Skip to main content

Materialism

Toady we are living are having comfortable life when compared to earlier generation. But is it really comfortable? We have softer beds for better sleep, we have air conditioners to tackle adverse climatic conditions, fancy clothes to decorate our outer appearance to the world, we have different devices to playing games and relax our minds etc. These are comforts right? They appear quite ironic to me, air conditioners to tackle adverse climate condition, the conditions which we played with. Playing games on game devices to relax which really increase mental stress in long run. These all are part of materialism. The ideology of materialism states that everything including emotions can be represented physically. 


Now, what do you think, to which extent is it valid? There's a saying that money can't buy happiness, which contradicts this theory. Is it really true money can't buy happiness? I believe there are two types of happiness one which last for short duration and other which some how revives itself and give a sense of happiness again and again. The happiness lasting for shorter duration can be bought from money but the latter one can be achieved with our deeds, with near satisfaction, knowing what we have achieved in life accounts for good. 

The materialistic happiness need fellow or someone other than an individual to provide that happiness because this type of happiness can be felt when someone else appreciates. But the true happiness don't need any alibi to feel it, it comes from near self. For example, all the luxury we fantasise about like (at least I do) sports ca, big resident.. etc will they matter if society finds them usual? Once owning a T.V was luxury but today they are present in nearly every house. So, if we talk about a true egalitarian society, can an individual be happy if ideology of materialism is followed? The answer is no because we find this happiness because of other and when no will be there to appreciate it, these materialistic totem of happiness won't help.

Let us see another example, the great emperor Ashoka, was the most powerful king of his time. After the kaling yudh gave up everything and followed Buddhism. The reason for him was the deaths he caused because of wars. He had every luxury in his time but still gave up everything and followed the path of dharma. He was shadowed by the sadness which materialistic happiness couldn't overthrow. 

Have you ever made someone smiled because of you? Like passed a joke or done some charity and the result was before your eyes, the sense of providing. Doesn't it feels good? Don't you feel happy and satisfied. I believe the services which we provide, which don't harm us in anyway but give something to someone that is it path to be happy. 


Materialism is also an obstacle in the way to egalitarian world because till the time this fake sense of happiness, this fake sense of achieving, the physical form which depicts our achievements is there in our shelves, we can't find the true happiness.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Brilliant Minds

What comes to your mind when we speak of brilliant minds? Albert Einstein? Stephan Hawking? Vinton Cerf? Bob Kahn? There are many names to say. Did they acquire that keen mind of their or they trained them? The thing is, we cannot be sure. After all, science has its language and so makes minds. Two types of mind one innately possess extraordinary capabilities and others who train themselves and push their limits. Nevertheless, these limits can be pushed to some extent only after that saturation comes or, say, and it went out of our hands. A movie named 'A man who knew infinity is based on the life of Srinivas Ramanujan. He was good with the number and contributed a lot in the field of Mathematics. However, what intriguing was that he was not trained or lectured by anyone. Moreover, on the contrary, there was G.H hardy who identified his work and helped him contribute to humanity. I am trying to say that if one deems to a person out of the above two, who will it be? My guess is Srin

World As one

 For the very first post, this topic isn't that bad I think. What I mean when I say World as one? It's simple sounding idea of creation of a universal system over world which make our world an egalitarian world. A world where we talk about about the future of human kind not the future of an individual race. Today, our world is politically divided into 195 pieces, calling individual piece a country. These pieces are interconnected in a very complex way every piece of this world get affected by the action of one, it obviously differ in intensity, duration, outcomes but this system sure impact every part of the world we can take the example of current conflict going on between Palestinians and Israelis. Whatever may be the reason of this conflicts whole world is getting affected by this, like barrier in the economic front as Israel exports high-technologies, cut diamond, etc to other parts of the world all these have to stop including the imports Israel bought affecting the econom

Were Armchair Scientist Right?

In this post, we will take a basic derivation of  Natural Selection -  a theory by  Charles Darwin.  The armchair scientist is a term used for thinkers who depend on the researches provided to them. They interpret the work of others and try to give them shape for other causes.  To start with, Charles Darwin wasn't one of them. He visited many areas and collected and sorted different types of samples. And gave a theory that changed our view of ours to see the course of evolution. He set us on the path to untangle the mystery of the diversity of life. One of the theories is Natural Selection or survival of the fittest.   This theory says an organism that adapts to the changes in the environment better will have more chances to survive and stand against the odds. This theory unravelled the mystery of evolution; at least gave a direction towards it. This answered many questions; one such was -  Is the rule of Britishers overseas justified? As a patriot, the answer is  NO! , but for a m