Category: Materialism

Introduction

Hobbes philosophical principles were of materialist nature. In the company of many other thinkers of his age, Hobbes thought he perceived in mathematics a certitude which the flux of human opinion could not alter. This is so because he believed that universe is composed of solid bodies and everything is geometrical in nature. Every matter has mathematical dimensions which must be true if verified on a scientific basis.

Main body

Since Hobbes was materialist, he considered truth to be a function of reasoning, its discovery an analytical process in which definitions are placed in their proper order (Leviathan, p. 21). The language of geometry, moreover, is lucid, free of verbal confusions, a perfect analogue of the kind of style which Hobbes hoped to achieve in his non-mathematical writings. And finally, geometry harmonized most easily with the cosmology that Hobbes was soon to develop: a universe that consists only of extended body is best described in geometrical terms (Matthew, 1885, p. 113).

One of the best examples of putting his philosophy in a scientific paradigm is that he used time to measure and compare motions in general, so in Elements of Law he applies the temporal dimension to distinguish between people and to explain the different attractions to pleasures like sensualities, riches, and knowledge (Slomp, 2000, p. 21).

Hobbes confronted to the great philosophical problem of seventeenth-century science which was to find a way of working out its mechanical principles without abandoning spirit and God (Descartes Cartesianism). Unlike Descartes who believed that a rigorously mechanical view of the material world is always accompanied by the certainty that the spirit world also exists, Hobbes mechanical universe was devoid of spirit and only distantly related to a material God (Mintz, 1970, p. 11).

For Hobbes all substance must have dimensions that is, it must have spatial location, magnitude, and extension. In this way Hobbes have proved every material bodily substance on scientific grounds, and so does his moral and philosophical notions are proved that no two bodies can occupy the same space in the universe. All substance or bodies is impenetrable therefore Hobbes scorned the doctrine that defines a spiritual existence.

Hobbes ridiculed the scholastic notion expressed in the proposition totum in toto ac totum in qualibet parte. Hobbes refutes other scholars opinions about spirits and souls and denies the notion that a man has a soul. In Leviathan Hobbes has mentioned that how could a soul be a part of a man or a part of any of the mans bodily features? (Leviathan, p. 443)

Hobbes played only a negative role in developments that according to him were not physical. His doctrine of space had no effect on the progress of English science, nor did it serve to release the English poetic imagination in the way that Mores had. In fact, unlike More, Hobbes did not make his doctrine a central feature of his metaphysics. He treated the question almost casually, whereas for More it was a subject of life-long interest (Mintz, 1970, p. 92).

Selden wrote as a lawyer, that Hobbes as a philosopher was less than humane in declaring for the punishment of witches, but this way Hobbes at least was consistent to his philosophical principles. He believed that the security of the state depends on civil obedience, and civil obedience is relaxed when crafty ambitious persons abuse the simple people by playing on their superstitious fear of spirits (Seldon, 1689, p. 131)

Hobbess denial of the power of witches was a direct consequence of his materialism. In chapter xlvii of Leviathan, on demonology, Hobbes reviewed his mechanicomaterialist theory of sensation in order to show that a man may have hallucinations from purely natural and material causes, which may be called demons by unsophisticated minds (Mintz, 1970, p. 104).

In Leviathan, Hobbes has focused the byproduct of these unsophisticated minds which appears in the form of witchcraft. Thus witches, spirituality or witchcraft is nothing but the product of hallucinations of such minds which should be punished. If such men are left unattended in the universe, they use such language in an unreliable way to express their own desires. Therefore, Hobbes offers a reliable, systematic use of it in the form of Laws of Nature with which they must all agree.

These laws of nature are the theorems proposed by Hobbes in order to defend themselves against external injustice. Hobbes have based these theorems on some unique notions like if a man has been given the opportunity to do anything he wish, he would desire to do x, y, and z. On achieving his aims he will then desire to do beyond z and so on.

Hobbes proposed laws of nature suggest a set of actions to be taken for peace and harmony. That means in order to bring up a better living environment; condition for self-preservation should be there. However the breaking of laws brings injustice to the society when there are occasions when obeying such laws endangers a mans life rather than preserve it. For example the consequences of violence or murder create circumstances in which the need for self-preservation dictates breaking the laws of nature and responding with violence in self-defence. Such actions in which a man is bound to go beyond the laws of nature in order to seek protection are called as right of nature. Hobbes in chapter 14 of Leviathan proves that both laws and right flow from the same source, which he calls the rule of nature.

Establishing civic peace and disposing mankind toward fulfillment of their civic duties

In Leviathan, Hobbes has proposed that in order to build up civil peace and unity among mankind, it is necessary to create a concept of commonwealth. Such commonwealth can be run under some sovereign state or power. Hobbes has already described the term commonwealth in context with some third person or artificial power. Hobbes has imitated the term commonwealth with Leviathan which means a huge sea monster as mentioned in Bible.

This is the ideal condition which Hobbes has defined for creating a safe and secure society. Hobbes view of the state of nature as defined in Leviathan is: State of nature is the mans need to secure himself from violent death which when combines with his greed creates condition of maximum insecurity. Men are powerless to escape from this predicament so long as they live without law and according to the dictates of their own passions (Leviathan, p. 82)

The insecurity and threat of injustice has brought forward the laws and a determinate set of actions to which the right covers from the range of possible actions contrary to natural law. Therefore Hobbess intention that right, consists in liberty to do or to forbear whereas law, determine and bind to one of them is no less necessary than obedience to the laws normally is when they can safely be obeyed. Calling the right a liberty does not mean that at critical moments of self-defense it is a matter of indifference whether the right be used or not. It connotes rather the rights nature as an entitlement to act against the usual requirements of natural law.

Malcolm (2002) has called this account an internal valuation of mens actions where each man has to consider and concern about his own need for preservation and this need generates a particular set of laws and a general right (Malcolm, 2002, p. 23). In the state of nature, when conditions generally justify the actions, some actions are not justified in accordance with the laws of nature for they do not meet the internal standard of conduciveness to self-preservation. Hobbes has given an example of drunkenness in such case (Malcolm, 2002, p. 23).

Conclusion

In his daily frequentation of the aristocracy, Hobbes must have realized that their superiority was merely a human artifact. Indeed in his three main political works, Hobbes repeats almost verbatim the claim that equality is natural and that the inequality that now is has been introduced by the Law Civil (Leviathan, 107). Hobbess main claim on natural equality is that despite the differences in intelligence and strength, even the feeble man has the strength to fight the strongest.

