• We have brought back Future of KINGDOM HEARTS as our main Kingdom Hearts section. Discuss any projects including Phase 2 developments, the rumored Disney Plus series, all TWEWY-related news, theories about the future of Kingdom Hearts, and any general topics in this section. For anything related to Kingdom Hearts Memory of Melody, please discuss it in the KINGDOM HEARTS Memory of Melody section.
  • Although unrelated to Kingdom Hearts, we are aware that there might be fans of The Last of Us on our forums. We ask that you please keep all spoilers for The Last of Us 2 spoiler-tagged. Any untagged spoilers will result in a temporary ban from the site.

Materialism



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS

Geocillin

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
325
Awards
0
Age
31
Hm...in philisophical terms I would reject Materialism as the metaphysical view defining the world as I don't believe it's all physical and there's nothing else. Seems unlikely that we're just a bunch of chemical reactions happening in the brain. Emotions are a result of an addiction to a chemical your brain releases. It doesn't really give an explanation I can accept that shows how our networks actually define our personality and how imagination works. It seems probable that something outside just the physical exists which would explain these things.

Also, I kinda dislike the materialistic scientists who justify materialism when they don't have an answer that they 'will' have an answer as proof for a situation that can't currently be explained in terms of motion and matter.
 

Angel

number one fan of teresa giudice
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
6,666
Awards
0
Age
26
Location
Maryland
It just makes you feel satisfied knowing you bought something with your own money. It's just so darn fulfilling.
 

Q

Banned
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,483
Awards
0
Location
DOWN THE SLOPE
Possessions aren't everything.

They're the only thing.
Are they? Really? I think the mind overpowers the body. I don't think possessions are everything, really, or the only thing. You don't have to own something to be happy.

For example, my birthday is in two days, but I'm not asking for anything. Why? Because I don't like to get new shit, really.
 

Essence of Elegy

How long shall you delve into time?
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
1,796
Awards
0
Location
Valorin
Are they? Really? I think the mind overpowers the body. I don't think possessions are everything, really, or the only thing. You don't have to own something to be happy.

For example, my birthday is in two days, but I'm not asking for anything. Why? Because I don't like to get new shit, really.
Yeah about that. Sarcasm.

Seriously though, you have to think outside of the box. Sure it's nice to have an iTouch or something, but you should pay more attention to what's around you rather than what's in your hand.
 

Hidden

A boy named Crow
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
1,615
Awards
2
Age
31
Location
A world that never was
Website
www.freewebs.com
  • Character of the Week
  • Quack Attack
Well, "owning" an item really means you can defend it, or you have some sort of factor that prevents others from taking it. In an extremely basic world, violence is going to be the only way to defend your "possession". Is it really self-defining it when you can defend the possession? Something that hurts someone else is very defining to others, I think. Although the rest of the things you said are very true, I just think that saying that the only thing you really need to do is stand there and label it "mine" is a little short. You have to back up the claim with a way to defend it.
Indeed, it certainly helps to have a gun when you're informing others that this is your land, not theirs. But that is an interaction with others. The connection that is self-satisfying is the connection to the actual object possessed--your having a gun really has nothing to do with how you interact with that land.

Consider why it is that possession is the only form of interaction that must be defended in some way--a gun is not necessary to affirm that you made an object, know an object, or use an object. That is because all of these are defined by interactions with that object. Possession, however, is not an interaction with an object; it can only be defined (when it is) by an interaction with others--namely, others cannot interact with that object except by your assent.

All of this said, the problem with materialism -as a state of mind- is that it is an attempt to interact with the world through possession; this, on its own, is not possible, and it brings us to the position that we can own the world yet have no idea how to work with it.

Rhythm of Apathy said:
People certainly don't need a lot of the things they have, but I'm not entirely sure I can disagree when it's said that Materialism is the key to Power.

Ownership and power are synonymous in today's society and probably always has been. With enough money you can practically get anything, minus those sentimental things, but can't they be classified as a need anyway?
Materialism is the key to Power by common consent--power lies where it is believed to lie. However, as brought up by Sir Meta Knight, materialism (reduced to possession or ownership) is itself entirely dependent upon another factor--the ability to defend possession. So, it could be argued that possession of the world is nothing if one cannot use a gun.


To address Geocillin's take, I regard the philosophy of materialism in a similar light to nihilism--a sometimes useful starting point, but limited in potential for itself.
 
Last edited:

Q

Banned
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,483
Awards
0
Location
DOWN THE SLOPE
Indeed, it certainly helps to have a gun when you're informing others that this is your land, not theirs. But that is an interaction with others. The connection that is self-satisfying is the connection to the actual object possessed--your having a gun really has nothing to do with how you interact with that land.

Consider why it is that possession is the only form of interaction that must be defended in some way--a gun is not necessary to affirm that you made an object, know an object, or use an object. That is because all of these are defined by interactions with that object. Possession, however, is not an interaction with an object; it can only be defined (when it is) by an interaction with others--namely, others cannot interact with that object except by your assent.

All of this said, the problem with materialism -as a state of mind- is that it is an attempt to interact with the world through possession; this, on its own, is not possible, and it brings us to the position that we can own the world yet have no idea how to work with it.
Oh, now I see what you're saying. That makes sense now.

I disagree.
Explain.

That's not why. It's because materialism is more believable than something that hasn't been proven.
I don't understand you. Philosophy isn't science, and it doesn't need to be proven, only thought out. Explain, maybe?
 

Geocillin

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
325
Awards
0
Age
31
Hm...I'm thinking that depending on your metaphysical view the idea of materialism (not in the metaphysical sense) can fall apart. If one was an idealist, then material possessions aren't material in actuality, but mere ideas created through the mind. Existence of these ideas may or may not exist. The only thing that is known is that the 'self' exists and thus materialism can't exist without the material and this materialism is just an illusion that limits the human mind, but then again this isn't proven, but then again what really is, as everything is based on an underlying assumption or paradigm and thus the proof for anything really is still uncertain. Even some ideas we're developing through science, since the underlying assumption is that we're flawless in interpreting the data.
 
Top