posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 04:47 PM
We have always been told we live in a materialistic culture. The fact is, this culture is idealistic, and not
materialist enough. We do not care for the material at all.
Rather, we see the opposite: the destruction of the material world for mental benefit. Peace of mind, happiness, comfort, convenience. Everyone wants
their own little happiness, and will step on, off and over the things of the world to achieve this idealistic goal—one that is so fleeting, that by
the time it is reached, it has long since passed.
A strange thought perhaps, especially if you have been blaming materialism for the state of our Earth this whole time, as if a concern for material
things involves the destruction of material things. Or maybe you've adopted the more modern, and consequently, the more stupid Hawthornian definition
of materialism, thereby hijacking that old French term for your indiscriminate and political use, basically slandering the history of materialistic
thinking every time you equate it to greed and evil. Finally, maybep you imagine materialistic thought to be spiritually empty—and rightfully so.
Well then, that would only mean that yours is physically empty, and we can finally weigh which of the two is more empty in this regard.
However, if you are diligent and prefer a more serious look at what you are told, its veracity, and whether such an assertion holds any weight, you
might find a different meaning than the one you're all-too-commonly used to. The "Materialism" of today in its foul modern usage, that being
equating the concern and belief in the material of the world with the capacity for human greed, want, vanity and desire, is idealism in a rhetorical
disguise, and thus a mistake.
Now materialism and idealism are too broad of terms to get into anything mathematically specific (and one would have to read much literature on both
sides to see if I am even discussing these concepts at all), but the treatment of the earth and of our fellow beings is the greatest evidence against
the assertion that our culture is materialistic. One who believes in the primacy of the physical, and not the primacy of the mind or spirit, have
already placed a higher value on everything in the universe by making this simple distinction.
Every materialistic thinker, if and whenever their thoughts have survived the book burning and crusades of idealists (they are exceedingly rare), have
only ever been guilty of placing everything physical in the universe—you, me, a tree, a planet—on a higher value than an idealist or a
spiritualist would. Bestowing "primacy" is such an evaluation. If an idealist were forced to choose whether to destroy the matter or the spirit of
something, say a tree, they'd hack it down and burn it in a heartbeat, and they'd be quite confident that in doing so they saved its spirit. If the
materialist were to make the same choice, all he'd have to do is pull out an imaginary axe, chop down an imaginary tree-spirit, and place it in an
imaginary fire. Only in one case is the tree still there.
But if there is no spirit, no mind-stuff, not primary not secondary, then how does idealism even fit in? Wouldn't the very absence of idealistic
truth make our culture inherently materialistic?
Good question. Idealism still remains as that human value judgment, "primacy", given to either the object itself, or to our ideas about it. Today's
culture is idealistic in the sense that we see and imagine not a cow, but the benefits it brings us. We prefer the benefit it brings us to the actual
cow, and we will go to great lengths at the cows expense to retain the right to this value judgment. Idealism is necessary for survival.
Do insatiable consumers stampede over each other at sales events for certain brand-named items because they appreciate the material they are made out
of? You would think that if these people gave primacy to the material world, they might line up in an orderly fashion so as not to crush any of it
beneath their heavy feet. Instead, they push and crawl over material things and beings to reach their goal. All "material goods" in this sense are
not considered or appreciated as material goods at all, but as simply means to an idealistic end, or more commonly, things that are simply in the way.
And take celebrity. What is so fascinating about the celebrity in a materialistic culture? They have material bodies, yes, but is that why we lust
after their every movement? Is their material value really any different than yours and mine? Not really. Only in an idealistic culture can one person
be imagined more important than another. Only in an idealistic culture does one see a homeless man, a reprobate, a leech on society, than a man named
Dear reader, open your wallet, take out your plastic cards and money, and do something other than purchase with it. I don't know, maybe make some
clothes or serve it up at your next meal as a side dish. Make some tools with it, or defend your territory brandishing your wads of cash and platinum
cards. What is money—credit? numbers in a bank system somewhere? stamped coins and paper? Money is imagined, but we do not have the wherewithal to
imagine more of it and simply give it all away.
And to those who fear materialistic science and philosophy for fear of what it might say about us. In the sense that every ontology is a mental list
of things that exist, just look at what our so called material sciences are giving primacy to—first causes, teleological principles, immaterial
forces and universal law and order. Simply describing the objects and their motion is not enough, that they must describe its “purpose”, the ideas
of the universe. The primacy is placed not on the phenomena, not on the matter, but on the cause of it. Just look upon what philosophical foundations
the beginning of modern science is built upon—theological and idealistic ones. If they did not believe the world was a grand machine, like a great
clock built by a great watchmaker, God's design,which led to deterministic and mechanistic ideas that make us out to be mere machinery in some
contraption, it would be wholly different if it began on a materialistic evaluation. In the tradition, even our dear theoretical physicists of today
spend more time observing math than the physical world, relying on platonic entities, mathematical functions, and abstract ideas to fill in the holes
of their so-called concrete science, leaving the layperson to believe there exists wave-functions, constants, and laws stirred into nature, and not
born from human expression. Indeed, physics without engineering is merely philosophy anyways. If one needs simply a mathematical function to describe
the universe, well then, the hard sciences must be the easy sciences.
No, there is no materialism. Materialism is dead or too rare to even notice, and when it does finally show its beautiful self, we've almost certainly
put it to the flame.