fireworks_god said:

This is precisely what my main point was addressing: this idea of doing something "expected" of them by a "materialistic society". I see no evidence of any expectation and feel that this is manifesting from the personal psychology of those in question, which is what I was speculating on.

---

Quote:

I don't think I've ever seen myself as being begrudged for earning money or for purchasing objects.

---

Sorry it took so long to reply, but I spent my Shroomery time the last two days in another debate.

zannennagara said:

Personal psychology is undoubtedly influenced by other factors, so to say that an expectation manifests from the person seems to cut the person off from reality.

Maybe it seems like I'm anthropomorphizing Society, but I'm referring to the very human expectations I have been subject to. My parents ignored their own contentment as well as my own in pursuit of following a societal path toward a high-paying job, believing even in the face of dissatisfaction and withdrawal that this path was more right than the discontentment. There was no argument, only threats, pressures and anger that things weren't proceeding as planned, and what disgusted me the most was the attempt at taking the high road in believing discontentment to be a mere psychological stage of development, hormonal and deluded rather than a true response to reality.

---

Quote:

Institutions of marriage, education, economy, and politics are not in themselves vindictive tyrants, but the people desperate to follow the rules do affect other people, and, as these institutions are omnipresent, we may say that they have a societal effect.

---

Quote:

My mistake, then. What makes you think that societal critics more often than not are envious of success?

---

Well, it would depend on what exactly regarding it they are criticizing. Like I said originally, the generalization was mostly a device for the purpose of sparking discussion. I couldn't use a generalization to explain all or "most" people's behavior, since the only way to make reasonable assumptions regarding their behavior would be to review it on a case-by-case basis. Of course, I'm sure there are some people who fit within the generalization, as I'm sure there are some people who don't reject anything about materialism or society itself, but rather simply the effect that certain people who create suffering in their pursuit of obtaining something material.
The idea that most are jealous, envious, or feeling incomplete from not having some status or object is nothing more than an unsubstantiated feeling.

fireworks_god said:

adjust said:

A person in a higher position is rewarded with less stress, which generally means you will be healthier

---

Are you proposing this as a rule, or more as a tendency? As someone who considers oneself to be pretty aware of psychology, or, at the very least, my own psychology, I see stress as resulting from internal states, and not the external circumstances we are responding to with these internal states. 

bradley said:

Right, I read the first couple sentences and thought, man, I'm just going to I will just refer him to Orwell's rules of writing:

http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/george-orwells-5-rules-for-effective-writing/

---

I skimmed these rules and pretty much shrugged them off. One of the best reasons why I did this is due to this following statement:

Quote:

Ineffective language weakens and distorts ideas.

---

This is exactly why I would not opt for deconstructing my syntax. The point to which one simplifies one's expression of one's ideas is subjectively determined by the nature of the ideas themselves and the specific form the thought processes have. As I'm not writing something that is targeted to the lowest common denominator, I do not feel it is necessary to sacrifice my intended point by stripping it of its meaning.
To do so would be to use ineffective language, and that wouldn't make George Orwell very happy.

---

learningtofly said:

Is this thread confusing materialism with consumerism?

---

learningtofly said:

huh? Materialism is that the only thing that can be proven to exist is matter. Consumerism is buying stuff = happiness.

---

fireworks_god said:

Sorry it took so long to reply, but I spent my Shroomery time the last two days in another debate.

---

Quote:

I'm not denying that personal psychology is influenced by other factors, and I was never excluding it when I referred to it resulting from personal psychology. My point was that I did not see this expectation as an aspect of "materialistic" society itself, but rather, as you point out with the example of your parents, the result of their personal psychology. From that, for an individual to think that this represents an expectation of society itself is only a manifestation of their own personal psychology - affected by those who were acting with this expectation.

Ultimately, my point was that I do not feel it is accurate to express that this is an aspect of society itself - only the psychology of some people who make up society. It isn't an inherent trait of society itself, and I don't believe that the way economy or government or etc. is orientated is responsible for this occurence.

---

Quote:

I have the feeling that the vast majority of people who harp on about society and how it values those with shiny, expensive objects are so concerned about this and feel so conflicted about this themselves, not because the "problem" is something so inherent and troublesome within society itself (evidenced by the people who simply aren't concerned about this, live their own life as they wish, and don't pay the possible phenomenon any mind), but because they themselves feel an emotional sting of jealousy and resentment for not having these things themselves, or the status and prestige that is supposedly associated with ownership of these things. 

---

Quote:

What do you think?

---

CosmicJoke said:

Are there people that simply aren't concerned with this, live their own life as they wish, and don't pay the possible phenomenon any mind?  I doubt it man, I think those who live their own lives as they wish are introspective enough to become aware of the psychodynamics of consumerism and turn on to higher states of consciousness.

---

zannennagara said:

I find that the psychology of some people who make up a society, particularly when these people have enormous influence,  defines to a large extent that society. You say you don't deny that personal psychology is influenced by other factors, but then you say that the expectation stems from personal psychology. The question is where this particular personal psychology comes from - you seem to phrase this as passing from individual to individual, but a large collection of individuals passing similar things, to me, defines a society, so whether we refer to this as inherent to a society or inherent to personal psychology is a choice between two views of the same thing.

---

In order to illustrate precisely where we are conflicting in viewpoint, I thought I'd get a little creative by affirming certain qualifiers in your expression with bold, and expressing qualifiers I felt lacking in other areas with italics (underlined to increase visibility ), in order to bring parts of your statement into accordance with the qualifiers (in bold) you yourself placed in other areas.

Do you see what my point is? If you look to the first a that I placed, referring to "society" in the way your context did implies "the society". I agree with all of your points on how "society" can be a helpful term to describing general trends of the personal psychology of individuals interacting with and influencing the personal psychology of others, but I do not agree with most any usage of the definite article of the term (i.e. the society), as it is nothing more than a baseless generalization created by superimposing one's assumptions regarding one's experience of part of that society. Maybe it would be more effective to speak of one's personal society?

Anyways, you're definitely right that our difference in opinion is really only a difference in how the ideas are being phrased, but the reason why I hold that difference is because one's personal society is not society itself, and I think it is necessary to make the distinction between the two for the sake of the validity of one's own ideas. Otherwise, one is intentionally or unintentionally speaking of society as a whole, and most any assumption regarding society as a whole is baseless and unsubstantiated.

learningtofly said:

Is this thread confusing materialism with consumerism?

---

The thread itself isn't, but the people making the statements that this thread was referring to are probably confusing the two.

learningtofly said:

huh? Materialism is that the only thing that can be proven to exist is matter. Consumerism is buying stuff = happiness.

---

Quote:

not because the "problem" is something so inherent and troublesome within society itself (evidenced by the people who simply aren't concerned about this, live their own life as they wish, and don't pay the possible phenomenon any mind),

---