Materialism Vs Spiritualism Essays About Education

That they are crass, brash and trashy goes without saying. But there is something in the pictures posted on Rich Kids of Instagram (and highlighted by the Guardian last week) that inspires more than the usual revulsion towards crude displays of opulence. There is a shadow in these photos – photos of a young man wearing all four of his Rolex watches, a youth posing in front of his helicopter, endless pictures of cars, yachts, shoes, mansions, swimming pools and spoilt white boys throwing gangster poses in private jets – of something worse: something that, after you have seen a few dozen, becomes disorienting, even distressing.

The pictures are, of course, intended to incite envy. They reek instead of desperation. The young men and women seem lost in their designer clothes, dwarfed and dehumanised by their possessions, as if ownership has gone into reverse. A girl's head barely emerges from the haul of Chanel, Dior and Hermes shopping bags she has piled on her vast bed. It's captioned "shoppy shoppy" and "#goldrush", but a photograph whose purpose is to illustrate plenty seems instead to depict a void. She's alone with her bags and her image in the mirror, in a scene that seems saturated with despair.

Perhaps I'm projecting my prejudices. But an impressive body of psychological research seems to support these feelings. It suggests that materialism, a trait that can afflict both rich and poor, and which the researchers define as "a value system that is preoccupied with possessions and the social image they project", is both socially destructive and self-destructive. It smashes the happiness and peace of mind of those who succumb to it. It's associated with anxiety, depression and broken relationships.

There has long been a correlation observed between materialism, a lack of empathy and engagement with others, and unhappiness. But research conducted over the past few years seems to show causation. For example, a series of studies published in the journal Motivation and Emotion in July showed that as people become more materialistic, their wellbeing (good relationships, autonomy, sense of purpose and the rest) diminishes. As they become less materialistic, it rises.

In one study, the researchers tested a group of 18-year-olds, then re-tested them 12 years later. They were asked to rank the importance of different goals – jobs, money and status on one side, and self-acceptance, fellow feeling and belonging on the other. They were then given a standard diagnostic test to identify mental health problems. At the ages of both 18 and 30, materialistic people were more susceptible to disorders. But if in that period they became less materialistic, they became happier.

In another study, the psychologists followed Icelanders weathering their country's economic collapse. Some people became more focused on materialism, in the hope of regaining lost ground. Others responded by becoming less interested in money and turning their attention to family and community life. The first group reported lower levels of wellbeing, the second group higher levels.

These studies, while suggestive, demonstrate only correlation. But the researchers then put a group of adolescents through a church programme designed to steer children away from spending and towards sharing and saving. The self-esteem of materialistic children on the programme rose significantly, while that of materialistic children in the control group fell. Those who had little interest in materialism before the programme experienced no change in self-esteem.

Another paper, published in Psychological Science, found that people in a controlled experiment who were repeatedly exposed to images of luxury goods, to messages that cast them as consumers rather than citizens and to words associated with materialism (such as buy, status, asset and expensive), experienced immediate but temporary increases in material aspirations, anxiety and depression. They also became more competitive and more selfish, had a reduced sense of social responsibility and were less inclined to join in demanding social activities. The researchers point out that, as we are repeatedly bombarded with such images through advertisements, and constantly described by the media as consumers, these temporary effects could be triggered more or less continuously.

A third paper, published (paradoxically) in the Journal of Consumer Research, studied 2,500 people for six years. It found a two-way relationship between materialism and loneliness: materialism fosters social isolation; isolation fosters materialism. People who are cut off from others attach themselves to possessions. This attachment in turn crowds out social relationships.

The two varieties of materialism that have this effect – using possessions as a yardstick of success and seeking happiness through acquisition – are the varieties that seem to be on display on Rich Kids of Instagram. It was only after reading this paper that I understood why those photos distressed me: they look like a kind of social self-mutilation.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons an economic model based on perpetual growth continues on its own terms to succeed, though it may leave a trail of unpayable debts, mental illness and smashed relationships. Social atomisation may be the best sales strategy ever devised, and continuous marketing looks like an unbeatable programme for atomisation.

