Why is Society Centered on Materialism?

It appears that within western society in particular that the main focus is on materialism. Where people appraise their own self-worth on how many possessions they own. This is a total and complete lie. Money can't buy happiness, but it seems many live under the distortion that it does.

Why? I couldn't tell you. But it's sure annoying.

If the powers that be didn't push the idea of materialism, then capitalism wouldn't work.

Because our entire economic system now seems to based on the illusion that you are what you buy. Such a tragic outlook on life it is, but what does one do about it?

Cash Rules Everything Around Me. CREAM. Get the money, dolla dolla bills yalll.

I'll tell you why - because having stuff is fun. And fun is good for you. Fun makes me happy. Sure, it may not be the "oh, I'm sooo enlightened" happiness, but I'll take it any day of the week, since it comes with a car, nice clothes and videogames.

A wise man once said "the things you own end up owning you" (yes, Tyler Durder IS wise). Well, I say "so what? I like it".

Money can buy happiness.McJugga

[QUOTE="McJugga"]Money can buy happiness.ProudLarry

Money can buy happiness.McJugga

Well, not entirely true. Money can't buy happiness. And it's can buy health, either.

BUT, it can buy stuff to make you happy and healthy. I like money. And stuff. Stuff is good.

You can't really say money doesn't buy happiness, might be true for you but it clearly isn't true for everyone.

Oh and maybe because we spend our entire lives trying to make money, once we get the money we want to show it.

Human beings are slow, imperfect, and dull. As a result, they need other objects and other people to feel a sense of accomplishment, a sense of worth, and for self-actualization.

Simply walking into a mall, a Menards, a Macy's, a Wal-Mart, or any other retail store is nearly enough to bring a tear to someone's eye once you realize how much crap is in there, how little of it will ever be purchased and used, and how much we waste as a society in terms of resources and time so that we can live with a sense of comfort.

Money =/= Materialism

Money can buy freedom, and that is enough to pursue it.

I most likely won't be centering my life around possessing luxurious material objects

I blame Locke.

That blind empiricist...

While I agree with your argument I have to ask; Is happiness achieved the same way for everyone? If not, wouldn't my definition of being happy possibly have a chance ofcontradicting yours?

Maybe Materialism is linked some how to human nature itself, its a part of us. Everyone wants a say, to be apart of something bigger than their selves.

Money may not buy happiness but it makes your life a lot easier if you got loads of it. (money) horgen123

I blame Locke.

That blind empiricist...

Steingrimur

Not sure whether you're joking but that's a different kind of materialism.

You are not your job
You are not how much money you have in the bank
You are not the car you drive
You are not the contents of your wallet
You are not your bleeping khakis
You are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world

Sorry, couldn't hold back any longer...

blame lock etcSteingrimur

Money CAN buy happiness.

Money CAN buy happiness.

kurtoronie

Greed is the driving power behind all humans. My perfect example is the drive to win.(In something you care about). Because if you win that means some other person losses. So that's pretty greedy if you think you deserve to win instead of the other person. It's funny also if you think about how people who fail in society are called.(Yes it's losers).

People use money to buy what they value. People only value things that would make them happy. Therefore, Money does buy happiness. I'm tired of all of these"anti materialist" people saying that people who value certain things over others are not happy.

To answer your topic question: Society today is centered on Materialism because Materialism makes people happy.

Greed is the driving power behind all humans. My perfect example is the drive to win.(In something you care about). Because if you win that means some other person losses. So that's pretty greedy if you think you deserve to win instead of the other person. It's funny also if you think about how people who fail in society are called.(Yes it's losers).

hungry_pirate

[QUOTE="Steingrimur"]

I blame Locke.

That blind empiricist...

jimmyjammer69

Not sure whether you're joking but that's a different kind of materialism.

