Philosophy Now Forum

Of course you are right, Sappho, "all humor does not contain some grain of truth." probably "all humor does not contain some grain of anything except, perhaps, words and or gestures." I did not take offense at your remark about two heads as I don't take offense about that sort of remark and have not for years. I did not take your remark in bad grace; I took it analytically and one could argue that you took it in bad grace because I did not just leave it as an old tired joke. But, again, most(if not all) humor contains, let us say aspects of truth if the humor has any bite to it at all; humor that I enjoy has some bite. Old jokes are just that old jokes and one lets them pass...or one doesn't...I do not feel our relationship has soured although you may see it as such since I have analysed the subject. Humor, of course, can indeed sour relationships as I have now seen for my 40 years Downunder.

The incest, for example, which I have found in Tasmania is all of a psychological sort that is "small world, family, family, family, locality, locality, sport, sport, I, me and mine, again and again, Sam" This, of course, is not confined to island cultures like Tasmania, but has some universal aspects across all cultures in some ways. The subject of humour has endless permutations and combinations and is practiced, if not discussed, ad nauseam in Australian culture. See ya...lateRon in an unsoured condition I trust. You can indulge me as much or as little as you like. How many times I have seen this same problem play itself out in Australia. "It was only a joke" someone says. "It's just a part of the culture," someone says. I could not agree more. Conway analyses this subject as do many others much better than I. Just write back, Sappho, if you find it useful; I do not need to be indulged, but you might enjoy writing. Leave it to you, dear Sappho.-Ron
-Ron

I Love the Bahai temple at Ingleside, Sydney, Ron. I wandered the Hawkesbury many years ago many times and loved the vision of the dome occasionally on the horizon. It always stood as antidote to ubiquitous cringe-Australia... so insular

Ron, i would be inerested in your thoughts on David Armstrong, of whose recent death Philosophy Now magazine made mention https://www.google.com.au/search?q=davi ... ent=safari

Also, would you agree with a statement that Australian culture (modern) is the most materialist culture to ever grace the planet?

Part 1:

Fifty years after David Armstrong's appointment to Sydney’s fabled Challis Chair of Philosophy, he remains Australia’s most important philosopher. Without qualification, he has been one of the twentieth century’s most influential thinkers. As the Quadrant online, 1/3/'14 edition, pointed out "Anderson’s personality exhibited itself, not just in its intellectual reach, but also in its audacity: 'Every icon was to be smashed: God, immortality, free will, moralism, the common good of society. Every canon of contemporary educational thought was flouted. It was all very inspiring.'"

He certainly has had my admiration but, in order to give you a reasoned response to your question, Bernard, regarding "my thoughts" on this philosopher and his several philosophical positions, I will have to get back to you. For starters, though Bernard, let me say that he is deserving of a place in the following sub-section of my website: http://www.ronpriceepoch.com/PHILOSOPHY-modern.html I thank you for your question earlier today. It will give me a reason to examine Armstrong's views in more detail.

Part 2:

As far as Australia being "the most materialist society" on the planet that is much easier to give an opinion on without too much examination. Let me begin, though, by quoting the introduction to an article which appeared in today's edition of FatCat.com.au, 30/8/'14: "Public awareness of the cost of consumer lifestyles has given rise to a growing unease — an inner conflict between what we do daily and what we believe is right for us and our society. New research shows a large majority of Australians believe that escalating materialism has harmful effects on parents, children and communities. A survey of over 1600 people found that 80 per cent agreed with the proposition “Most Australians buy and consume far more than they need: it’s wasteful.” And:

"As in the USA, Australians believe the value system that dominates their society is wrong ? that ‘materialism, greed, and selfishness increasingly dominate life, crowding out a more meaningful set of values centered on family, responsibility, and community’. The vast majority want their lives to be based on the values of family closeness, friendship and individual and social responsibility but believe their society is far from achieving that. They want to achieve a balance between the material and non-material sides of their lives."

Part 3:

Clive Hamilton, the Executive Director of the The Australia Institute, also has a useful contribution to this debate at: http://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP49.pdf After 40 years living Downunder and another 30 in Canada, I am more than a little aware of the cancer that is materialism eating its way into the psyche of western man. Hamilton concludes that "the little Aussie battler" has become "the little Aussie winger." Possible signs and symptoms of cancer include: a new lump, abnormal bleeding, a prolonged cough, unexplained weight loss, and a change in bowel movements, among others. The signs of materialism include self-absorption (Fournier & Richins, 1991, Beatty at al., 1991) to the exclusion of others (Schimail, 1974; Mukerji, 1983) and a desire for immediate gratification (do Tocqueville, 1981/1835-40; Lasch, 1984).

In addition, possession comes to be valued over other goals (Csikzentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1978; Daun, 1983) such as personal development, relationships with others, and the work ethic: the ascension of materialism as a central value-may shape the nature of other values (Gurin, 1960; Cheal, 1986). Material objects also represent success and status in contemporary U.S. culture as well as Australia (Dawson & Bamossy, 1990; Jackson, 1979; Richins & Dawson, 1992). Thus, materialists make use of tangible objects to signify success (Fournier & Richins, 1991, Belk, 1985), and Kim K.R. McKeage, Department of Marketing, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, gives us more at: http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-c ... x?Id=12206

I think this question you have raised has many permutations and combinations, all of which are easier to deal with than with Armstrong's philosophy. Again, I thank you for your question; like many of the politicians seen answering question in the electronic media, though, I'm not sure I can be seen here answering your question to your satisfaction. It is a start, though, to my own thinking about this question, a thinking out loud, so to speak. Writing, as one analyst wrote recently is itself "a scene of complexity."

Thoughtfully yours,

Ron

That's a fair start. We can take this almost peripatetically I think, enjoying sojourns and vistas. Let's though make sure we kick the bucket untill its empty. And beyond a metaphorical mood, I must ask if there is a direct manner in which the question on Australian materialism that I posed can be answered. Must it be a soul-searching voyage or excrutiating ethical exercise in which the output tends toward the great possibility of a suspension? Suspension of inquiry, I mean - until more historical perspective can be gained? Or until the now-examinable cancer is subsumed by a far greater, more global cancer?

How do we cut more to the chase in other words? Perhaps a brief overview of how this culture was concieved will give us clues toward answering this question.

Part 1:

"Can we cut to the chase," you say, "Bernard?" In simple terms, I have no trouble. I say:"Australia is a very materialistic society", I say. This I believe. Like so many things, though, there is a story behind such an opinion, a story that gives nuance and complexity to the subject. Materialism, examined as a philosophy for example, is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.

Materialism is typically considered by many philosophers and thinkers in general who are not necessarily professional philosophers, to be closely related to physicalism; the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: space-time, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferable over "materialism", while others use the terms as if they are synonymous. As far as the origins of materialism are concerned, you might like to examine this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#History

Part 2:

Getting back to that Australian philosopher, David Armstrong, let me say that his views are broadly naturalistic. Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only laws of nature, physical law as opposed to supernatural or spiritual law, and forces operate in the world; the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world." Adherents of naturalism, that is naturalists, assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws. Naturalism can intuitively be separated into metaphysical and methodological components. Metaphysical here refers to the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Some philosophers equate naturalism with materialism. At this stage of my investigation I, too, am inclined to equate the two. One could then conclude that Armstrong provides a philosophical basis for the very materialism that graces the interstices of Australian society.

How are them apples, Bernard?

Ron

Well, they are juicy apples for sure, but lack a little crunch for my likes, if I may gently say. And I agree on eqating materialism with the gentler naturalism.

I'm not looking at Australia as just materialistic but the most quintessentially so - so far as at least a general scan of history reveals it so. Is it necessary to be so classificatory? My didactic conceit shall allow it, as I think you will see. For I think it is this ultimate materialism - something perhaps at once positive and negative - that will come to define the culture, and be either its finest doing or undoing. If it becomes its finest doing it will be so only through overcoming it. If it proved its undoing it will be because of remaining as the UNREALISED status quo.

I have not a lot to say of Armstrong, as ironically, i find very little of lasting substance, but what there is is very weighty indeed, and I find it is to be found primarily in the sheer lifetimes egress of positing every possible human thought upon the chair of natural law. What make up of person does it take to do that. I find it incedible... even touching.

Part 1:

As a Canadian who has lived in Australia since he was 26, I find I have reacted more to the secularism than to the materialism. North America was for me, anyway, more materialistic but far less secular than Australia. Australia's secularism, it seems to me, rivals that of Europe. And, so it's a secular materialism that highlights the great Aussie way. In my 43 years here I have found the sense of humour very endearing and my main acquisition. If I had stayed in Canada I would not have the humour to balance my seriousness.

The cancer of materialism afflicts millions, nay, billions around the planet. I, too, have come to enjoy and depend on the comforts of home and hearth, a certain degree of immediate gratification; the cancer is a subtle one that gets into one's bones. As Gore Vidal used to say with a smile on his face: "most people have laughing-gas pumped into their homes on a nightly basis or fall asleep in front of the TV while western civilization is in what many see as the grip of death. Australia is a pleasure-loving society that prefers, for the most part, to do stuff and not to think and read all that much. I've enjoyed Ronald Conway's several volumes analysing Australian culture beginning with a book published the very year I arrived here, 1971: The Great Australian Stupor and his End of Stupor in 1984.

Of the 206 sovereign states, nations or countries on the planet, Australia may very well be "the most materialistic". I'm not sure how a social scientist would create a study to "prove" such a claim. A recent online edition of International Business Times had an article entitled: "China Confirmed Most Materialistic Country In The World Even As Luxury Spending Slumps To Lowest Level Since 2000". I commend that article for your edification.

Part 2:

I agree with your comments on Armstrong: "the sheer lifetime's egress of positing every possible human thought upon the chair of natural law is incredible. What is the make up of a person that makes this possible?" Some are endowed with a gallon-measure and others with a thimble-full of talent. Equality, is and always been, a chimera.

Ron

PS first day of spring tomorrow Downunder for those who are not into equinoxes and solstices!

Yes, 1Sep is a positive. Visions of summer idles feel of a sudden on hand.