needlessly restrict my spending. I indulge in many things knowing full well that the majority of people on the earth have to live without, and I do not regret it nor do I feel that I am any bit unhappier or live a less satisfying life.
However, I do feel that the portrayal of certain lifestyles is, at the very least, a bit disingenuous, and perhaps damaging to the minds of impressionable youths. But that's why children have good, responsible parents to tell them what is important in life.
Abhi,
quote:Really? What phone is this? Normal cell phone batteries are only rated to last two years.
My previous phone was the Sanyo SCP-6200 that I purchased back in 2002. I used it until I bought a new phone in October, so that's about four years of usage. The original battery isn't the best, but it still works even now.
quote:Yea... 4 year old ipod... that would be a 1st gen ipod... when they still had buttons around the wheel. The life of the battery is rated 18 months for that under "normal usage" [there was even a successful class-action suit against Apple]. So either you have [a] under-utilized your ipod [b] have amazing luck with the longevity of electronics [c] well, not telling the truth. Let's hope it's the second.
I have a 1st gen iPod...when they still had buttons around the wheel. I use it at least several hours a day, and I frequently use it as an external harddrive as well. For the first couple years that I had it, I probably used it for 4 to 5 hours a day. It wasn't under-utilized. I wouldn't say that I'm extremely lucky when it comes to the longevity of electronics either. So, according to you, I must be lying.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another datapoint, fwiw: I've had my phone nearly four years and the original battery is still chugging along. Not quite as well as when it was new, but I have no complaints. On the other hand, I've had to replace my powerbook battery twice in 3 years.
-----
So, is it more materialistic to spend lots of money on bling and toys (ipods, tvs, phones, etc) or to hoard all your money in a savings account (or mattress)? We'll leave the option of giving to charity aside for now.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
How could it possibly be materialistic to save money? Considering life expectancies, it is horrendously irresponsible NOT to save.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not really sure why some people seem to be treating the ownership of material goods to be a negative. Certainly we all want to have a good life, which could easily include shelter, transportation, food, entertainment, and various comforts. I can understand why greed can be seen as a negative, but why does the ownership of goods have to be seen as a failing?
We are living in a material world, and I am a material boy.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think just about everybody in the US in materialistic. There's exceptions but I think they are few and far between.
I currently live off of my part time job and I'm still shocked at how many unnecessary things I buy. I get books when I could just use my library card. I eat out. I have a car and pay car insurance when I could give up some of my freedom and use the Dallas area's subpar public transporation. There's so very little that we really need and so very much that we want.
I'm not saying that us living in luxury is horrible or anything. I just think it's silly to deny that it's what we do.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abhi, I never meant to act high and mighty. I never intended to impose any sort of superiority, though looking back at my comments it does seem that I may have come off that way. I'm sorry if you thought I was calling you out, but I would never turn my nose to someone who doesn't agree with me on the subject.
I'm not perfect, and Theresa seems to have hit this on the head, but I feel like I'm trying. I don't want to hold a grudge with you because we can't come to an agreement.
On the other-hand, I think that a few of the comments you made were derogatory, as opposed to contributing to and for the sake of the argument. You've accused me of lying, and I am offended.
I believe my origianl question was, though not stated explicitly; Why do you think MTV pushes materalism as opposed to advertising charitable causes?
Posts: 213 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, I wouldn't own a 50-inch plasma screen even if I had the cash to casually fling around for such a thing, simply because that's a lot of house space to devote to the absorption of passive entertainment.
I do own a 26-inch LCD television (reconditioned- got it from Newegg on the cheap) because I hope to give friends incentive to come over and watch movies.
I don't know that either says much about my morality, as such.
I can't help but think, however, that the frequent purchase of things one doesn't really need is often a sign of something else that's lacking in one's life. Not a lack of moral fiber, per se, but a lack of releases for particular stresses. A lack of spare time, or people to talk to, or work that feels fulfilling and useful, say. When one's life is manifestly lacking something intangible, having something tangible to point to as a symbol of happiness can be oddly reassuring.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JumboWumbo: I believe my origianl question was, though not stated explicitly; Why do you think MTV pushes materalism as opposed to advertising charitable causes?
(I've had this reply window open for hours, who knows if it'll be pertinent!)
People respond more readily to immediate incentives than to nebulous ones. Material possessions have immediate, tangible benefits; acts of charity have nonmaterial rewards. The only rewards you're guaranteed for charity are self-satisfaction, which seems like nothing compared to something you can see and touch.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JumboWumbo: Abhi, I never meant to act high and mighty. I never intended to impose any sort of superiority, though looking back at my comments it does seem that I may have come off that way. I'm sorry if you thought I was calling you out, but I would never turn my nose to someone who doesn't agree with me on the subject.
On the other-hand, I think that a few of the comments you made were derogatory, as opposed to contributing to and for the sake of the argument. You've accused me of lying, and I am offended.
I believe my origianl question was, though not stated explicitly; Why do you think MTV pushes materalism as opposed to advertising charitable causes?
I'm sorry I misunderstood your intent.
I don't think I accused you of lying, I only pointed to the three different explanations of the longevity of your electronics. One of them was lying, but the other two were good fortune and underutilization... either of which adequately explain your statements.
Also, I don't think MTV "pushes" materialism. It pushes entertainment. It's more entertaining to see a billion dollar home than a shack for the homeless.
MTV also does a lot of positive work. During the G8 summit, students from around the world could ask questions or voice their concerns to the G8 leaders, which I thought was pretty cool.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Most young people are just a brand, now.
What brand am I?
You're part of the Pepsi generation. You forge your own path. You're a maverick, a trend setter. You know what you want, and go for it with a style and grace that is all your own!
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, I think that owning expensive or larger-than-life things, such as items of expensive clothing or an expensive tv, expensive computer parts, an expensive house or expensive jewellery, is perfectly fine as long as it's not a norm. Since the dawn of time, people have had objects that exist solely for their value (whatever that may be- size, beauty, speed, or simply showoff value).
I think the problem comes when you focus solely on the expense of your items or you attempt to fill the world with expensive items for the sake of it or you sacrifice yourself or other people to the expense of your items.
We cannot really draw a line when money is well spent. Yes, we can live frugally, donate money and give away all our world possessions, but I don't think there's anything wrong with turning money you've earned into something you purely want.
Obviously, the more money you earn, the more you can buy. Some people buy a fast car and live in a small house, some buy a nice house or a second house, some buy clothes, some buy chocolate, some have expensive shoes, some buy stuff for their children or their parents. Focussing on MTV is really only a small fraction of where money goes when it doesn't need to.
The point is to not make buying and owning the only things in your life. The best things in life are free is a cliche but it's a true one.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When one's life is manifestly lacking something intangible, having something tangible to point to as a symbol of happiness can be oddly reassuring.
While this may be true, I think it's also important to make sure that we're not reversing the order of this and assuming that those that do have a lot of unnecessary, expensive items must be lacking in other, more intangible areas.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a much more shocking display of excessive materialism is the Rolex [i think] commercial who's tag line is: "It's your watch that defines who you are"
I don't wear a watch... that must make me a nobody :)
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The best things in life are free" is misleading, and I've always despised the cliche for that reason. "The best things in life have no monetary cost" might be less poetic sounding, but much more accurate.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Most young people are just a brand, now.
What brand am I?
You're part of the Pepsi generation. You forge your own path. You're a maverick, a trend setter. You know what you want, and go for it with a style and grace that is all your own!
This needs to be a "What Brand Are You?" quiz. That would be hilarious.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard materialistic defined in this thread as buying expensive things that you don't need and don't use regularly. Does this apply to consumables as well?
I don't buy material things. I can't recall the last time I went to a record shop, bought clothes for myself, bought appliances, anything. But that's not to say I don't spend money on expensive things that are almost completely useless.
I love expensive beers, bourbons, foods, tobacco products and other consumables. Tonight I'm going to an incredibly expensive all-you-can-eat Japanese seafood resaurant, then to a movie, then to a Jillians (an grown-up game room type of place). I am going to spend bukus of money; enought to buy many a CD, fancy mp3 players, jewelry, or any number of material things. But I'm not going to buy any material things (though I may win a small stuffed bear and Jillians).
So, am I materialistic? I'm buying things that I don't really need and won't use regularly, but nothing material.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: So, am I materialistic? I'm buying things that I don't really need and won't use regularly, but nothing material.
I don't think the same term applies (you'd be, uh, an expensive hedonist rather than a materialist), but the attitudes against materialism would likely transfer to you as well.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, 'expensive hedonist.' Ok! Really I'm just trying to figure out which box to check on my loan application.
---
In that case, I guess I don't see what the problem with being either is, as long as no one is being hurt in the process.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:When one's life is manifestly lacking something intangible, having something tangible to point to as a symbol of happiness can be oddly reassuring.
While this may be true, I think it's also important to make sure that we're not reversing the order of this and assuming that those that do have a lot of unnecessary, expensive items must be lacking in other, more intangible areas.
I wouldn't take it as sole proof, certainly. I'd even go so far as to say there are degrees of such things; the occasional "shopping to feel better" is not the same as someone who spends all their spare time in acquiring new things which they then never use.
