Where there is anti-materialism there is hope
Submitted by peegee on Tue, 04/13/2004 - 7:22am. Beautiful
"One does not own things in this world. Like these earrings - you don't really own them."

One girl to another in response to the other expressing possesive feelings about her boyfriend. Hamburg HBf(train station), Germany, track 5a, about 4 PM CET. Translated from German.
Comment viewing options:
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to submit your changes.
Posted by ParU on Sun, 08/15/2004 - 11:51am.
The most hilarious thing I've ever heard about ownership has to do with the 'Anglos' (I think they were Dutch) who supposedly 'bought' Manhatten Island for a few coins and some shiny beads from the Indians. It's always been used around here to demonstrate the appreciation of real estate. And how the 'white man' ripped off the Indians. But......
Recent research (well I think about 10-15 yrs ago but still), determined that the Indians that 'sold' New York actually weren't from that area but were merely passing through. So the Indians ripped off the white men! They sold something they didn't own! (though the notion of ownership was a little loose among the Indians of the time). The first case of New Yorkers ripping off the visitors! I LOVE it.
Would anyone like to buy the Golden Gate Bridge? It's big and orange.
It's Amino world without Chemists
Ah, but one can be anti-mater
Posted by xryptic on Mon, 05/31/2004 - 2:24am.
Ah, but one can be anti-materialistic without completely rejecting the concept of personal ownership. It simply requires that you care nothing for wealth or status. In fact, rejecting personal ownership can lead to fallacious arguments like "since (s)he does not truly own this, I can do what I like with it", which only serves to promote a disregard for others and their personal space. The absolute view of anti-materialism is really just an extension of Cynicism(see Diogenes of Sinope) and I consider it to be fairly unhealthy.
Anti-materialism's best purpose is in rejecting the stranglehold that popular culture has on a person's decisions and outlook, as a way to promote individualism and non-conformity; whereas an absolute rejection of personal ownership can damage that.

Aside from all that, an analogy in which a person is compared to an inanimate object disturbs me.

"intellect to hide the beast within"
On personal ownership
Posted by peegee on Mon, 05/31/2004 - 6:24am.
In my understanding, the idea of personal ownership is usually connected to two dogmas: (1) that one can do with ones own things whatever one wants, and (2) that one has to respect the things that other people own. The fallacious argument hence does not derive from rejecting perosnal ownership but from misinterpreting what that entails, namely believing that when one rejects personal ownership one can do whatever one wants with anything, or equivalently "I own everything". The correct rejection of personal ownership should be: "I must respect everything", i.e. I own nothing.
So I don't consider anti-materialism related to cynicism at all, but YMMV.
Posted by Jon on Wed, 04/14/2004 - 8:19am.
This reminds me of the Thoreau quote I saw on a bumpersticker yesterday. I'm paraphrasing, so I apologize if I mangle the exact words:
All things good are wild and free.

I found this to be an ironic statement to place on an automobile, which is:
A) Manmade
B) Neither free in the sense of "not costing money" or in the "liberty" fashion.
Posted by Saint on Wed, 04/14/2004 - 9:39am.
I dunno, it seems appropriate enough. Thoreau himself was good at ignoring little details like that. For instance, he really went to live on Walden Pond because all his neighbors wanted to kill him. Why? Because he burned the town down with a careless fire. But you won't find that anywhere in his writing.
Control panel
Comment viewing options:
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to submit your changes.