In the Hobbesian state of nature, a persons identity is endangered in two ways i.e., in a crude and drastic sense in which physical life is threatened. Secondly in a more sophisticated sense in which the mind possesses the distinctive ability to detach itself from the present and therefore plans the future. In both cases a mans identity is wasted. For Hobbes the state of nature is a state of uncertainty, where one cannot trust anybody and least of all ones experience of the past.

According to Hobbes, in the state of nature, out of the full range of passions one can experience only those related to the present, namely, sudden passions such as terror, weeping, anger, sensual pleasures, etc. The best pleasures of the mind, such as curiosity and knowledge, are denied. The only cathartic passion under these conditions is fear, which is described by Hobbes as been beneficial in so far as it is concerned with the future. In other words, in the state of nature people are victim of the present; the time of the mind is forced to coincide with the time of nature, which for Hobbes is the present.

According to Hobbes the sovereign power is created to guarantee the minimal condition necessary to be a person, namely, physical continuity. But in order to guarantee physical integrity, each individuals mental self-continuity has to be acknowledged in full so that rules can be enforced and punishment administered. For the rule enforcement it is necessary to analyze each individual on the principle of self sameness. In the eyes of the State, Socrates acting today is responsible for what he did yesterday, for underneath both past and present Socrates there is the same self.

Works Cited

Hobbes Thomas, (1651) Leviathan. Penguin Classics.

John Selden, (1953) Table Talk (London, 1689), vide Witches. Seldens opinion is quoted with comment by Aldous Huxley, The Devils of London ( New York, 1953).

Matthew Arnold, (1885) Literature and Science, Discourses in America. London.

Malcolm Noel, (2002) Aspects of Hobbes: Clarendon: Oxford, England.

Mintz I, Samuel, (1970) The Hunting of Leviathan: Seventeenth-Century Reactions to the Materialism and Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England.

Slomp Gabriella, (2000) Thomas Hobbes and the Political Philosophy of Glory: Macmillan: Houndmills, England.

George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, is identified to be one of the great philosophers in the early modern period (Berman 1). Berkeleys works mainly focused on defending idealism against materialism (Fogelin 6). Berkeley specifically disagreed with Lockes concept that asserted that objects had both primary and secondary qualities (Fogelin 13). Berkeley argued that perceiving an object to as possessing both primary and secondary qualities was not enough to ascertain that the object really exists.

According to him, Locke and others who held the same point of view were instrumental in aiding the flourishing atheism and scepticism by doubting sense perception. In his argument, Berkeley seemed to defend the belief and knowledge on God. Thus he indicated that experiences were in the person who perceived and sensations could not arise from the objects being perceived Bettcher 43).

By this he implied that there was no reason for objects to posses any power that will cause an effect on the senses, primarily because the object was a creation of our senses and did not exist in the absence of perception. Berkeley used this view to discredit the sceptical argument that we do not see objects as they really are (Roberts 107).

Berkeley put forward some arguments defending idealism against materialism. The arguments were mainly based on the idea that the perception for an object was in the perceiver and not the object (Bettcher 44). First, he used the following points to discredit the notion that an object can possess secondary qualities: On sensation Berkeley argued that when a hand is placed in cold water, the temperature felt will be different depending on the temperature of the hand (Roberts 108).

If ones hand has a higher temperature then the water will be felt to be colder and if the hand is colder than the water then the water will be felt to be warmer. According to him the water could not be hot and cold at the same time (Berman 7).

On taste, Berkeley stated that a pleasurable taste like that of sugar did not exist in the sugar but in the perceiver. T o attack concept of primary and secondary qualities, Berkeley tried to indicate that some perceptions varied from one to perceiver to another. He explained that if different people see an object from different perspectives then one may see it of having a different colour from the other (Roberts 108).

The two colours could not exist in the same object at the same time and thus the colour perception must have its origins in the perceiver (Fogelin 10). He also argued that an observer looking at a moving train will perceive it as moving but whoever is sited in the train will perceive it as being at rest. He used this to advance his position that quality exists in the perceiver.

Berkeley used the master argument to show that no difference exists between qualities that are taken to be apparent and the real qualities. The master argument asserted that it not possible for something to exist without being perceived (Bettcher 60).

This implied that if one cannot imagine how a certain objects perception is like then he/she cannot be able to say that the object exists. Using this idea, Berkeley discredited the notion that substance or matter, for if all the qualities we ascribe to it are either primary or secondary qualities (Berman 23).

Works Cited

Berman, David. George Berkeley: Idealism and the man. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.Print.

bettcher, Talia. Berkeleys Philosophy of Spirit: Conciousness, ontology and the Elusive Subject. London: continuum, 2007.Print.

Fogelin, Jose. George Berkeley: Critical Assessments. London: Routledge, 1991.Print.

Roberts, John. A metaphysics for the Mob. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2007. Print.

According anti-materialists, our ordinary, common-sense comprehension of the mind is deeply flawed and that it is possible that all or some of the mental states posited by common-sense are non-existent. Consequently, mental states do not have a role to play in a mind that has matured. In other words, these philosophers believe that our mental states may not necessarily correspond to physical states. However, Rorty disagrees with this assertion, terming it an ontological gap between the events of consciousness and those of the central nervous system. Rorty argues that the proper reaction to the Antipodean story is to adopt&..materialism (Rosenthal, 1991, p. 283). This paper examines Rortys argument that in accepting the material reality of the universe, we can also accept that the physical universe shapes our beliefs and interpretations, and that our understanding of the universe is valid within our personal experience.

Rorty contends that the correct way to respond to the Antipodean tale is to adopt materialism, which places a strong emphasis on the significance of the physical environment and how humans interact with it (Rosenthal, 1991). If individuals are willing to acknowledge this response, they will be able to develop a greater appreciation for the physical environment and become more aware of their relationships with it (Rosenthal, 1991). Rorty believes that an appreciation of the physical can help people live with greater significance because it enables them to recognize the splendor and intricacy of their physical environment.

By acknowledging the material reality of the universe, people can accept that the physical universe shapes their beliefs and interpretations (Rosenthal, 1991). The materialist worldview allows people to acknowledge the veracity of the Antipodean narrative without requiring us to rely on our interpretations of that narrative. Through interaction with other people, specific identifying characteristics of a person become more stable over time, while others become less noticeable or are replaced by new characteristics.

Rorty also posits that the norm of guiding human behavior is derived from something nonhuman (such as a divine will), and individuals must be responsible for handling such standards (Rosenthal, 1991). This argument is based on the materialist belief that norms influence human behavior. In this regard, people need to communicate with one another in a way that helps them understand the kinds of people they aspire to be. They should also be willing to follow the moral compass to enable them uphold the standards that pave the way for responsibility.

Furthermore, Rorty advances the argument that a Supreme Being does not drive the object of reality in which people identify their physical environment. On the contrary, people find themselves as they identify with the physical environment. This is putative nonhuman authority in which people find themselves is an objective reality that delivers them to problematic situations and determines the nature and practices that bind people in their physical environment (Rosenthal, 1991). Consequently, people have the right to decide what actions to take to establish their reputation as self-determining creatures.

Moreover, Rorty posits that people do not have a Cartesian mind; instead, the decisions that people make depend entirely on the ontological facts and social practices that establish the norms and beliefs of a society (Rosenthal, 1991). Rortys argument may be found in his book The Cartesian Mind (Rosenthal, 1991). The material and the world influence how individuals live behave and believe about supernatural beings.

Moreover, according Rorty normalcy sensitivity, which defines the sense of authority established by social activities, is the most crucial notion (Rosenthal, 1991). Therefore, peoples choices are wholly governed by the events that occur in their minds, which are produced from their mental idea of mind nature. The statements and conventions established over time, each of which possesses a unique personality, characterize the authoritative quality of something. Rorty contends that it is acceptable to alter those rules to address some of the existing problematic difficulties.

Norms define human life in societies and the normalcy of discourse, particularly about matters of economic nature, is maintained under joint supervision that addresses critical challenges believed to impact peoples lives in the physical world. According to Rorty, the nature of human life is decided by cultural and religious norms (Rosenthal, 1991). Culture can be determined by the existence of supernatural beings that only exist for natural reasons. Consequently, such beings can determine religion.

In conclusion, Rorty argues that the best way to react to the Antipodean story is to adopt materialism. When humans accept the reality of the universe, they also accept the physical universe which shapes their interpretations and belief. Consequently, their personal experience validates their understanding of the mental states. It is possible, therefore, to agree with the assertion that our consciousness is tied to the physical materials around us. In other words, the mental states that people experience in their minds have corresponding physical states, which enhance the concept of reality. Rortys arguments are vital in bridging the ontological gap between the events of consciousness and those of the central nervous system.

The concept of self-identity and individual identification has troubled many people over the years. Locke and Hume crafted Lockes theory and the Bundle Theory, respectively, to explain these ideas. Locke and Hume agree that memory is essential to defining personal identity (Perry, 2002). According to Locke, memory and consciousness are essential in defining personal identity. This paper discusses the fundamental arguments of Locke, Reid, and Hume, exploring their similarities and differences.

According to Humes Bundle Theory, personal identity is, essentially, perceptions (Perry, 2002). According to his ideas, personal identity is not the feeling of existence as many thinkers believe. He proposes that every notion is a product of one impression. Self is not a single impression but a combination of all our impressions which could be joy, grief, pain, or pleasure. These impressions may not necessarily happen at the same time, but they follow each other. Furthermore, Hume contends that the human mind is the stage where perceptions appear. The perceptions are comparable to actors walking across the stage, subjected to diverse environments and situations. Different actors walk across the stage at different times with different perceptions in order to tell the same story, human perceptions also appear in the mind at different times to tell the same story.

The Bundle Theory is comparable to the newer version of Lockes theory. While Hume thinks that the concept of self is a fiction, Locke holds that there is need for a memory continuum for a person to maintain their identity (self) (Perry, 2002). In this regard, the only things that would be at stake would be whether a person believes that what they think of themselves is fictitious or not, and if they are the same person of not. It is predictable that for many people, the thought of thinking of themselves as being creations of fiction would be very disappointing. Personal identity supersedes memory continuum. Even though Lockes assertion, that one requires a memory continuum to be the same person, is necessary for the concept of existence, it fails to define personal identify.

Locke argues that the sameness of man or substance is unnecessary and insufficient for personal identity but that consciousness is equal (Perry, 2002). Hume agrees with Locke that it is memorys role to shape peoples senses. Hume disagrees with Lockes assertion that the sense of self is not limited to memories (Perry, 2002). Surprisingly, Hume does not even admit Lockes contention that person is a forensic term, neither does he content with Lockes distinction between the terms person, man, and material (Rosenthal, 1984). Locke created this distinction to discuss moral responsibility issues, which he considered crucial.

At first glance, it seems even more surprising that Humes treatment of the self leaves less room for separating persons from human beings than his treatment. The experience is perplexing because Locke first articulated the difference to address concerns about moral accountability, and Humes treatment of self in arguments forms the basis of his moral theory (Kim, 1984). There must be a solution to this mystery, which leaves a dilemma of whether Hume made a sloppy mistake or has philosophical objections to Lockes distinction. Hume does not share Lockes particular moral and theological convictions that have no allure in Lockes distinction between individuals and human beings.

It is helpful to establish in what sense if any, Locke and Hume distinguish individuals and human beings to explain how their moral, religious, and philosophical background assumptions influence their unique explanations of persons and personal identity. First, Locke defines the difference between person, man, and stuff conceptually (Rosenthal, 1991). Locke distinguishes between the identity of people and substances and contends that individual identity is grounded in a shared mental state (Kim, 1984). It is a claim about the nature of reality itself. The idea of the nature of reality has been modernized into the contention that humans, other humans, and inorganic substances have unique persistence requirements.

On the other hand, in contrast to Lockes theory, Humes does not provide any opportunity for a theistic foundation for his philosophical principles. According to Humes description, math, science, religion, ethics, and politics are all tied to human nature and other scientific endeavors (Kim, 1984). According to Hume, it is necessary to investigate the principles and mechanisms governing human nature before attempting to build morality separate from such a study. This is because human nature is the foundation upon which morality is built (Kim, 1984).

Lockes theory was developed to draw attention to the limitations of human comprehension and reduce the breadth of knowledge to only that which can be understood with absolute certainty. Locke makes the critical point that the fact that contemporary scientific expertise cannot provide an answer to a question does not indicate that the question is without value. Locke argues that a person can still build plausible hypotheses or have self-confidence in such topics (Perry, 2008). The most important thing is distinguishing between having a reasonable opinion and blind faith. Locke says that it is beyond peoples ken to establish whether or not these thoughts are anchored in something substantial or immaterial, even though it is common knowledge that persons have thoughts.

