Thoughts on materialism and happiness

[assassin_696]

This is something i've been pondering the past few days, and I was wondering what other people would make of it.

 

 

 

The crux of my argument which I want to put forward is this: When we, as humans, sacrifice our happiness or the happiness of others in favour of the welfare of material possessions we have failed in our aim to strive for happiness within and around us.

 

 

 

I know that sounds a bit pretentious, so what it boils down to is this: When we get more worked up over losing or damaging some material possession to the point where we lose sight of our happiness, or someone else's, we're not doing so for any good reason.

 

 

 

To illustrate my point, i'll present a little story which might help relate it a bit to everyday life:

 

 

 

There are two guys, John and Simon. Simon was brought up in a well off, upper class family. He went to a private school, played sports, socialised and did well. He went to university and got a degree and managed to get a very well paid job. But he did so more on virtue of his contacts and networking than job skills. He gets married, and has a child who grows up in a comfortable lifestyle. Money problems are a non-issue.

 

 

 

John on the other hand comes from a less well off family. He isn't given a penny more than he needs, and has to work hard for everything. He doesn't go to university, instead he does his A-levels at nightschool while holding down a job to provide for him and his wife. They have a child, who also grows up in a reasonably comfortable lifestyle, but only because John worked damn hard to make sure that his wife and child would be provided for.

 

 

 

For argument's sake, let's say that both John and Simon earn exactly the same amount of money. Now, both these guys have children. And lets say both these guys have lawnmowers (bare with me). The children are both taught how to mow the lawn, and then go and do so. But both children accidentaly let the lawnmower run into a stone wall, breaking it.

 

 

 

Here's where the point comes. Simon, knowing that the lawnmower is easily replaceable laughs about the issue, shrugging it off with a casual joke. He knows his child will learn her lesson, but doesn't worry about it, because it's a material possesion. Simon has placed his daughter's happiness over the welfare over his lawnmower. John on the other hand gets cross, he looks visibly disappointed and gives his child a mini-lecture on how to use it properly and look after things so that they will last. His child is visibly upset by her father's disappointment. John has placed the welfare of his lawnmower over the happiness of his daugher.

 

 

 

Now I ask you, who did the right thing? You could argue that John did the right thing, his child will learn her lesson more thoroughly and will be more cautious in the future. But ultimately, does it matter? I think that we as humans strive for happiness, trapical's brilliant "Revelation" highlighted how material possessions rarely have the ability to make us happy since we never seem to be happy with what we've got and always strive for more. Past a certain point, as long as we can provide for our basic needs money is only something which provides some kind of false purpose for us to aim for. We don't really need it, we just think we do.

 

 

 

Any thoughts or opinions?

[Striker6]

You said that Simon's daughter will learn her lesson, but she won't as she has no sense of loss. If her father simply laughs it off there is no punishment for her so she will be more likely to do it again. Is Simon putting his daughters happiness over the welfare of the lawnmower or is it because he has the finance not to place the welfare of the lawnmower over his daughter? I thought that was obvious so have I missed the point?

[assassin_696]

I suppose you could re-iterate the point but say that Simon doesn't have the finances to replace the lawnmower, but his reaction is the same.

 

 

 

What is the daughters lesson? Is it the value of a lawnmower or how not to drive it into a wall?

[lightlatio]

Well is the lawnmower damaged or broken? A damaged wheel or 2, or blade can be easily fixed, where as the whole mower will be a few hundred to replace.

[SaidinWoT]

Happiness in the present can be seen as less valuable than happiness in the future. Happiness in the present is highly transitory, based on emotions and abstract ideas. This will of course be true of happiness when the future becomes the present. However, when a lesson is learned in the present, that lesson [generally] sticks with the person in the future, and they will know how to avoid the unhappiness that would come if they, say, crashed their own lawn mower into a wall.

 

 

 

As to valuing the welfare of materials over personal happiness, it can be debated. While materials cannot bring you happiness, lack of them can bring unhappiness. The more conveniences you have in life, the more content you tend to be. I am not saying that material wealth brings happiness or content. I am saying that lack of material wealth sometimes, though not always (I know of very happy families who have very little to their names) can bring about unhappiness (in the form of jealousy towards people who do have that wealth, or anger that people are not capable of doing something they would be if they had the material wealth). I've gone way off topic, so I'll try to drive my point back to where it started... Humans grow unnecessarily attached to material objects - it is an inherent reaction to owning these objects. Reinforcing the lesson that taking care of your possessions at an early age can possibly spare the children future unhappiness at the loss of their possessions.

 

 

 

I know the thoughts in this post weren't very well connected... but meh.

[indy500fan]

I'd say John taught the daughter better, to be more careful next time. Not only is it wasteful, it could very easily be injury causing. Simon just taught his daughter to not worry about anything at all.

 

 

 

I find the anti-materialism debate to be kind of lame most of the time. You never ever see any "pro-materialism" people, and yet this is still a materialist world. I am neither pro or anti, if objects give you happiness more power to you, if not, then don't get them. I know my material possessions make me happy.

[assassin_696]

Yeah, you make very valid points.

 

 

 

I wasn't particularly trying to come across as anti-materialistic, and I suppose my proposed hypothetical situation was a little leaky.

 

 

 

The point was more that we shouldn't intrinsically link our happiness to material goods, since they are transcendent. We also (so long as it's safe) shouldn't worry too much about when 'stuff' goes wrong. Looking back on it, John did his teach his child a better lesson, I suppose what you need to do is find a middle ground between the two views. When I said Simon shrugged it off, I didn't mean he just laughed and walked off, I meant he tried to teach his child a lesson in the context of making a joke about it, teaching his child a lesson while still maintaining her happiness. That's the key, I suspect.

[ortiz9471]

Neither of them did the right thing, in my opinion.

 

 

 

Simon:

 

If he continues to treat his daughter like this she will take all materials for granted. They will have no value to her, as they will be so easily replaceable (sp?). She can't appreciate the value of something if value is non-existant, can she?

 

 

 

John:

 

His reaction had some improvement, but many faults.

 

He was correct in giving her a mini-lecture on how to use it properly, and look after things so they will last. But showing disappoint is where he messes up. By being disappointed he has, like you said, placed the welfare of the lawnmower over the happiness of his daughter.

 

 

 

So a quick review of my opinion:

 

-Simon valued his daughters happiness over the welfare of his lawnmower, John doesn't.

 

-John's daughter has learned about the value of an item, while Simon's daughter knows nothing about it.

 

 

 

Who is better off? I don't know, I think that's a matter of opinion.

[warri0r45]

Interesting hypothetical. If we tend not to worry about material possessions and see them as replacable then our kids will grow up feeling the same way. It could shock them when it comes time to pay the bills of thier own house and find they are constantly short because they were taught, in a way, that when something breaks we can always just go buy a new one. I'd say taking care of material posessions and making sure we look after them isn't so much materialistic, rather it gives us a knowlege of what our limits or budget is which in turn gives us crucial life skills.

 

 

 

To throw in a cliche, at the end of the day, we should be aware that the posessions themselves don't bring happiness. It's having them and the security of knowing we have them coupled with how (for better or worse) society works that makes us secure and gives us the best chace at happiness. I have a guitar. It's made me happy as larry and continues to do so for the 3 or so years I've had it now. I realise that it's not the object that makes me happy, it's the sound I get out of it.

 

 

 

Eh, you might find some meaning somewhere in there. :lol: