4 ms·
> I think life is about experiences. I'm going to hijack this quote to discuss an incredibly unpopular idea (among my generation, at least) that I've been kick
by kaycebasques 8y ago
> I think life is about experiences.
I'm going to hijack this quote to discuss an incredibly unpopular idea (among my generation, at least) that I've been kicking around lately. I encountered the exact idea in a book recently, so I'll just let the book explain it:
> Romanticism tells us that in order to make the most of our human potential we must have as many different experiences as we can. We must open ourselves to a wide spectrum of emotions; we must sample various kinds of relationships; we must try different cuisines; we must learn to appreciate different styles of music. One of the best ways to do all that is to break free from our daily routine, leave behind our familiar setting, and go travelling in distant lands, where we can 'experience' the culture, the smells, the tastes and the norms of other people. We hear again and again the romantic myths about 'how a new experience opened my eyes and changed my life'.
> Consumerism tells us that in order to be happy we must consume as many products and services as possible. If we feel that something is missing or not quite right, then we probably need to buy a product (a car, new clothes, organic food) or a service (housekeeping, relationship therapy, yoga classes). Every television commercial is another little legend about how consuming some product or service will make life better.
> Romanticism, which encourages variety, meshes perfectly with consumerism. Their marriage has given birth to the infinite 'market of experiences', on which the modern tourism industry is founded. The tourism industry does not sell flight tickets and hotel bedrooms. It sells experiences. Paris is not a city, nor India a country --- they are both experiences, the consumption of which is supposed to widen our horizons, fulfill our human potential, and make us happier...
--- Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, p. 115-6
I looked at my Mom's generation and was majorly put off by their general obsession with material possessions. Fight Club profoundly moved me when I first saw it, partly for this reason. So I told myself that I'd spend my money on experiences. Only recently, after having the good fortune to be able to travel around the world a bit, have I come to the different opinion that it's still consumerism. Instagram culture made this very clear. Even my love of reading is a form of consumerism.
It was a bit of a shock to see that passage in Sapiens, because for all of my supposed individualism, I realized that this is probably a widespread trend among my generation (I was born late 80s) and that I wasn't as unique, contrarian, and individualistic as I had imagined myself to be.
I'm still a rebel without a cause, so now I'm focusing my efforts on creating. Painting. Writing. Starting a business. Programming stuff, with the sole purpose of fun and expression. Creating feels like more of a qualitative shift away from consumerism. Don't really have a name for it, though. Creatorism? Creationism...? ;) But who knows, 5 years from now maybe I'll realize that my creationist phase was as much of a herd mindset as my romantic consumerist phase.
- paulcole 8y ago> Fight Club profoundly moved me when I first saw it, partly for this reason. This is a serious misreading of the message of Fight Club. The point isn’t that an interest in possessions is bad– it’s that extremist views are bad. The idea is that living in a hovel with a lunatic terrorist should (hopefully) be more abhorrent than flipping through the ikea catalog in a condo.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kaycebasques 8y ago> "serious misreading" This is profoundly disrespectful to me. Please do not speak to me as though you're the keeper of The One Correct Interpretation of Fight Club. It's absurd to me that you'd try to speak authoritatively on something as subjective as how I interpreted a story. Your interpretation to me, likewise, seems far away from (what I think are) the main themes of the story, but I'd never label your view as a "misreading." It's not like I'm coming out of left-field with my interpretation, either. The main character says "the things you own end up owning you." A good chunk of the movie depicts a man who seems to be genuinely happier, freer, and more alive because of his radical rejection of material possessions. E.g. not caring about his condo enables him to stop working a job he hates, and so on. Yes, he ends up being an ethically-ambiguous extremist, but to me that doesn't invalidate the freedom and happiness that he seemed to achieve along the way by renouncing material possessions. Renouncing material possessions does not inevitably lead to becoming a terrorist, either. There's a lot of precedent in Buddhist thought [1] that material possessions keep a person suffering in this world, and only through freeing oneself from attachment to material possessions can that person achieve enlightenment. P.S. I'm talking about the movie, not the book. I've read the book, but this is one of the rare instances in my opinion where the movie was better than the book. [1]: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1578&context=jrf https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
- paulcole 8y ago> A man who seems to be genuinely happier, freer, and more alive because of his radical rejection of material possessions. This man is a terrorist and is responsible for the death of Robert Paulson, and (possibly) many other people in the explosions at the end. Most Buddhists AFAIK do not supplement their Buddhism with terrorism.