In his article Of the Immortality of the Soul, David Hume articulates his skepticism regarding various religious beliefs. By outlining several philosophical, ethical, and scientific arguments, Hume can cast doubt on the reality of an afterlife and the souls immortality (Kim, 1984). Although Locke and Hume agree that the souls immortality cannot be demonstrated a priori and share a certain metaphysical agnosticism, several subtle distinctions become apparent when we turn to Humes physical arguments. Locke and Hume share a certain metaphysical agnosticism (Perry, 2008). Although Locke acknowledges that it is impossible to know for certain whether thought occurs in a material or immaterial substance. He argues that immaterial substances are more likely to be the locus of thought than material substances. On the other hand, Hume states that it is more likely that humans are mortal material things because we are similar to nonhuman animals, and the great analogy lends support to the notion that this is the case.

Lockes religious perspectives partly shaped his understanding of the concept of individuality. Locke was a devout Christian, he was adamant that the Bible be accorded the utmost respect. Despite the fact that faith is based on revelation is not entirely certain, he maintains that faith cannot be correctly denied and is almost as certain as knowledge (Rosenthal, 1991). When one considers Lockes religious beliefs, it becomes clear how important it was for him to present a theory of personal identity that could accept the possibility of life after the death of the physical body, just as the Bible teaches that there will be the hereafter. Lockes theory had to account for the possibility of the afterlife.

Reid differs with Lockes theory in a number of ways. Firstly, he does not believe in Lockes insistence that there are different identity conditions for different things so that the conditions of identity for a rock, an animal, a tree, or a person are not the same. According to Reid identity is limited only to substances whose existence is continued and uninterrupted, and do not exist in parts. In simple terms, according to Reid, personal identity is the only real identity. Another major criticism of Reid on Lockes theory is that the latter confounds consciousness with memory yet the two are distinct phenomena. He explains that while memory is directed towards past events, consciousness deals with present mental acts and operations.

In conclusion, in their attempt to explain the concept of self-identity, Hume and Locke agree that the sense of self is not limited to memories and that memory shapes peoples senses. However, while Locke believes that self is limited to memories, Hume thinks that a person requires more than a memory continuum to be the same person. While Lockes ideas were shaped by his religious perspectives, Hume does not provide any chance for a theistic foundation for his philosophical principles. Reid on the other hand believes that the only real identity is personal identity and consciousness and memory are distinct phenomena.

References

Kim, J. (1984). Epiphenomenal and supervenient causation. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 9(1), 257270. Web.

Perry, J. (2002). Identity, personal identity, and the self. Hackett Publishing.

Rosenthal, D. M. (1984). Armstrongs causal theory of mind. D.M. Armstrong, 79120. Web.

Materialism has become part of human nature. It has been spread throughout history and evolved into an issue that will never cease to exist. However, this is no new discovery, materialism is not a new thing. It is displayed all over the media, in magazines, and in commercials. From the dawn of time, there has been an innate competition between human beings. Whether we admit to it or not, we all have the urge to be better than those around us. Consequently, it is not just technology that people compete with. Merchandise like clothes and houses and even home appliances are just a few more. It all comes down to the fact that people are too materialistic for their own good. As an American teenager, it is fairly easy for me to say that materialism and consumption play a large roll in my own cosmology. I frequently go shopping with friends and check out the latest fashion trends and I-Phones. In my defense, when you reside in a first world country with lavish shopping malls everywhere and billboards covered in clothing models, food, and things to buy, these become the things that you aim for. Brian Swimme Stated in his writing ‘How Do Our Kids Get So Caught Up in Consumerism’, “Before a child enters first grade science class, and before entering in any real way into our religious ceremonies, a child will have soaked in 30,000 advertisements”. That child was me. I have been trained from a child to want the most popular object at the time because it was cool and would allow me fit in with other children my age. I later realized that this was not the way to live, because the bible says that idolatry is a sin. Faith is very prevalent in my life and author Paul Tillich speaks very highly of it in his piece ‘What Faith Is’. He states, “Man, like every living being, is concerned about many things, above all about those which condition his very existence, such as food and shelter”. While it is okay to own material objects such as a cell phone, it becomes an issue when people begin to buy everything that they see impulsively.

A person from any other country may say that we are very wasteful individuals because we are not focused on the ultimate concern, they are one hundred percent correct. I am aware that in many other countries material possessions are of no importance. Instead, they focus on the self and faith. However, that does not weigh very much on my conscious of what I believe is sacred and meaningful. I have a strong belief in God and that primarily comes from my family and the way that I was raised. Tillich states, “If a national group makes the life and growth of the nation, its ultimate concern, it demands that all other concerns, economic well-being, health and life, family, aesthetic and cognitive truth, justice and humanity be sacrificed”. To me that seems excessive. To sacrifice all of that to have faith as an ultimate concern is not worth it. In other countries that may be the case but I am not that concerned with the belief systems and values of others to follow that particular route that Tillich describes.

As the anchor of society, materialism along with consumer goods have gained a significance that infringes upon the ultimate concern that should actually be focused on. Having given the assumption that consuming goods and owning possessions will make an individual happy, well-established, connected member of society has only made larger issues, that will never cease to end. With Americans largely deriving their sense of personal values, meaning and significance from obtaining material possessions, all of the 21st century is inundated.

As time goes by the American dream is becoming exceedingly materialistic. I believe that the Americans have always been materialistic to a greater or lesser extent, but I’m very sure when I say, that the world has never been as materialistic as these recent years. If we take a look back in time people aspired of having a job that paid well, so they could live in a house in the suburbs and own one or two nice cars. That would be more than enough and more than satisfying. Today everything is different. Not that we don’t longer aspire these things. We just aspire so much more, that it sometimes can get terrifying what or who we have become.

Even though a lot of people are confident that materialism never could have any bad effects on Americans and American society, they are far from right. It doesn’t surprise me if lots of people trust the position that materialism can’t hurt anyone or anything, because only few people familiarize themselves with it and reflects on this topic. It’s completely okay if you haven’t done this yet, but I hope you will begin to do it while reading this.

I’ll bet that you have heard that the good life is obtainable through the ‘goods life’. It won’t surprise me if you sit and recognize to this right now. Because who wouldn’t? We have all been exposed to this opinion through consumer messages such as TV shows, social media, in public bathrooms or at the train station. Telling us to spend lots of money on their products, that should make us a better person thus a happier person overall. In fact, billion dollars are spent every year on consumer messages in America. Quite overwhelming! It might seem ridiculous to you but this commercialization has over time reached deeper and formed its way into people’s minds.

But lots of researches absolutely show, that the more the people value materialistic values and goals, the lower happiness and satisfaction the person will achieve. Now that was not what the consumer message promised us, was it? These researches also show that depression, anxiety and substance abuse actually tend to be much higher among people who only value materialistic wealth. Do you think this could have an impact on other people’s wellbeing? The answer is yes. Strong materialistic values actually influence our social relationships and therefore other people’s wellbeing.

Studies also show that materialistic values and social values function like a tilt. When materialistic values go up, pro social values most of the times tend to go down. This also explains why people tend to act less emphatic and generous when they only got money on their mind.

Materialism also affects the American society. This can also be compared with a tilt. As material values go up, the concern for the nature tends to go down. Researches sadly show those people are less likely to be a part of ecologically beneficial activities such as recycling and reusing things.

But what makes people to focus on materialistic values? Studies show that people who feel insecure about themselves tend to focus more on materialistic values. Instead of spending time with the persons they love, a lot of people tend to buy something materialistic instead, for example a new bag to blow the self-esteem.

A quote I want to include is as follows:

“Some people are so poor, all they have is money”, – Bob Marley.

The quote says that rich and poor shouldn’t be measured in the terms of money. A person may have lots of money and therefore also lots of material goods such as a big house, expensive cars, designer bags and so on, but if the person doesn’t have intrinsic values such as growing as a person and be close to the ones you love for example your family, then his/her money is of no use at all. In some point anybody can be rich in money but the best kind of rich you can be, is rich in love, happiness and persons that actually care about you.

The studies show the materialistic values tend to go down when the intrinsic values go up. These intrinsic values promote not only personal and social wellbeing, which will be positive for Americans but also ecological wellbeing, which will be positive for American society.

Commercialism and consumerism have gotten a grip on us and it’s almost inescapable. But even though there are powerful forces that push material values on us, there is after all something we can do about it to reverse this ‘trend’. Some ways are, for example, to use ad blocker to hide ads on the Internet and to mute when commercials play on TV. But more important we need to get active in this debate and remove advertising from public spaces such as the train stations. So, people aren’t exposed to material messages as often as they are today. Instead, there should be a greater focus on intrinsic values. But changing our own lifestyle isn’t enough. We need to advocate for policies that promote these intrinsic values.

This overall means that we can break the hold by making changes in our personal lives while at the same time working for broader social changes.

So, what do you want to be rich in? You decide.

According to Srikant Manchiraju and Zlatan Krizan, materialism can be defined as “the importance an individual attaches to worldly possessions” (Manchiraju and Krizan, 90). A materialistic individual tends to believe that their earthly possessions and physical comfort are more important than their spiritual values. Certain belongings that a person with a materialistic viewpoint could put emphasis on include how nice their house is, what kind of car they drive, which type of cell phone they own, and how nice or expensive their clothes are. While these items might make a person happy at first, it will not last for very long. Eventually, they will get bored and strive to have more. Overall, materialism is bad for a person’s emotional well-being. Materialism can negatively affect a person’s relationship, increase their chances of having depression and anxiety, and make a person less satisfied with themselves.

A materialistic viewpoint on life can have a negative effect on a person’s relationship. Money has been shown to play a key factor in marital conflicts. A recent study by Dr. Jason Carroll, a professor at Brigham Young University, shows that materialistic couples are unhappier and tend to have more arguments than other couples. In this study, researchers interviewed one thousand and seven hundred couples across the United States and asked each of them about their relationship. Researchers also asked these couples how attached they were to money and how they felt about acquiring lots of material objects. In one in five couples, both sides admitted to value prioritizing wealth. However, these couples also said that money was their main source of conflict. In addition to this, couples that admitted to having a strong love for money also scored ten to fifteen percent worse on ‘relationship stability’ than those who did not care about money. Couples, where both spouses valued money the same, reported having the most problems in their relationship. On the other hand, couples who ranked low on the materialistic scale were reported to be better off. Finally, in terms of harm suffered as a result of materialism, couples fell in-between these two groups when one spouse was materialistic, but the other was not. Marital problems from materialism were at their worst when each spouse agreed that money possesses high value. According to Jason Carroll, this is because “materialistic people may spend more time looking for new things rather than nurturing their relationships” (Jaslow, 1). These individuals were less responsive to their partner and less focused on their relationship. Materialistic spouses often seek happiness in their possessions and not in people. This means that will put less time, effort, and energy into making sure their marriage is a success. Materialistic couples also reported having more financial issues than other couples because they are unsure about how to save their money.

Besides having a negative effect on a person’s relationship, a materialistic viewpoint can also increase a person’s chances of becoming depressed. In a recent study from Baylor University, which was published in ‘Personality and Individual Differences’, researchers saw that people who were more materialistic than others were more likely to be depressed. Researchers that conducted the study interviewed two hundred and forty-six undergraduate students who were majoring in marketing. Researchers measured each individual’s level of materialism, need satisfaction, and overall life satisfaction. The study revealed that “individuals who scored the most materialistic were also the least grateful, the least satisfied, and the most depressed” (Chen, 1). This is because these individuals were more self-centered. They were more focused on physical rewards and helping themselves, instead of spending more time and energy on helping their peers. Individuals with a high score in materialism were also more concerned with what they do not have, such as new and expensive items, rather than focusing on what they already have, such as a family and a job. Materialists will never feel satisfied with their possessions because their current possessions will eventually become a baseline for new and improved items. Material possessions will never leave a person feeling truly happy. A new item will only make a person happy for a moment, but eventually, they will get bored with it and strive for more. A new possession will only keep a person happy until they start feeling covetous and depressed again.

In addition to being depressed, people with high materialistic values are also known to have elevated levels of anxiety. According to a recent study by Galen V. Bodenhausen, Monika A. Bauer, James E.B. Wilkie, and Jung K. Kim, those who place a higher value on wealth and status tend to be more depressed, anxious, and less sociable than those who do not place a high value on wealth and status. Galen V. Bodenhausen says they found that “irrespective of personality, in situations that activate a consumer mindset, people show the same sorts of problematic patterns in wellbeing, including negative affect and social disengagement” (Bodenhausen, 1). Bodenhausen, Bauer, Wilkie, and Kim conducted a series of experiments on university students. In two out of four of these experiments, the students were exposed to images of luxury good or words that put them into a materialistic mindset. After the experiments, students filled out questionnaires. The students that looked at the pictures of luxury goods such as jewelry, electronics, and cars were rated higher in anxiety and depression. The individuals who were rated higher in anxiety and depression also found themselves less interested in social events such as parties and more interested in solitary pursuits than their peers who scored lower. On the other hand, those who ranked high in materialism from exposure to words displayed more competitiveness and had little to no desire in dedicating their time to pro-social ventures such as working for a good cause.

Besides having a negative effect on a person’s relationship and increasing their chance of having depression and anxiety, a materialistic viewpoint can also make a person dissatisfied with their lives. Materialism has three key aspects: centrality, happiness, and success. Centrality is when an individual views their earthly possessions as being the center of their life. Happiness is when an individual views their personal possessions as the main source for being satisfied with their lives. Success is when an individual uses their possessions as a marker for their success in life. Numerous studies have shown that materialists are generally less satisfied with their lives. People that score high in materialism are not only dissatisfied with their standards of living, but they are also dissatisfied with the amount of fun in their lives and their relationships with their friends. Materialism is also closely correlated to negative aspects of well-being, such as depression, loneliness, and low self-esteem. Multiple studies by Kasser and Ryan have found that people with higher materialistic value face fewer positive emotions, and greater levels of anxiety, depression, and substance abuse than their non-materialistic peers. According to Jo-Ann Tsang, Thomas P. Carpenter, James A. Roberts, Michael B. Frisch, and Robert D. Carlisle, “Gap theory posits that materialists have unrealistically high expectations for the satisfaction that material goods will bring them” (J.-A. Tsang et al., 63). Before buying an item, materialistic individuals will have higher expectation and anticipation than their non-materialistic counterparts. However, these new material possessions are never able to meet their high expectations or sustain their emotions. Overall, this will decrease the amount of a materialistic individual’s positive emotion. Because of this, a materialist will continue to make more purchases, which will just result in a greater level of dissatisfaction.

In conclusion, materialism has negative effects on individuals in societies. Materialism has been shown to ruin people’s relationships, increase a person’s depression and anxiety levels, and make a person less satisfied with their lives as a whole. Individuals with high materialistic values will turn to their possessions to find happiness, instead of turning to other people. As a result, they will end up ignoring their significant others and focusing more on other pursuits. Materialism has also been known to heighten levels of anxiety and depression in people. Materialism will never leave a person feeling truly happy because eventually they will get bored with their newfound possessions and will find themselves wanting more. Individuals with a high materialistic outlook will also find themselves being less interested in social events. Last but not least, materialism can make a person less satisfied with their lives. Materialists always have high expectations and anticipation when making a purchase. However, the item will never live up to their expectations, so they will end up making more purchases never being satisfied.

Have you ever followed a trend? Are you a materialistic person? Do you use materials and objects, such as money, phones, car, and luxurious items to receive happiness? Everyone at one point in their lives would have desired to want something or wanted to be like the people around them. For example, to feel better, to look better, to convey a status symbol whether it may be TikTok, AirPods, or property. Materialism is when a person is so assigned to owning material belongings, and the obsession with that makes them fulfill life. Our desires become so infinite that we start to forget and recognize what truly is important to us. Materialism has been around for many years. In fact, it’s always been in everyone… everyone has always wanted something from life specifically objects. For example, Hawkins from ‘Guest of the Nation’ believes that “materialism is essentially religious in nature”. This story shows us that the attachment of materials isn’t just a new development, but has always been there.

Materialism has become a trend in our society. Our current society has a constantly growing fascination for earning more money and owning more material goods, which is currently in trend. We are now materially better off than how we were before. For instance, looking over the past few years the high consumption of phones, TikTok, laptops, and property. In association with that, everyone would think we should be happier today than ever. But studies have shown that there is no direct correlation between income and happiness. We are not recognizing the value of our loved ones in comparison to our desires. Baylor University confirms that smartphones can actually damage relationships. Relationships with your loved ones your families, who care for you and are always there no matter what. Our desires are becoming more part of our lives than people, which can lead to a bland life because how would life be without your roots, your parents, and your family? The desires that come from others, or to want something so badly that you forget about your true happiness ‘family’. At the end of the day, I can guarantee you that materials aren’t going to be there forever.

For example, here’s, where I would like to share my own story, I was once in the supermarket getting all the groceries, and a mother asked his little boy: “How was your day today what did you do today?”. And the boy replied: “Nothing mum, I watched videos on TikTok, and my friends did too”. Keeping in the mind at this point in time the little boy isn’t talking to his mother, but on his phone, currently watching videos on TikTok, with his AirPods on. This made me realize how I sometimes ignore my own parents for objects when they’re simply just asking about ours. Destroy, destruction, defeat… these three words describe what his future might be like. At the moment the little boy has most of his attention on his phone an object that can be destroyed anytime. Destruction of a mother and son’s relationship. Defeat the loss of his own life, because when he grows older, he’ll definitely do anything to accomplish his materialistic desires.

People’s materialistic desires are becoming so huge that sometimes our whole life becomes dependent on them. We are spending most of our time earning more money or trying to figure out a way to accomplish our desire. Take, for instance, buying a luxurious house or a lavishing car. No one’s going to wish for it, and they’ll get it. In order to accomplish it, we have to earn money or win the lotto. At this time, we forget that most of our happiness doesn’t revolve around materials, but around relationships. Many studies have shown that personal relationships have one of the largest impacts on overall happiness, as well as longevity. The only way to live life to the fullest is with loved ones, not with materials. Our loved ones are the only way to complete everyone’s lives through creating memories, and Macquarie University confirms this. Living every moment in happiness rather than concentrating on your phone or running after wealth. Just think, have you gained anything from materialistic desires? Do they have feelings? Do they bring happiness or sadness? Are they there in every step of your life to support and love you? The answer might be ‘no’ because objects can’t speak, support, love, or even have feelings. They are only in our lives for a very short time – it’s not going to be there forever. Family is the one that gives everyone a reason to live and gives us purpose in life. Materials can never ever be comparable to people because family and friends are worth so much more than objects and money. We should always know the value of people in our lives and treat them accordingly because they are an important piece in everyone’s lives.

Life is short… So, we should make the most of it while we’re here. Spending most of our time with our loved ones can ensure our happiness. Life will be better and lived to the fullest when we spend most of our time with them rather than going after money and wealth. A positive environment that will alleviate all stresses and empower us to do more in life. We need to understand the differences between our materialistic desires and people. We need to appreciate people and recognize what truly is important in our lives. We should cherish every person in our lives and prioritize our life accordingly. We all as a society need to change the way we display ourselves and don’t perform or desire things to feel better, to look better, or to convey a status symbol.

Materialism has become part of human nature. It has been spread throughout history and evolved into an issue that will never cease to exist. However, this is no new discovery, materialism is not a new thing. It is displayed all over the media, in magazines, and in commercials. From the dawn of time, there has been an innate competition between human beings. Whether we admit to it or not, we all have the urge to be better than those around us. Consequently, it is not just technology that people compete with. Merchandise like clothes and houses and even home appliances are just a few more. It all comes down to the fact that people are too materialistic for their own good. As an American teenager, it is fairly easy for me to say that materialism and consumption play a large roll in my own cosmology. I frequently go shopping with friends and check out the latest fashion trends and I-Phones. In my defense, when you reside in a first world country with lavish shopping malls everywhere and billboards covered in clothing models, food, and things to buy, these become the things that you aim for. Brian Swimme Stated in his writing ‘How Do Our Kids Get So Caught Up in Consumerism’, “Before a child enters first grade science class, and before entering in any real way into our religious ceremonies, a child will have soaked in 30,000 advertisements”. That child was me. I have been trained from a child to want the most popular object at the time because it was cool and would allow me fit in with other children my age. I later realized that this was not the way to live, because the bible says that idolatry is a sin. Faith is very prevalent in my life and author Paul Tillich speaks very highly of it in his piece ‘What Faith Is’. He states, “Man, like every living being, is concerned about many things, above all about those which condition his very existence, such as food and shelter”. While it is okay to own material objects such as a cell phone, it becomes an issue when people begin to buy everything that they see impulsively.

A person from any other country may say that we are very wasteful individuals because we are not focused on the ultimate concern, they are one hundred percent correct. I am aware that in many other countries material possessions are of no importance. Instead, they focus on the self and faith. However, that does not weigh very much on my conscious of what I believe is sacred and meaningful. I have a strong belief in God and that primarily comes from my family and the way that I was raised. Tillich states, “If a national group makes the life and growth of the nation, its ultimate concern, it demands that all other concerns, economic well-being, health and life, family, aesthetic and cognitive truth, justice and humanity be sacrificed”. To me that seems excessive. To sacrifice all of that to have faith as an ultimate concern is not worth it. In other countries that may be the case but I am not that concerned with the belief systems and values of others to follow that particular route that Tillich describes.

As the anchor of society, materialism along with consumer goods have gained a significance that infringes upon the ultimate concern that should actually be focused on. Having given the assumption that consuming goods and owning possessions will make an individual happy, well-established, connected member of society has only made larger issues, that will never cease to end. With Americans largely deriving their sense of personal values, meaning and significance from obtaining material possessions, all of the 21st century is inundated.

As time goes by the American dream is becoming exceedingly materialistic. I believe that the Americans have always been materialistic to a greater or lesser extent, but I’m very sure when I say, that the world has never been as materialistic as these recent years. If we take a look back in time people aspired of having a job that paid well, so they could live in a house in the suburbs and own one or two nice cars. That would be more than enough and more than satisfying. Today everything is different. Not that we don’t longer aspire these things. We just aspire so much more, that it sometimes can get terrifying what or who we have become.

Even though a lot of people are confident that materialism never could have any bad effects on Americans and American society, they are far from right. It doesn’t surprise me if lots of people trust the position that materialism can’t hurt anyone or anything, because only few people familiarize themselves with it and reflects on this topic. It’s completely okay if you haven’t done this yet, but I hope you will begin to do it while reading this.

I’ll bet that you have heard that the good life is obtainable through the ‘goods life’. It won’t surprise me if you sit and recognize to this right now. Because who wouldn’t? We have all been exposed to this opinion through consumer messages such as TV shows, social media, in public bathrooms or at the train station. Telling us to spend lots of money on their products, that should make us a better person thus a happier person overall. In fact, billion dollars are spent every year on consumer messages in America. Quite overwhelming! It might seem ridiculous to you but this commercialization has over time reached deeper and formed its way into people’s minds.

But lots of researches absolutely show, that the more the people value materialistic values and goals, the lower happiness and satisfaction the person will achieve. Now that was not what the consumer message promised us, was it? These researches also show that depression, anxiety and substance abuse actually tend to be much higher among people who only value materialistic wealth. Do you think this could have an impact on other people’s wellbeing? The answer is yes. Strong materialistic values actually influence our social relationships and therefore other people’s wellbeing.

Studies also show that materialistic values and social values function like a tilt. When materialistic values go up, pro social values most of the times tend to go down. This also explains why people tend to act less emphatic and generous when they only got money on their mind.

Materialism also affects the American society. This can also be compared with a tilt. As material values go up, the concern for the nature tends to go down. Researches sadly show those people are less likely to be a part of ecologically beneficial activities such as recycling and reusing things.

But what makes people to focus on materialistic values? Studies show that people who feel insecure about themselves tend to focus more on materialistic values. Instead of spending time with the persons they love, a lot of people tend to buy something materialistic instead, for example a new bag to blow the self-esteem.

A quote I want to include is as follows:

“Some people are so poor, all they have is money”, – Bob Marley.

The quote says that rich and poor shouldn’t be measured in the terms of money. A person may have lots of money and therefore also lots of material goods such as a big house, expensive cars, designer bags and so on, but if the person doesn’t have intrinsic values such as growing as a person and be close to the ones you love for example your family, then his/her money is of no use at all. In some point anybody can be rich in money but the best kind of rich you can be, is rich in love, happiness and persons that actually care about you.

The studies show the materialistic values tend to go down when the intrinsic values go up. These intrinsic values promote not only personal and social wellbeing, which will be positive for Americans but also ecological wellbeing, which will be positive for American society.

Commercialism and consumerism have gotten a grip on us and it’s almost inescapable. But even though there are powerful forces that push material values on us, there is after all something we can do about it to reverse this ‘trend’. Some ways are, for example, to use ad blocker to hide ads on the Internet and to mute when commercials play on TV. But more important we need to get active in this debate and remove advertising from public spaces such as the train stations. So, people aren’t exposed to material messages as often as they are today. Instead, there should be a greater focus on intrinsic values. But changing our own lifestyle isn’t enough. We need to advocate for policies that promote these intrinsic values.

This overall means that we can break the hold by making changes in our personal lives while at the same time working for broader social changes.

So, what do you want to be rich in? You decide.

According to Srikant Manchiraju and Zlatan Krizan, materialism can be defined as “the importance an individual attaches to worldly possessions” (Manchiraju and Krizan, 90). A materialistic individual tends to believe that their earthly possessions and physical comfort are more important than their spiritual values. Certain belongings that a person with a materialistic viewpoint could put emphasis on include how nice their house is, what kind of car they drive, which type of cell phone they own, and how nice or expensive their clothes are. While these items might make a person happy at first, it will not last for very long. Eventually, they will get bored and strive to have more. Overall, materialism is bad for a person’s emotional well-being. Materialism can negatively affect a person’s relationship, increase their chances of having depression and anxiety, and make a person less satisfied with themselves.

A materialistic viewpoint on life can have a negative effect on a person’s relationship. Money has been shown to play a key factor in marital conflicts. A recent study by Dr. Jason Carroll, a professor at Brigham Young University, shows that materialistic couples are unhappier and tend to have more arguments than other couples. In this study, researchers interviewed one thousand and seven hundred couples across the United States and asked each of them about their relationship. Researchers also asked these couples how attached they were to money and how they felt about acquiring lots of material objects. In one in five couples, both sides admitted to value prioritizing wealth. However, these couples also said that money was their main source of conflict. In addition to this, couples that admitted to having a strong love for money also scored ten to fifteen percent worse on ‘relationship stability’ than those who did not care about money. Couples, where both spouses valued money the same, reported having the most problems in their relationship. On the other hand, couples who ranked low on the materialistic scale were reported to be better off. Finally, in terms of harm suffered as a result of materialism, couples fell in-between these two groups when one spouse was materialistic, but the other was not. Marital problems from materialism were at their worst when each spouse agreed that money possesses high value. According to Jason Carroll, this is because “materialistic people may spend more time looking for new things rather than nurturing their relationships” (Jaslow, 1). These individuals were less responsive to their partner and less focused on their relationship. Materialistic spouses often seek happiness in their possessions and not in people. This means that will put less time, effort, and energy into making sure their marriage is a success. Materialistic couples also reported having more financial issues than other couples because they are unsure about how to save their money.

Besides having a negative effect on a person’s relationship, a materialistic viewpoint can also increase a person’s chances of becoming depressed. In a recent study from Baylor University, which was published in ‘Personality and Individual Differences’, researchers saw that people who were more materialistic than others were more likely to be depressed. Researchers that conducted the study interviewed two hundred and forty-six undergraduate students who were majoring in marketing. Researchers measured each individual’s level of materialism, need satisfaction, and overall life satisfaction. The study revealed that “individuals who scored the most materialistic were also the least grateful, the least satisfied, and the most depressed” (Chen, 1). This is because these individuals were more self-centered. They were more focused on physical rewards and helping themselves, instead of spending more time and energy on helping their peers. Individuals with a high score in materialism were also more concerned with what they do not have, such as new and expensive items, rather than focusing on what they already have, such as a family and a job. Materialists will never feel satisfied with their possessions because their current possessions will eventually become a baseline for new and improved items. Material possessions will never leave a person feeling truly happy. A new item will only make a person happy for a moment, but eventually, they will get bored with it and strive for more. A new possession will only keep a person happy until they start feeling covetous and depressed again.

In addition to being depressed, people with high materialistic values are also known to have elevated levels of anxiety. According to a recent study by Galen V. Bodenhausen, Monika A. Bauer, James E.B. Wilkie, and Jung K. Kim, those who place a higher value on wealth and status tend to be more depressed, anxious, and less sociable than those who do not place a high value on wealth and status. Galen V. Bodenhausen says they found that “irrespective of personality, in situations that activate a consumer mindset, people show the same sorts of problematic patterns in wellbeing, including negative affect and social disengagement” (Bodenhausen, 1). Bodenhausen, Bauer, Wilkie, and Kim conducted a series of experiments on university students. In two out of four of these experiments, the students were exposed to images of luxury good or words that put them into a materialistic mindset. After the experiments, students filled out questionnaires. The students that looked at the pictures of luxury goods such as jewelry, electronics, and cars were rated higher in anxiety and depression. The individuals who were rated higher in anxiety and depression also found themselves less interested in social events such as parties and more interested in solitary pursuits than their peers who scored lower. On the other hand, those who ranked high in materialism from exposure to words displayed more competitiveness and had little to no desire in dedicating their time to pro-social ventures such as working for a good cause.

Besides having a negative effect on a person’s relationship and increasing their chance of having depression and anxiety, a materialistic viewpoint can also make a person dissatisfied with their lives. Materialism has three key aspects: centrality, happiness, and success. Centrality is when an individual views their earthly possessions as being the center of their life. Happiness is when an individual views their personal possessions as the main source for being satisfied with their lives. Success is when an individual uses their possessions as a marker for their success in life. Numerous studies have shown that materialists are generally less satisfied with their lives. People that score high in materialism are not only dissatisfied with their standards of living, but they are also dissatisfied with the amount of fun in their lives and their relationships with their friends. Materialism is also closely correlated to negative aspects of well-being, such as depression, loneliness, and low self-esteem. Multiple studies by Kasser and Ryan have found that people with higher materialistic value face fewer positive emotions, and greater levels of anxiety, depression, and substance abuse than their non-materialistic peers. According to Jo-Ann Tsang, Thomas P. Carpenter, James A. Roberts, Michael B. Frisch, and Robert D. Carlisle, “Gap theory posits that materialists have unrealistically high expectations for the satisfaction that material goods will bring them” (J.-A. Tsang et al., 63). Before buying an item, materialistic individuals will have higher expectation and anticipation than their non-materialistic counterparts. However, these new material possessions are never able to meet their high expectations or sustain their emotions. Overall, this will decrease the amount of a materialistic individual’s positive emotion. Because of this, a materialist will continue to make more purchases, which will just result in a greater level of dissatisfaction.

In conclusion, materialism has negative effects on individuals in societies. Materialism has been shown to ruin people’s relationships, increase a person’s depression and anxiety levels, and make a person less satisfied with their lives as a whole. Individuals with high materialistic values will turn to their possessions to find happiness, instead of turning to other people. As a result, they will end up ignoring their significant others and focusing more on other pursuits. Materialism has also been known to heighten levels of anxiety and depression in people. Materialism will never leave a person feeling truly happy because eventually they will get bored with their newfound possessions and will find themselves wanting more. Individuals with a high materialistic outlook will also find themselves being less interested in social events. Last but not least, materialism can make a person less satisfied with their lives. Materialists always have high expectations and anticipation when making a purchase. However, the item will never live up to their expectations, so they will end up making more purchases never being satisfied.