For the purchaser (and not the person observing the purchaser) I imagine a lot of it comes down to regularly asking, cost aside, "Now, why did I buy that?..."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Ah, 'expensive hedonist.' Ok! Really I'm just trying to figure out which box to check on my loan application.
---
In that case, I guess I don't see what the problem with being either is, as long as no one is being hurt in the process.
The argument is that in spending to excess on yourself, you are hurting those who could benefit from your charity.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I would say one argument against materialism doesn't focus on the other, but your self.
The best way that I can think of it is the great scene in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age where Nell is offered a cup of hot chocolate. To paraphrase her refusal, she says,"Do I really need it?"
Another book that may underline the point is Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Even though Keating does what he does because of his mother, he is doing it without asking himself what he really wants, what is truly best for him, what he needs.
What is wrong with a type of Materialism, to me, isn't the fact that stuff is acquired, but that stuff is acquired thoughtlessly, without thought to whether that stuff is really needed, and the consequences of getting that stuff, for yourself and, too, those around you.
posted
So, is it morally/ethically questionable to spend any amount of money above and beyond what is required to survive rather than use it to help others reach that same level of survival, in your opinion? Where would the line be drawn? You get to spend $1k dollars a month on yourself, but after that you're hurting the less fortunate? $100? $5k? Or would it be a percent?
I'm not trying to be an arse, but it seems to me that you're ('you' in the general sense) villanizing people that spend their hard earned money on themselves, or at least mostly on themselves.
posted
Storm Saxon - how are you using "need?" As in 'need to survive', 'need to be happy', 'need to not feel any unpleasantness'?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* All this is flexible for the individual. I believe the important point is to ask the question.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Another book that may underline the point is Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Even though Keating does what he does because of his mother, he is doing it without asking himself what he really wants, what is truly best for him, what he needs.
A better one would be Atlas Shrugged .
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
So, is it morally/ethically questionable to spend any amount of money above and beyond what is required to survive rather than use it to help others reach that same level of survival, in your opinion?
No!
In AS for example, there's a manufacturing company that is reorganised according to the principle 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need' (i.e. a simplification of socialism or communism). Slackers are rewarded, the workers begin to deliberately slow their pace, lest they show too much talent and are asked to do overtime. When before the birth of a worker's baby was a cause for celebration (and his colleagues would loan him some money to help him out), when the company is run under the above mantra, a new baby draws resentment from colleagues who have to feed another mouth. One man, who loved to listen to records and used most of his salary to maintain a collection, never gets an extra penny beyond what he needs to eat and cloth himself; after all, his co-worker's son needs to go to college, and he doesn't have a son of his own. In that company and in this world generally, need is infinite.
No one can argue against the virtue of benevolence or generosity, but the factor that defines how much is appropriate for you to spend is; how much do you earn through honest work?
posted
(Ales > lagers, for sure. Haven't tried any scottish ales, but I'll look out for that one. I tend to go for the belgian styles myself. Am just finishing up a bottle of Ommegang right now.)
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The best things in life are free" is misleading, and I've always despised the cliche for that reason. "The best things in life have no monetary cost" might be less poetic sounding, but much more accurate.
...
The meaning of the phrase clearly intends the word "free" to mean "have no monetary cost", which is perfectly acceptable.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: No one can argue against the virtue of benevolence or generosity, but the factor that defines how much is appropriate for you to spend is; how much do you earn through honest work?
The problem that I have with this sentiment is it implies that the amount of money people have is proportional to the amount of honest work they produce. This is not true. In some places, it takes 12 hours a day of honest work to merely be able to eat. Different education levels substantially affect income and the quality/ amount of education a person receives is rarely solely up to that person's discretion. In other words, life is not fair.
I'm not saying I think its sinful to spend money on yourself, but to some extent I do think its ethically wrong to never spend money/ time on those less fortunte. I think that world poverty is a moral issue and that it is the responsibility of all to try and fight it. What an individual contributes to that fight is a matter for their personal conscience.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: The meaning of the phrase clearly intends the word "free" to mean "have no monetary cost", which is perfectly acceptable.
posted
(Current favorite is St. Arnold's Divine Reserve #3. However I just tried Tilburg's Dutch Brown Ale and that might be a contender. In general, I'm a big fan of anything brewed mircro in America. C'mon, lets change the world's perception of American beer! Americans can make good beer too! Also, there's quite a good thread with many good brews here)
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I think that world poverty is a moral issue and that it is the responsibility of all to try and fight it. What an individual contributes to that fight is a matter for their personal conscience.
How can poverty be a moral issue? Are you saying the being poor is immoral??
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe he meant a moral issue for those who can help the poor, not for the poor themselves.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