Money CAN buy happiness.

kurtoronie

[QUOTE="Steingrimur"]blame lock etcAtheists_Pwn

You're probably going to have to correct me a bit here, as I was never too good in philosophy, but I don't think Locke did exactly believe in free will, but instead that the whole idea of free will only made sense in a dualistic explanation of the world. I think he saw free will as concerned only with choice - kind of like a psychological free will - since there was no evidence of a metaphysical reality in which the conventional understanding of an uncaused cause could even make sense.

There's a strong line of reasoning in philosophy that states materialism and free will aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Materialism is simply the belief that there is only one kind of stuff, and that all phenomena can be fully explained in terms of matter, including thought. There's a temptation to reduce materialism to determinism, and that in turn to fatalism, and that could well be the best consistent explanation of causation, but to call Locke "an idiot by every definition of the word", when some of the most intelligent people in the world are still battling over this point, seems a little extreme don't you think?

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]

[QUOTE="Steingrimur"]blame lock etcjimmyjammer69

You're probably going to have to correct me a bit here, as I was never too good in philosophy, but I don't think Locke did exactly believe in free will, but instead that the whole idea of free will only made sense in a dualistic explanation of the world. I think he saw free will as concerned only with choice - kind of like a psychological free will - since there was no metaphysical reality in which the conventional understanding of an uncaused cause could even make sense.

There's a strong line of reasoning in philosophy that states materialism and free will aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Materialism is simply the belief that there is only one kind of stuff, and that all phenomena can be fully explained in terms of matter, including thought. There's a temptation to reduce materialism to determinism, and that in turn to fatalism, and that could well be the best consistent explanation of causation, but to call Locke "an idiot by every definition of the word", when some of the most intelligent people in the world are still battling over this point, seems a little extreme don't you think?

because of capitalism

Because its fun.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]

I dont think he would cla-ssify as a materialist, he believed in free will.

Empiricism is good, the problem with Locke was that he was an idiot by every definition of the word. I dont think he should really be considered empiricist. There was no observable evidence to prove what he believed.

Hume is who matters.

Atheists_Pwn

You're probably going to have to correct me a bit here, as I was never too good in philosophy, but I don't think Locke did exactly believe in free will, but instead that the whole idea of free will only made sense in a dualistic explanation of the world. I think he saw free will as concerned only with choice - kind of like a psychological free will - since there was no metaphysical reality in which the conventional understanding of an uncaused cause could even make sense.

There's a strong line of reasoning in philosophy that states materialism and free will aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Materialism is simply the belief that there is only one kind of stuff, and that all phenomena can be fully explained in terms of matter, including thought. There's a temptation to reduce materialism to determinism, and that in turn to fatalism, and that could well be the best consistent explanation of causation, but to call Locke "an idiot by every definition of the word", when some of the most intelligent people in the world are still battling over this point, seems a little extreme don't you think?

Ok... like I say, I'm no expert on this, but as far as I understand, Locke made it pretty clear in his Essay On Human Understanding that he thought the idea of free will was incoherent. You obviously disagree, and maybe you could explain why, because I honestly am not familiar enough with Locke to understand that.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="Steingrimur"]

I blame Locke.

That blind empiricist...

Steingrimur

Not sure whether you're joking but that's a different kind of materialism.

Gawd... that reference flew so high over my head, I didn't hear the woosh :P I'd never even heard of Locke's theories on ownership until now.

It has been drilled into our minds after generations of advertising bombardment that consumerism is the best thing ever. Sadly it has reached a point were there is no going back, society is dependant on raw materials coming out of the ground and being dumped in land fills every year to keep the whole system flowing.

Society if founded on the assumption of infinite growth, of course there are only finite resources on the planet.

Let's say people stopped being consumption orientated and only bought what they needed. So few product purchases means no money for the companies, no money for them means they shut down and people lose their jobs. People lose their jobs and they lose their disposable income, resulting in less money being spent elsewhere; and more companies shutting down. Eventually unemployment is widespread, people cannot pay their taxes, then the whole of society collapses as a result.

Society needs its population to consume and keep on consuming.