5 ms·

I suppose it would be... difficult for me to see anything except through the lens of materialism. But I think that's true of most people; the number of people

by lsc 9y ago

I suppose it would be... difficult for me to see anything except through the lens of materialism. But I think that's true of most people; the number of people who don't see the world in a fundamentally physicalist way is... shrinking. (This is controversial; the religious in my country have been flexing their muscles, and there is open debate as to if this indicates a resurgence of belief, or just the religious seeing the majority slip from their hands thrashing to turn back the clock while they still have the strength. I personally believe the latter, but I don't have evidence that is any more solid than anyone else.) I do think I would be a better person if I was better able to understand how the religious people saw the world... but it's just not something I've been able to do. It's very difficult, really, for someone who doesn't believe faith is good in and of itself to understand people who do. I read on the subject; the most sympathetic and relatable portrayal I've found so far is Jeung's "Answer to Job" But... while it's fair to criticize me for not really understanding spirituality, If you are arguing that the dark ages were not dark for, uh, metaphysical reasons, I think our values are so different that we can't really have a meaningful debate.

jstewartmobile 9y ago
There is some ambiguity to what the complement of materialism actually is, but I'm fairly sure religion isn't it. I think we can all come up with examples of people who accepted reduced material circumstances in service of a higher goal, and many of those people were not believers in anything other than their own personal value systems. The hazy impression I get of that era is a breakdown of the Roman imperium's refined monoculture into a multitude of unrefined variations. On many levels, I like that. By ceaselessly optimizing, refining, and centralizing without regard to intrinsic human needs, we're really just charging head first into entropy. Think the Italian "slow life" vs NYC...
- lsc 9y ago
  Materialism is well-defined and means something in philosophy[1] - if you are using it in the sense of "greed" well, that's a different sort of thing entirely. My own experiences and assumptions all point to 'diminishing marginal value' when it comes to all physical goods - I'll do a lot if it means that me and mine don't starve. I'll do a lot less to move up from a Toyota to a Lexus. (don't get me wrong, If I've gotta drive, I'll take the Lexus... but not if it means I have less reading time.) Extrapolating backwards from that, my assumption is that everyone in the pre-modern era; everyone from a time where more people suffered from eating not enough than eating too much would be a lot more concerned with obtaining goods (well, food, shelter and the tools to obtain those things in the future) than I am now. So from that point of view, I'd have a distorted view of the dark ages (and, for that matter, Rome and the whole world before the 'green revolution' in the late '60s) simply because I've never experienced anything like real hunger or want. I mean, sure, I've wanted things, but every time you ask me to do something for money? My question is this: Would I rather do that thing you want me to do for the money you are offering? Or would I prefer to stay at home and read classic works from project gutenberg? For me, a lot of how I've looked at work and the how much time to trade for it has been that view that I really don't have to save that much money to live a pretty comfortable life without working. (Now, I've made some massive mistakes in how to go about doing that, but that's a different discussion. the idea that money in the bank is years I don't have to work to be comfortable is a constant) What I'm saying is that as modern people, I don't think we can comprehend the privation that pre-modern folks had. The amount of time and effort they needed to put in to gain even the most basic and essential of material goods. Also, my guess is that when you are in such a tenuous situation, people are going to work a lot harder than your "New York" example. (I like your example because New York is a place I'm considering moving... in part as a way to de-stress my life. Remove transit issues. Live within walking distance of my life.) [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
    For my purposes, which are not philosophically trained, anti-materialism would be when something so offends your soul (or your will in a more secular sense) that you would rather die than go along with it. I have known this feeling from when I didn't believe, so I know that it is real and possible. From what I've read of ancient Rome, I suspect I would have preferred a short life struggling against nature than a long one tolerating Romans. But again, value systems. That, and I'm not entirely sold that acquiring the knowledge of how not to starve or be eaten by animals requires an imperium or a state.
    - lsc 9y ago
      >That, and I'm not entirely sold that acquiring the knowledge of how not to starve or be eaten by animals requires an imperium or a state. Oh, you don't need the state to deal with animals, or food supply... I mean, the state can deal with those things, but that's not why you agree to live under the power of a state. the primary function of the state is to protect you from warlords or roving bands of warriors (which I personally think are proto-state like entities) The model I have of peasant life is that okay, you are a farmer. there are good years and bad... you have to deal with crop failures and with wild animals and all that stuff. And as a pre-modern farmer, well, you had better be equipped to deal with those things; nobody else is gonna help you. In a world where everyone was a farmer, this would be mostly fine. (I mean, one could argue that some sort of mutual system to deal with crop failures would be nice, but that's asking a lot of that time period.) You can mostly deal with it. Even with really primitive technology, if nobody is trying to steal from you, you can make a go at farming. The problem is that there also exist warriors. Now, in a system with no government, where one band of warriors can expect another band of warriors to later visit the farm they have just looted, where that band of warriors can't reasonably expect to be first to that farm the next year, it is in the best interest of that band of warriors to take everything of value even if that kills the farmer This, of course, is unpleasant all around. the farmer dies first, sure, but the warriors then end up starving, 'cause they've killed everyone who creates food. Government is born when one band of warriors establishes themselves in an area, takes an amount of food from the local farmers that usually doesn't kill the farmers, and then mostly chases off any competing bands of warriors. This is better for both the warriors and the farmers than the other way, just because now the warriors have an incentive to keep the farmers alive. My understanding of feudalism is that it's essentially a complex system designed to ritualize the warfare of the warriors in a way that usually doesn't starve everyone to death. If there's someone sufficiently powerful within your lands, there is a formal system for them to share in the power over the farmers. The difference, I think, between me and an ideological anarchist is that the ideological anarchist argues that the warriors won't necessarily spring up in numbers that can't be dealt with by the farmers, that humans are basically good and would rather produce than steal. I... can only assume that people who believe we can live without a state have had better childhoods than I have.