Materialism forces us into comparison with the possessions of others, a race both cruelly illustrated and crudely propelled by that toxic website. There is no end to it. If you have four Rolexes while another has five, you are a Rolex short of contentment. The material pursuit of self-esteem reduces your self-esteem.

I should emphasise that this is not about differences between rich and poor: the poor can be as susceptible to materialism as the rich. It is a general social affliction, visited upon us by government policy, corporate strategy, the collapse of communities and civic life, and our acquiescence in a system that is eating us from the inside out.

This is the dreadful mistake we are making: allowing ourselves to believe that having more money and more stuff enhances our wellbeing, a belief possessed not only by those poor deluded people in the pictures, but by almost every member of almost every government. Worldly ambition, material aspiration, perpetual growth: these are a formula for mass unhappiness.

Twitter: @georgemonbiot. A fully referenced version of this article can be found at Monbiot.com

Based on the opinions of Plato and Nietzsche

By Renan Lacerda, published by Spiritist Society of Baltimore

In Nietzsche’s “Twilight of the Idols,” he presents a number of arguments against the ancient Philosophers’ comments regarding the senses. He explains that the Philosophers use the senses as the source of blame of why they suffer from “illusions” and “deceptions.”

These Philosophers claim that morality itself is the ability to escape from the senses. Since history itself was based on the senses, it is thus nothing but “falsehood.” As a counter to the arguments against the senses, Nietzsche explains that it is not the senses themselves that are false, but “what we make of their evidence.” He also presents four propositions, which deal with this topic and ultimately summarize his Philosophies on the pluralities of existence.

The first proposition highlights the core of his ideas: there is absolutely no basis for the belief in an alternate reality (or form of existence). Secondly, he claims that the ‘real’ world is nothing but the conceptional opposite of the ‘apparent’ world: it is a “moral-optical illusion.” The third proposition deals with the belief that the ancient Philosophers spoke of another world in order to take revenge on this one.

In other words, humans claim that a better life must exist because their present lives are so miserable. Last but not least, Nietzsche claims that dividing ‘real’ and ‘apparent’ is a “symptom of declining life”. Not surprisingly, he also supports ‘appearance’ by claiming that it is but a more real, physical and tangible version of the so-called ‘reality.’

In “Twilight of the Idols,” Nietzsche also discusses reason, and the four branches of science that in his opinion are “not-yet-science”: metaphysics, theology, psychology and epistemology. He spoke of Heraclitus and the Eleatics, who believed that the senses lie because of “plurality and change.” “The unapparent connection,” said Heraclitus, “is more powerful than the apparent one.”

This allusion to the apparent and real worlds (which I prefer to call the material and the spiritual worlds) can most definitely be attributed to the falsifying evidence that we receive from our senses, but Nietzsche would undoubtedly disagree. He claimed that the reasoning process, which we utilized in order to come to such a conclusion, is “the cause of the falsification of the evidence of the senses.”

Ultimately, he believes that the ‘real’ world is but a lie. Furthermore, he believed that any and all sciences that are based on reason or logic (in other words, any science whose conventions are not based on material and physical evidence) are erroneous. Unfortunately, Nietzsche’s arguments are idealistically absurd: attacking logic and reason brings forth no desirable consequences. Our ability to think abstractly is human nature. If we relied on our senses and nothing else, we would become mere robots, programmed to follow simple commands or carry out mere mechanical actions.

Were we not given sentience and intelligence in order to stretch our mind past its limits? How is it that for thousands of years we have constantly moved forward, morally and technologically? It cannot be as a result of our science, for in Neolithic times, our scientific knowledge was exponentially limited (if not non-existent). Attempting to refute reason itself is futile: our minds were not meant to be limited to analyzing matter from only one, narrow perspective. Was it not reason that aided Nietzsche himself in organizing his ideas?

In retrospect: metaphysics, theology, psychology and epistemology are the sciences of abstract thought. They are sciences based on mind above matter. They are sciences for thought, not fact. Since our intelligence is limited (and our ideas not perfect), it is obvious that these ‘reasoning’ sciences should have flaws. However, it is indefinitely impractical to denounce these sciences as “abortion” and “not-yet-science.”

Plato’s Philosophy regarding real and apparent differs greatly from that of Nietzsche’s (especially considering he was one of the first Philosophers to speak of the differences between reality and appearance). This can be seen in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” in which humanity is symbolized as beings trapped in a cave, unable to see any persons or objects placed outside, with the exception of their shadows, which are projected by the fire. These projections are undoubtedly Plato’s version of appearances, and it can be ascertained that the cave is a symbolic reference of the senses (which keeps the beings inside unable to see the outside) and the sources of the shadows is reality.

A key issue between these two Philosophies is also the aspect of death. Plato constantly refers to a real world, a world that is unlike the world of appearances we live in. He also explains that upon first entering this brave new world, we will be temporarily disoriented, no doubt as a result of discovering that our previous beliefs and experiences were but appearances.

However, in order to reach this world (or in other words, to leave the cave), we must free ourselves from our current state: a state in which we are at the mercy of our senses. This is undoubtedly an implication that death is the only freedom from the world of appearances. In “Twilight of the Idols,” Nietzsche briefly discusses this idea, saying that Philosophers “kill… they stuff… they become a mortal danger to everything that they worship.” It can be inferred from this statement that Nietzsche is highly critical of this ancient Philosophical obsession with death.

In order to account for these Philosophical differences and come to conclusions of our own, we must first understand and embrace the concepts of fact and belief through logic: both are essential elements of humanity. Nietzsche raises some very interesting points, and at first glance they seem to be the most seductive. He claims that since we have no proof of an alternate “reality,” (which is undoubtedly an allusion of the afterlife, as can be as determined from the aforementioned paragraph) why should we acknowledge its existence?

However, to say that anything that human orthodox science is unable to explain (or account for) is false is not any different from saying that as a race, we have already reached perfection, and therefore we are fully capable of understanding anything and everything about the world we live in: it is illogical and downright stupid. It is equally illogical to claim that death is the annihilation of the soul.

Human Arts and Sciences are themselves a testament: it is illogical to state that our ability to create, our tastes and predilections, and ultimately our individualities have resulted from dust and gases of space. After all, this is like stating that we were created from probability, from chance, or from mere mathematical coincidence. After all, probability is but a concept: physically it means nothing!

An important scientific axiom that we apply to all theories and discoveries is that “there is no effect without a cause.” Therefore, scientifically speaking, we could not have been created from nothingness, and we definitely cannot end as nothingness.

The existence of an afterlife and the immortality of the soul (preceding death), whose existence Nietzsche would undoubtedly disbelieve, are discussed in Plato’s dialogue in “The Republic.” One of Plato’s core ideas is the presence of good and evil. It was believed that anything which evil consumes, it destroys. However, in opposition, Plato claimed that the soul couldn’t be destroyed by these vices: if this exterior evil indeed caused the destruction of the soul, would it not be true that each and every one of us would have already been destroyed? “The soul which cannot be destroyed by an evil, whether inherent or external, must exist for ever, and if existing for ever, must be immortal…”

My own Philosophy regarding this matter is quite similar to that of Plato’s, but with various key differences regarding the concepts of good and evil (resulting from Nietzsche’s arch-enemy: reason). First and foremost, since “there is no effect without a cause,” reason dictates that God must exist. Secondly, God, who is the first cause of all things and beings alike, must be perfect and infallible, and therefore must only be attributed with positive qualities.

Therefore, given that everything originated from God, he could not have created evil, for it would not be in the definition of a perfect and infallible being to create something that is of a negative nature. Evil, then, must not exist. It is merely a definition that describes the absence of goodness.

Furthermore, destruction is also a human concept that has a much different meaning in a Spiritual perspective. God does not destroy. Death itself, which we often assume to be the destruction of our bodies and our soul, is anything but. It is merely a change: a step from the ‘apparent’ (material) into the ‘real’ (spiritual). Plato undoubtedly recognized this, and in turn drew a conclusion that the soul itself is never annihilated, even upon death.

Nietzsche’s views on the existence of God are predictable: the “stupendous concept [of] ‘God’… The last, thinnest, emptiest is placed as the first, as cause in itself, as ens realissimum.” I assume Nietzsche’s claims that the concept of the existence of God is the “emptiest” because as humans, we have such limited knowledge of His existence. Why should this be surprising, considering our scientific knowledge is so limited and pathetic from a cosmical perspective? Why is that so? Isn’t it obvious? Our senses!

Yet our dear friend Nietzsche would be quick to disagree, since he believed that our senses are perfect, and that it is ‘reason’ which corrupts it. Imagine a world in which the ‘highest concept,’ was so simple that any child would be able to comprehend its essence: we would be our own dying Gods, and the universe would be a valueless space of matter. Life itself would be valueless! The causa sui would be the empty spaces of the universe: what a sad, shallow universe this would be!

Nietzsche’s Philosophy regarding ‘reason’ is further explained in page 38 of the “Twilight of the Idols.” He discusses the tendency of various Philosophers of claiming that “We must once have dwelt in a higher world!” Nietzsche claims that the case is exactly the opposite: we were once in a lower world and gradually made our way up. I believe the opposite holds truth. We were in fact at one point in a higher world, and we will return again and again.

Jesus and his disciples had preached (and many thereafter had accepted) the concept of reincarnation, but in approximately 533A.D., the 2nd Council of Constantinople declared Reincarnation a heresy, and forever removed the doctrine from the Church. Many say that Constantine feared that if his citizens knew that they were to have more chances at life, they would refuse to be law-abiding citizens.

The concept of Reincarnation makes perfect sense, and I believe that without it, the existence of God is questionable. For example, if a newborn baby dies upon birth, it would not make any sense that he would go to Hell nor Heaven (of course, reason dictates that Hell or eternal damnation must not exist, otherwise God would be unfair, but for this instance, let us supposed that Hell is a symbolic representation of a temporary lower zone which the Spirit will find himself upon death if that Spirit has caused pain upon others during his earthly trials), for he has done neither good nor evil.

However, what about a man who has died at the age of 80, and has overcome many of life’s trials but also failed at twice that number: shall he suffer at the burning pits of Hell while the baby, who has done absolutely nothing, receive a free pass to the gates of Heaven? If such is the case, then we are truly living In Nietzsche’s world.

In conclusion, Nietzsche’s Philosophy, highly critical of conventional Philosophers, is based on the concept that all we can see and all we can touch is all that exists: the senses are supreme. It is an Atheist doctrine whose only purpose is to denounce God and reason. Fortunately, much like Communism, Nietzsche’s ideas do not function since they go against human nature: reason is all that keeps us from being animals.

Plato’s Philosophy, on the other hand, true to the concept of God, makes use of reason in order to go beyond the senses, past materialism into spiritualism. Thankfully Nietzsche passed away before he was able to write his next Philosophical refutation: one that would undoubtedly attempt to denounce common sense.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Notes:
1. “The Dialectic of Opposites: Materialism vs. Spiritualism” was originally written as an essay for a college-level Philosophy class, and was titled “Philosophical
Comparison: Plato and Nietzsche.”

*2. Renan Lacerda is a 17-year-old Senior High School student and he has attended Spiritist Doctrine studies through youth programs since the age of 5.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article was taken from the Advanced Study Group of Spiritism – GEAE website
Contact: ssb@ssbaltimore.org
© 2003 Spiritist Society of Baltimore.
All rights reserved.
Materialism is a topic often discussed by Philosophers. Man, who largely depends on his senses in order to make judgements, is often skeptical about the “supernatural”. One such example is Friedrich Nietzsche, who has criticized the ideas of the ancient Philosophers, claiming that for centuries they have discussed nothing but “conceptual mummies” (Twilight of the Idols, I: ‘Reason in Philosophy,’ pg.35) Although Nietzsche’s Philosophy regarding the senses is very down-to-earth, it is also considerably materialistic. In contrast, Plato differs in his opinions regarding this topic. In many of his dialogues, specifically “The Republic”, the existence of a Spiritual plane is implied.

Leave a Comment

(0 Comments)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *