Materialism is to Blame

Please listen to UN voice. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7339250

Alas - the first paragraph Mr. Ghandi's analysis seems to vastly underestimate the hatred and brutality that many ordinary Europeans exhibited for the Jews during the holocaust. It was hardly the work of one man.

But the rest of his post is a warning that Israelis should well heed. Germans also thought they were invincible. Israel is doomed if it cannot find a way to live peacefully with its neighbors. It may be 5 years, 50 years or 500 years, but 4-5 million Israelis cannot stand against the whole of the Middle East forever. When the next holocaust comes, will Germany, Lithuania and Poland open their gates to Jewish refugees and make them feel welcome, or will they turn their backs on them again?

So, moralism rose under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and the Korean Kims?

yangpu- really well put post-
one can be controlled by materialism just as one can be controlled by an intangible like anger.

its how one uses it- in the service of self, family and society- its a wonderful thing- in the service of self- its not.

there is an old poem that goes like this-

'wealth has revealed in you
a selfishness formerly hidden by poverty'

inversely- wealth can also reveal in a person a generosity formerly restricted by poverty

peace

PAGANPLACE

Sometimes 'morals' are among the last things you *have.*

I agree with your reflection, in part.

'Morals' ( whatever this word invokes )are indeed the last things we have when we find ourselves destitute; but they are also the first thing to be dumped when Necessity visits. That is to say if you poor and retain morality, you have a little further fall.

Anonymous:

"Science in today's world has been hijacked by atheist scientists. It is presented as if it supports only a material reality (materialism). By default it is a way of denying the existence of a non-physical reality."

I think you're really mistaken. It's really certain forms of supernatural belief that are at odds with science, because it makes claims that conflict with what science *can* know.

Many scientists accused of atheism do in fact have spiritual beliefs, they just don't believe the Bible overrides reality.

It's not science's *job* to 'support non-physical reality' in the way some insist it should. It's some forms of *religion* who have a *religious belief* that science is a rival religion. Few scientists treat religion as a rival science, at least until it tries to enter the scientific process and cries, 'No fair!' when the rules of science aren't dumbed down to suit those religions' agendas.

"So our subjective experience is seen as something that affords only ourselves."

Well, for the commonality of subjective experience, that's my department, as well as that of many others, here... as well as your songsters, artists, poets, clergy, and whatnot.

Science doesn't contradict subjective or even, non-physical realities... What it *can't* do, is contradict physical observations for religion's (or politics' or economics') convenience, or it ceases to be science at all.

Science *can* contradict religious *beliefs and dogmas * if they say things about the 'objectively' observable world that can be demonstrated to be untrue.

Yangpu:

"One has no need of morals when one has nothing to lose."

Sometimes 'morals' are among the last things you *have.*

" Hence the more material items we have, the closer we get to reaching a point where we have the luxury to reflect on morality more closely."

Unless you so fear losing what you have that you spend all your time trying to get more, then pontificate on how 'immoral' someone else is to justify it. :)

"But morality and materialism are not to be construed as being biconditionally related, as the quotation of Gandhi implies. "

I'm in full agreement, there.

First, progress is often stifled by an appeal to authority. Those who think Gandhi could utter nothing false or foolish need to be sheared very closely, and on a cold winter's day.

Second, if the "President and co-founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, named for his grandfather, Mohandas K. “Mahatma” Gandhi" was to spend a few more days with the very poor, it would become obscenely obvious that materialism is not ubiquitously attached to morality, but to the quality of life. Hence the utterance of Gandhi is false, or arguably false.

One has no need of morals when one has nothing to lose. Hence the more material items we have, the closer we get to reaching a point where we have the luxury to reflect on morality more closely. But morality and materialism are not to be construed as being biconditionally related, as the quotation of Gandhi implies.

Even as I write this note I realize I have the comfort and computer materials to convey my thoughts, and enrich my understanding of the matter at hand. And as I have done my fair share of walking along the side-roads of Asia, I have also the experience to realize that nothing can be gained by abstaining from using the products of a materialistic culture, especially the car and internet. Eliminating consumerism and materialism does not and cannot improve the true nature of the soul.

It is the normal modus operandi of the East to look to the West as lacking in morals due incompatable cultural values.

