that is simple .... you gotta have stuff and every body likes nice things.
besides...what is more materialistic than video games:P
This topic is locked from further discussion.
"when some of the most intelligent people in the world are still battling over this point, seems a little extreme don't you think?" That is an appeal to authority it seems. Intellectuals can be swept up by nonsense too. It happens to everyone. The problem with Locke is that he made a lot of arguments with massive leaps in logic. His whole idea of ownership is faulty. Theres literally nothing convincing about it.[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]
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?
jimmyjammer69
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.
the above post isnt necessarily about free will. my main gripe with him is his arguments about how ownership occurs. He made a leap of logic with taking something out of the state of nature(making it into something it wasnt naturally) into ownership. his ideas of ownership can justify any economic system as well, so i dont really know why capitalists love him when Locke's arguments were used by some communists as well.Because human beings are naturally infatuated by aesthetically pleasing things, and the media portrays certain things (usually very pricey things) as being desirable and a sign of status. As social beings, we often subconsciously strive to be the "alpha" individual within a community.Setsa
Pretty much this: media propaganda and status symbolism
And the occasional things that are inherently valuable.
Money may not buy happiness but it makes your life a lot easier if you got loads of it. (money) horgen123For all of us in the poverty class these words ring true.
Money can buy happiness... it just matters what makes you happy. I don't get this idea that "materialism" is a bad thing. We live in an empirical universe made up of material objects. Why shouldn't we grasp on to them if it makes us feel better?
Money can buy happiness... it just matters what makes you happy. I don't get this idea that "materialism" is a bad thing. We live in an empirical world made up of material objects. Why shouldn't we grasp on to them if it makes us feel better?
foxhound_fox
But most of us eventually take what we have for granted, so we revert back to the previous level of satisfaction.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]
[QUOTE="Steingrimur"]
I blame Locke.
That blind empiricist...BiancaDK
Not sure whether you're joking but that's a different kind of materialism.
lmfao XD
this thread has served its purpose *scuffles off*
What am I missing here?Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment