Material Possessions

A few questions:

  • Is the idea of owning material things absurd, when material things can simply be taken from you or destroyed? (Can something really be yours?)
  • Other than Ayn Rand, are there any philosophers who condone materialistic pursuits?
  • In your opinion, is human nature materialistic?
  • Would anyone here condone materialism?
  • Materialistic- a person who is markedly more concerned with material things than with spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.
    Not the philosophical meaning of materialism.

youtube.com/watch?v=2fzNChEgN-c

the song

I’ve heard all you ever can own is your action…But that person didn’t own an M6…

This is really a thread, throughout philosophy, that I am grappling with right now. You’ve got those who say “live simple. Don’t worry be happy”

Then you’ve got them who say “I want that apple for lunch, and I’ll fight you for it”… or those who say “I’ll trade you my philosophy book for that apple”… and so on.

Who’s right? Well if you follow truth as that which is, then the USA is proof materialism not only works, but it is moral. Or at least can be when tempered… The USA DOES NOT say to the world “don’t worry be happy”…

However it could be the case we are just in a bubble of wealth that will pop. However I know I would not like to see the fallout from the fall of the USA simply to live a simpler, less material life…

Materialism is not a philosophy we pick, it is based on necessity. You need a place to sleep, you need food etc… the question is how nice of a place to sleep and how good of food.

Everyone is materialistic to some degree - and there is nothing wrong with that. Ethical problems only arise when people choose to violate moral principles like not stealing, or hurting others to get what they want. But seeking nice things without hurting others is not evil, and in fact generates the incentive for todays comforts. Yes, I like Rand.

you are wrong, we dont need a tv, computers, cell phones, cameras, video games, and a whole bunch of over stuff that materalistic people value, that is why they are materalistic, but this is different from someone who values something given to the by someone important, materialism means that people in a way worship and charish their possesions as if they where another being that they love.

this song talks about materialism youtube.com/watch?v=2fzNChEgN-c

Because someone can threaten my ownership the idea of ownership does not dissolve, it is merely not absolute. Something is mine, it can be taken away from me but I still have it at this moment.

I may not understand specifically what you are getting at, but unless someone’s philosophy is particularily against materialism (Berkeley for example) their philosophy must condone material pursuits to some degree or another.

Maybe euclidate what you mean by this.

Very much so. Given how far many people are willing to go for material gains, in some cases above all else, it must be a part of human nature. Whether this degree is learned or inherant is debatable, but people are clearly interested in material gains en masse.

Even on the condition of NEEDING food one could argue that humans are materialistic. Food for survival isn’t a spiritual, intellectual or cultural value.

To some degree it is necessary, but no. I

I have some notes at home that talks about the ridiculous nature of private property which if I can find some time later on I’ll post it.

Other than that my only advice is be careful the things you own don’t come to own you later on. :wink: :sunglasses:

( Fight Club. I know. :stuck_out_tongue: )

is your body your property?

-Imp

It’s a extension of myself as far that I know beyond the occasional rape that I give permission to women. :stuck_out_tongue: :laughing:

one of the best movies ever

Hell yeah.

Let me get those private property ridicule notes I found on a website…

Ellis

Your first question is very good. There is a sort of ‘nonsensical’ ontology which engenders the root of the problem of ownership.

We cannot recognize this irrationality at the heart of morality: with this ‘innocent’ question, you’ve uncovered the radical kernel of the issue of creative energy.

In short, this is the entire question of morality-- in other words, are we being duped? Have we unwittingly taken an irrational mechanism for a rational system? And if so, how do we wake up, from a hallucination which has become an entire way of life?

So, to be specific, let’s recall that Ayn Rand actually calls herself an ‘Objectivist,’ which certainly has slightly different philosophical connotations than ‘materialism.’ As you put it, materialism as merely a predilection for matter is not very close to the ‘philosophical meaning.’ In fact, we’d be closer for this century in calling ‘materialists’ those writers concerned with the flow of energy as such, the ‘chaotic flux’ underlying all apparent reality.

The key issue here to remember is that power is not identical to appearance. This is not merely a social or psychological point; in fact, the commonsense reading is a purely materialist one: that the power of a process is not in any of its stages, but in its symbolic culmination.

The accumulation of divisions within reality is the basis not only for collective labor, but also for private property. The same metaphysical move is being made.

Moreover, we should also point out that this is a Hegelian move, who (despite appearances) ought to be read as a total materialist, even moreso than, say, Spinoza or Heraclitus. For Hegel the ‘flow’ of being, the urge to evolve, is God–which he reads as a spirit acting in the world, interrupting the endless subdivision of being, that is–by ending it. God is where philosophy stops. This is (more or less) the essence of the materialist reduction.

I would condone a materialist stance which addressed both the question of energy and how it’s organized. We can’t ignore the political and social question (of change) at hand. The reduction to a materialist position obfuscates the essential difference here: there’s more to a flow of energy than just what it produces-- there’s the more important question of how it actually works. We cannot allow ourselves to fall silent on the brink of revelation or the eve of the revolution-- just because it is so difficult to empirically distinguish between the thing-in-itself and our percepts, affects, and concepts of the thing!

The materialist reduction, rather than taking a legitimate materialist stance and affirming an ontological identity of matter and energy, rather aims towards some dualistic proposition… which ultimately leads us to a transcendent order where the entire matter is (falsely) laid to rest. Keep in mind this issue is quite contemporary; materialists end up sounding like some sort of militaristic pacifists, where all our energy goes into repressing any flow of energy which threatens the social order…

Here we go as promised:

forums.philosophyforums.com/thre … 20955.html

That’s not all of it unfortunately but I will find the rest tomorrow or somthing.

In a legal sense, of course. But if you wish to stretch its meaning then material possessions no more belong to someone than our bodies, as they too can be taken away and destroyed. Take the essential bits away and we´re buggered.

Yes.

Nothing wrong wanting stuff; it´s just how you go about pursuing goods, the extent to which you pursue them, how it affects you, and how it affects your treatment and idea of others.

Nietzsche was all for accumulation of items. This was largely in response to Schopenhauers’ assertion of that whole eastern idea of owning/having/being nothing. Lovely idea, that if you own nothing then it can’t be taken from you, etc.

Nietzsche responded that having nothing isn’t really winning, and that “stuff” is what keeps people going…

Look up the Freudian link between material objects and personal wellbeing, wellbeing can contribute to a better approach to both spiritual and philosophical matters, it can also hinder it, whatever floats your atheist, I suppose.