Enough already.

Hegel's Philosophy of History needs only to be read once (skip the Introduction) to realize that for all our defects, the West has, in general, the right Idea.

Annavictoria:
Is that http://www.annavictoria.net?

Great was Gandhi but I don't think he was always right. It is possible to have many material things and still not be immoral. I agree it is not most common. And while I think you mean materialism as being the outward focus and particularly in the gaining of more and more material things, at a more basic level the desire to consider only materialism poses real problems for society, which does bring into focus morality and ethics. And it brings them into focus specifically with respect to health. Science in today's world has been hijacked by atheist scientists. It is presented as if it supports only a material reality (materialism). By default it is a way of denying the existence of a non-physical reality. So our subjective experience is seen as something that affords only ourselves. However this is not the truth. Owing to the existence of a non-physical reality (and there is proof -see my website at http://www.annavictoria for details)we also experience insightfully the interpersonal environment. And while all people have self interest, just because there is a personal self, still it is the actions of controlling people who are grossly selfish and could be also be described as gross materialists that adversely influence others as to cause serious problems to their health, even death. These are called "clean crimes". Perhaps Gandhiji was talking about these people, and these people in today's world are on the rise. The proliferation of health problems and serious disease spiralling out of control is the evidence once a person realizes how these diseases come about.
Sincerely annavictoria

It might be a better starting point to consider the Yogic concept of happiness; Shankachara is reported to have asked "Who is a happy man?"; and the answer was "One who is content with what he has!".

Contentment is the key and few in the materialistic "rat race" are content with what they have! The richest men, the most powerful men, are rarely not trying to get more; and these same people fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone from benefiting from their success; whether the poor, the sick, or other needy souls! Their fear destroys their pleasure, their happiness; and their life! Of course few of the poor, especially in the western word are content either; it could be said, I think, that the increase in civilization is directly related to a decrease in contentment...makes you wonder perhaps?

Mr. Arun Gandhi,

Thank you for your reminder here on the greedy and excessive pursuit of materialism and capitalism at the expense of others, and at the cost of our personal relationship with others, including our family.

Frankly, I was initially puzzled by what you said until I remember the great Mahatma Gandhi's ideas of right living in the ashram he set up, and how he spurn his own cloth and wore them. "Gandhinomics" is something we won't understand until we remembered how he actually lived - very simply and using only what he needed and no more. Hence, perhaps, his distaste for excessive pursuit of materialism that desensitise us to others' needs and wants. His return back to India from South Africa, and his travels in India certainly shaped his views.

I accept and agree, as you stated and would know better on India, that there is the phenomenon of selfishness heightened in the intense capitalistic competition and pursuit of materialism in India's opening and rapidly expanding economy. It is happening in China and other newly emerging economies as well, also leading to breakdown in traditional values and family links.

Morality and materialism need not have an inverse relationship, nor will morality decrease when materialism increase. It is up to the individual to binge on excessive and not quite needed yatches, private jets, summer homes, city mansions and triplexes etc. Or to give to charities for those who are victims of calamities, refugees, orphans, the poor, widows, the elderly and the sick etc.

I do believe if the great Mahatma Gandhi is alive today, he would laud the likes of Warren Buffet, Bill and Melinda Gates, George Soros etc for their charities in spite of them being successful capitalists.

The Indian economy is booming. The number of Indian billionaires, multi-millionaires and millionaires are increasing. The Indian middle class is expanding by millions every year. And they are increasingly giving to charities too.

Thank you and best regards

"J"

See, my idea of materialism is perhaps defined this time when I was laid up, and would sit where I could watch a major road every morning... People sitting in cars all morning, every morning, to pay for more and better cars to sit in all day...

Same cars. Same people. Trapped in *that day.*

I love the city, but I actually think that things like suburbia and consumerism have to be among the most helpless, disorganized, and wasteful things that ever happened to a society, short of war, famine, or other obvious chaos or tyrrany.

No one lives where they work, or near their friends or family, they're in hock up to their eyeballs just to get by, whatever 'getting by' is for their income bracket, and use *stuff* to fill voids in their own lives and their own relationships, often, thereby, of course, getting in deeper and having less 'time for realit.'

Some will say that's cause of a decline of family cause of a decline of 'morality,' whatever that is to someone: ...I think it works the other way.

I think families are perceived to be in decline because the economics and organization are *constructed* that way, (however inadvertently, perhaps.) I think we perceive a decline in 'morality' because we *don't know many people well enough to trust them* anymore.

The response is more stuff, more seeking of control, more alienation. More scattering.

I think families and communities are so alienated cause we're so *off-balance* and rootless.

...And, with people seeking some other way to mediate family and group status and approval, then certain authorities allied with both certain religion and certain versions of capitalism (which tend to see wealth as a sign of divine favor) ...lead people to *substitute* how much someone accedes to *token* moralistic ideas, for real awareness and relationship with each other as people. (ie, be an Enron executive ripping off all manner of people, as long as you aren't *gay* or something.)

All substitutes for real life and real community and real relationships, and real awareness of what we're doing.

Basically, people are told to buy, buy, buy, then pray and chastise themselves or others for it, and for the fact or perception that the material circumstances are *in the way* ...bottom line is, we, collectively, *let them be.*

In trying to reconcile this state of affairs, I think people look to abstract ideas like 'sin' ...perhaps to protect themselves from realizing we maybe can't fix it all at once, but don't have to be *quite* that helpless.

Not on certain days, at the very least.

You wrote:

"In a capitalist/materialist world everyone has become selfish and self-centered."

I doubt it. But let's travel back in time to see if you are right! Since we do not have a time machine, there is only one method open to us: let us read novels, history books, plays by Shakespeare and so on, from many countries. I have done this, and I conclude that most people have always been selfish and self-centered, but some are generous. It does not seem to be much different now than it was in the past. Life is much easier, but human nature has not improved -- or gotten any worse.

I think that conservative people sometimes suffer from what I call "the illusion of past quality." We go to a museum and see beautiful paintings and furniture, and imagine that in the past, everyone lived with such things, and had wonderful taste. We forget that the paintings come from palaces, and most people lived in hovels. Their furniture is lost; only the best stuff is preserved. That is also true of books, folk tales, wisdom and so on. Only the best is preserved. The bad stuff is lost. For the most part only good people are remembered, or extraordinarily smart people, or notoriously bad people. So we imagine that in the past everyone was extraordinary.

People claim that educational standards are slipping. They say, for example, that Americans do not know geography. That is true, but most Americans and for that matter most British, Japanese or people in Tonga never did know geography, and still don't. My late mother grew up in New York City in the 1920s and 30s. She used to say that most people back then not only had no idea where Europe is, they had no idea where the Statue of Liberty is.

At the height of the Second World War, an anthropologist visited a peaceful, isolated village in the south of England, not far from the airfields. He met an old man who did not realize there was a war on, and who had never heard of Winston Churchill. There are many such people in the world. Frankly, I like it that way.

You do not need to worry about human nature, or about people getting better or worse. Morality is not decaying. We never were moral in the first place. Don't worry that some people are evil and exploitive. We are carnivorous primates, after all. What did you expect? Just fix practical problems and make life better for your children, and everything will probably work out.

I think, too, there's a difference between 'materialism' and 'commercialism' and 'consumerism...' it's not the presence of *things* that makes people 'greedy,' nor is it a 'fallen nature.'

People become greedy amid abundance cause of *insecurity,* quite often. As anyone who's gone from deep poverty to doing-somewhat better will show, in whatever manner they respond to this. It can be a challenge, even for generations, to see 'things' for what they *are* and not lose sight of what they *mean,* really.

Things and the seeking of things can be a bit of a trap, ...as many lament by saying, say, 'Materialism is bad,' or 'Materialism without my religion is bad,' or all the other permutations of that.

My faith group was until very recently blamed for Christians commercializing Christmas... in recent years it's been fashionable to blame us for Christians 'taking the Christ out of' ...commercialized Christmas, apparently by people not being forced to refer to Jesus at Wal-Mart.

Go figure.

Material things are, I think, neither to be blamed nor justified. We could stand, however, to regain the human perspective about what a feast, a gift, a thing, even this abstraction called 'success' are *for,* in context of these family gatherings and holidays.

PROF. E.:

Right on!

There needs to be a harmony between physical reality and subjective experience. Consumerism blinds us to subjective experience in order to sell us a bunch of meaningless things, and religion blinds us to physical reality in order to sell us a bunch of fake experiences.

The bottom line? $$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!

Both faith and marketing (which leads to the acquisition of material goods) act under similar processes. They are both forms of meaning making -- worldviews that provide us with a lens to look through and they are both selling stories and "magical thinking."

Today's prosperity preachers would have people believe that if they make Jesus their lord and savior, they will have an abundance of riches. (While the preacher may mean that metaphorically, I think most in the pews are taking it literally.) How much different from that is Listerine telling you that if you have fresh breathe you can get "the guy" or "the girl"?

Blaming the lack of morality and civility on materialism instead of the breakdown of American society in a myriad of other ways is, I think, dated. When people can't count on a job, their marriage or the pension they worked their entire lives creating, it becomes much more difficult to be moral when one feels that they are living on quicksand.

the panelsit gives an ansurdly simplistic answer to a complex question.

as complex and individual as humans and their various relationships with each other are.

it seems the only people who find some sort of strange nobility in poverty, are those who have never faced that reality.

very few people choose to remain among the poverty stricken when theyve been a chance to escape.

very very few.

people can be poor and greedy, and rich in material belongings, and generous.

its a fantasy that when ones eschews material possessions, they automatically become enlightened or even kinder people.
certainly,renunciation of things brings with it an ability to breathe easier, be more relaxed- after all- the basic stresses of the householder are removed!

but so is the responsibility of maintaining any wealth, or the capacity to help others with that wealth

and since we all have basic needs that must be met- or we die- someone, somewhere has to do the work to sustain us

the carefree life of the ascetic- without the attendant repsosibilities and worries most humans endure- is a spiritually immature and incredbly selfish endeavor in the end-

after all- it is completely centered on the self and the selfs enlightenment- or if one "transcends" that- the spiritually proud audacity of 'teaching' others.

while i respect mahatma gandhi, i also understand that it was precisely his elevated social status and access to education that enabled him to be the social conscience he became.

there are many other dimensions to family dynamics that simple materialism.
one can be poor and dyfunctional also- actually, the chances re higher.

if one CHOOSES to renounce material possessions- it means they had those possessions to begin with.

the fact is, a hindu woman preparing for jaganath- is going to be overworked and stressed just like an american woman anticipating feeding her family-
and the same tensions and unresolved conflicts will occur with or without the 'materialistic' element, which all families have some and some not.

i find this a naively judgemental post.

I fall somewhere in between.

We find ourselves bombarded by commercialism every day, and it's difficult to tune it out and realize when we have enough and when our expectations are being manipulated by outside interests. I think that those who do tune it out, who realize when they have enough, consume less and are happier, too. This is not to say that austerity produces happiness. Far from it. But in a time of material abundance it is important to be self-moderating to an extent that hasn't historically been the case.

If there is a pathological materialism in this country, it's the tacit belief that "things" are fundamental indicators of quality of life instead of "experiences". If more people paid attention to their actual experiences with "things" they'd soon realize that there's a disconnect between what they think "things" will add to quality of life versus what they actually do. This inappropriate focusing of attention on ideas about "things" is what is reinforced by consumer culture.

TO HUMANITY:

Forgiveness and Thanksgiving

Sometimes these two terms go together more than we may realize. If we don't forgive people, it ultimately makes us bitter in lots of ways that makes being thankful unattainable and that is why we try to fill it with so many other things that don't fill the emptiness.

Have you ever heard the saying, " Give thanks with a grateful heart", if we are so ate up with bitterness towards someone, then just seeing or thinking of that person can as they say, "Make your blood boil". Isn't it something that it is within our God given power to forgive but some people would rather be miserable that to even attempt it, sad isn't it?

When family members get together some of the grudges that are held are sometimes so long held that they actually become part of the person holding them like a cancer, only worse, in that it eats away at you and you are actually the one feeding it.

Sometimes we look for something or someone to blame when the world isn't perfect, well guess what the world isn't perfect and neither am I.

Saying that, "Materialism is to blame" is missing something that whether people believe it or not should be quite obvious and that is that we, all of us, have a fallen nature.

People have it in their power to forgive and since I know God is real, I can and have asked God for forgiveness for the wrongs that I have done, so can you. It is up to the individual person but forgiveness is one of the best exercise that anyone could ever do.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

To "To Ego Nemo":

I apologize for my spelling error.

I also wish you peace. Any person who shouts "idiot" at someone they do not know needs peace.

And, I thank you for agreeing with me, in part, and disagreeing, in part.

Ego Nemo: You are an idiot! If you wish to comment, at least make sure you get the name of the person right, at least someone of Gandhi's stature! It is "Gandhi" not "Ghandi"!

And yes, humanity always was selfish! But in today's day and age, it has come to recieve a tacit approval, nay a kind of commendation actually that it is right to do something only because it suits my purpose (no matter how much harm it does to someone)! Postmoderistic? Maybe...

with respect and love to Arun Gandhi,

i do agree with Ego,
the "materialism" charge has become a cliche that obscures more than it reveals.

Ego has the correct beginning premise:
everyone is fighting for survival,
and we have been for 50,000 years.

and sibling rivalry is the most intense kind.

Mommy always loved William Best,
and Abel got more praise for his gifts.

MOST people all over the world live by the golden rule: always have. the behavioral economics of societies demands it: if you don't follow the rules, you get ostracised.

America's moral problem has been excess wacky religionism more than excess materialism. Chosen people. Christian Nation.

My family gets along wonderfully now that William is dead.

Not only are we witnessing "it" now but we have been for a very long time. The holidays are also the suicide days. Christmas is the most disappointing day of the year. Even children given every toy on their lists are still unhappy.

It's not what is not there but the expectation of something that is not and cannot be there. Yes junior, that's all there is. And the same goes for you buster. The reason you didn't get what you wanted is because what you wanted does not exist. That's all there is to a Christmas or any other hyped holiday.

How true. "In a capitalist/materialist world everyone has become selfish and self-centered." Want to try getting along without capital, (money) and/or material, (food, energy) what money will buy? That's the definition of a third world country, no "capitalist/materialist" to lower the morals to the point where life is a little more than a trip from the cardboard lean-to to someone else's garbage can. That's all there is to life, capitalist/materialist just like that's all there is to Christmas.

The birth of the son of God is a hoax, http://www.hoax-buster.org So small wonder Christmas is the suicide season.

Thank God Thanksgiving isn't like that. No one expects anything so no one is disappointed. Just a few upset stomachs but nothing Alka Seltzer can't handle. Unlike Christmas, at Thanksgiving - to Native Americans suicide not necessary. Scalping saved for Christmas.

Ghandi was a great man, but what you proffer here is utter foolishness.
This idea of "materialism" causing selfishness causing a breakdown of society, in the West at any rate, is about 150 years old. It was discredited as meaningless hogwash about 149 years ago.
Humanity is not becoming selfish. It is, and was, selfish.
This comes from the survival instinct. What moderates it is civil society.
All traditions, Hindu, Christian, etc., teach the idea of what Confucius called "reciprocity" -- that one should be kind, helpful, self-sacrificing to others as you would want others to act that way to you.
In the Christian tradition, this is known as The Golden Rule -- do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Materialism -- which you mean as a synonym of consumerism, not as Marx defined the word -- is the innate need to gather such as is needed to sustain life.
(Properly defined, materialism is a Western philosophical system.)
I see your point that in modern global culture there is, in places, a growing abundance. And the natural human reaction is to take from this abundance more than is needed to survive.
In the West, there have long been complaints about the 'commercial' nature of holidays, and the obvious overconsumption of food, fuel and luxuries.
You argue that this overconsumption is the source of unhappiness. By implication, you argue that a more austere lifestyle would bring happiness. Take away abundance and you would have unhappiness, as well.
Someone said poverty is the mother of violence.
The poor are righteous, but few are happy. To be made happy is not happiness, it is indoctrination.
What is needed is abundance, and the spread of that abundance to all.
It is not the taking, as you argue, that is the problem, but crying need for more giving.
Brother, give more, with your heart and do not wag your finger and cluck your tongue at the "materialists." Love them, give to them, and urge them to give.