by lsc 9y ago

jstewartmobile 9y ago

There is some ambiguity to what the complement of materialism actually is, but I'm fairly sure religion isn't it. I think we can all come up with examples of people who accepted reduced material circumstances in service of a higher goal, and many of those people were not believers in anything other than their own personal value systems. The hazy impression I get of that era is a breakdown of the Roman imperium's refined monoculture into a multitude of unrefined variations. On many levels, I like that. By ceaselessly optimizing, refining, and centralizing without regard to intrinsic human needs, we're really just charging head first into entropy. Think the Italian "slow life" vs NYC...

lsc 9y ago
Materialism is well-defined and means something in philosophy[1] - if you are using it in the sense of "greed" well, that's a different sort of thing entirely. My own experiences and assumptions all point to 'diminishing marginal value' when it comes to all physical goods - I'll do a lot if it means that me and mine don't starve. I'll do a lot less to move up from a Toyota to a Lexus. (don't get me wrong, If I've gotta drive, I'll take the Lexus... but not if it means I have less reading time.) Extrapolating backwards from that, my assumption is that everyone in the pre-modern era; everyone from a time where more people suffered from eating not enough than eating too much would be a lot more concerned with obtaining goods (well, food, shelter and the tools to obtain those things in the future) than I am now. So from that point of view, I'd have a distorted view of the dark ages (and, for that matter, Rome and the whole world before the 'green revolution' in the late '60s) simply because I've never experienced anything like real hunger or want. I mean, sure, I've wanted things, but every time you ask me to do something for money? My question is this: Would I rather do that thing you want me to do for the money you are offering? Or would I prefer to stay at home and read classic works from project gutenberg? For me, a lot of how I've looked at work and the how much time to trade for it has been that view that I really don't have to save that much money to live a pretty comfortable life without working. (Now, I've made some massive mistakes in how to go about doing that, but that's a different discussion. the idea that money in the bank is years I don't have to work to be comfortable is a constant) What I'm saying is that as modern people, I don't think we can comprehend the privation that pre-modern folks had. The amount of time and effort they needed to put in to gain even the most basic and essential of material goods. Also, my guess is that when you are in such a tenuous situation, people are going to work a lot harder than your "New York" example. (I like your example because New York is a place I'm considering moving... in part as a way to de-stress my life. Remove transit issues. Live within walking distance of my life.) [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  For my purposes, which are not philosophically trained, anti-materialism would be when something so offends your soul (or your will in a more secular sense) that you would rather die than go along with it. I have known this feeling from when I didn't believe, so I know that it is real and possible. From what I've read of ancient Rome, I suspect I would have preferred a short life struggling against nature than a long one tolerating Romans. But again, value systems. That, and I'm not entirely sold that acquiring the knowledge of how not to starve or be eaten by animals requires an imperium or a state.
  - lsc 9y ago
    >That, and I'm not entirely sold that acquiring the knowledge of how not to starve or be eaten by animals requires an imperium or a state. Oh, you don't need the state to deal with animals, or food supply... I mean, the state can deal with those things, but that's not why you agree to live under the power of a state. the primary function of the state is to protect you from warlords or roving bands of warriors (which I personally think are proto-state like entities) The model I have of peasant life is that okay, you are a farmer. there are good years and bad... you have to deal with crop failures and with wild animals and all that stuff. And as a pre-modern farmer, well, you had better be equipped to deal with those things; nobody else is gonna help you. In a world where everyone was a farmer, this would be mostly fine. (I mean, one could argue that some sort of mutual system to deal with crop failures would be nice, but that's asking a lot of that time period.) You can mostly deal with it. Even with really primitive technology, if nobody is trying to steal from you, you can make a go at farming. The problem is that there also exist warriors. Now, in a system with no government, where one band of warriors can expect another band of warriors to later visit the farm they have just looted, where that band of warriors can't reasonably expect to be first to that farm the next year, it is in the best interest of that band of warriors to take everything of value even if that kills the farmer This, of course, is unpleasant all around. the farmer dies first, sure, but the warriors then end up starving, 'cause they've killed everyone who creates food. Government is born when one band of warriors establishes themselves in an area, takes an amount of food from the local farmers that usually doesn't kill the farmers, and then mostly chases off any competing bands of warriors. This is better for both the warriors and the farmers than the other way, just because now the warriors have an incentive to keep the farmers alive. My understanding of feudalism is that it's essentially a complex system designed to ritualize the warfare of the warriors in a way that usually doesn't starve everyone to death. If there's someone sufficiently powerful within your lands, there is a formal system for them to share in the power over the farmers. The difference, I think, between me and an ideological anarchist is that the ideological anarchist argues that the warriors won't necessarily spring up in numbers that can't be dealt with by the farmers, that humans are basically good and would rather produce than steal. I... can only assume that people who believe we can live without a state have had better childhoods than I have.