About the morality of the beggars.
I think each of us has come across such a concept as "Consumer Society". Criticism of the consumer society is quite popular among philistines and rural intelligentsia, we can say that they have this one of those subjects that serves as something like an entrance exam.The object of criticism is such a vague and vague concept as "excessive consumption", it is opposed to the ideal "as much as needed", no less vague. Saving and "rational" spending money are proclaimed the highest virtues. In addition, it is the critics who know best what to spend money on this or that person and what he needs / does not need.
But what is in reality? In fact, concepts such as "Consumption *", "Excessive consumption" are nothing more than the products of the morality of the poor who want to make the wealthy people feel ashamed.
This is where Frankenstein's monsters arise, like "as much as needed."
Criticism of the consumer society is very similar to the echoes of the Soviet upbringing, which very cunningly and quietly migrated to the heads of modern "progressive" youth.
If for a wealthy person money is a means that is calmly put into use based on the goals of this person, then for a beggar money itself is of the highest value. Hence the economy, which is positioned as a virtue.
In fact, the roots of economy are poverty and / or greed. In most cases, they are related. Poverty is not a vice, but nothing else ... Greed is a vice (and as a rule, a consequence of poverty).
And people with severely limited means are forced to spend money "wisely", i.e. weigh everything, while a wealthy person simply buys a good and expensive thing. But it is the former who pass off their behavior as "rational", which looks very comical.
Also, in order to add meaningfulness to their criticism, the poor and disadvantaged begin to, as it were, replace the motives of their criticism and, without mentioning their financial situation, transfer the topic to the alleged "depletion of resources", "clogging up the planet", "stopping creative activity", making themselves exalted personalities, although no one is as low as these people. The latter sounds especially funny because the dichotomy of creativity and consumption is false and far-fetched, and there is no contradiction here. On the contrary, a person who has satisfied his wishes will be much more predisposed to creative self-realization than a beggar who has all the thoughts about rustling papers in his pocket.
In addition, many of the poor like to count other people's money and fall into the illusion that they can dispose of their spending. Hence, numerous tips in the style of "it would be better if you bought this, not this." And by the way, it does not even occur to them that there may not be a choice between purchases, that you can buy both things and not experience a blow to your wallet, but these are already isolated cases ...
In other words, in fact, there is no "how much is needed "and" beyond measure ", each person decides for himself what and how much he needs. Therefore, you should not be led to the false moralizing of the poor - this is just envy dressed in armor.
Here's a recent example, by the way:
http://forums.playground.ru/talk/vas_besyat_lyudi_kotorye-913597/
Wealth and poverty are relative concepts. TV is nothing now. A luxury fifty years ago.
Have you ever been to a landfill in your life? Although the whole country is a solid landfill, why go far there. Everything is littered with the remnants of cheap, low-quality Chinese household goods, tires, because it is not fashionable to have one car per family, bags from Auchan, because it is not fashionable to have heels of cloth bags for life, plastic bottles that are not accepted for recycling and other shit, such as those that fell apart over the season sneakers and dead cell phones. Constant companions of the consumer society.
Profit from volume and constant decline in quality. There is shit all around, shit at the stage of leaving the assembly line, shit that is lying around everywhere, because it's easier to buy fresh shit than to fix it. We will soon drown in this shit, we will drown nah ... but no, everything must be reduced to money. Yes, there is money for fresh shit, do not worry about us, we will not die of hunger and do not go naked. But there is no desire to buy shit at all, and high-quality goods from store shelves disappeared, everything was flooded with a wave of Chinese bottling shit, which poured into the country in echelons without any control.
And yes, a well-fed person who bought everything has problems with creativity, since he never had the motivation to do anything himself. How to copy as much as possible, but never create. And every master who has achieved something has episodes in his life when he made something out of trash with a knife, a sledgehammer and such and such a mother, however, you cannot understand, I believe that your hands are sharpened under the bolt from birth, military keyboard.
EX0800_
As the saying goes "simple". As well as other topics on this forum.
requiemmm
I was waiting for your arrival, mister "nitaka", when you sanctify some thread with another commonplace. Promptly.
The old mantras about "obsolescence" and "lack of motivation", as ordered ...
Gauguin wrote:
In addition, many of the beggars like to count other people's money and fall into the illusion that they can manage their spending.
Fools learn from their mistakes, and smart ones from strangers. Therefore, it would be better if I now count money in someone else's pocket than later miss it in mine. " There is a special profession, whose representatives are engaged in exactly what counts money in other people's pockets. This profession is called "tax inspector". And these specialists receive salaries from the state ... but the state cannot pay for "unethical" actions, can it? ! So, this is a completely respectable act, which means we can do it too. People are like people. They love money, but it has always been ... Humanity loves money, no matter what it is made of, whether it is leather, paper, bronze or gold. all people in the world count other people's money. There is nothing wrong with that. Forbes magazine, for example, constantly counts and announces to us the "poorest" ones))) Do not count other people's money - take it without counting it ...
resource depletion is arguable.
modern consumer culture is based on the fact that with a mass scale, the cost of goods will be lower. further, the mechanism for the implementation of vparivanie goods and services that he may not need because a person does not pursue their search or similar properties purposefully. from this wax is built a vertical that you need more goods than you need and you need to spend energy and materials on their craft.
I also heard such a point of view that with the dough the graphic muse will leave the grafonopoet and surrounding himself with all kinds of blue luxury he will not be able to create the grafon. although it seems like if he does not need to think about making money and how to spend it, there should be more time. but here it is rather a question of the critical mobilization of the beggar poet.
and of course a person sets the measure for himself from his needs and capabilities. money is just a measure of some values ​​and loot that a person in exchange can crush from humanity. in the money itself, of course there is no value, but only in the pitch of goods.
The old mantras about "obsolescence" and "lack of motivation", as ordered by Truth is eternal. A person cannot but consume, such is his nature. But there are differences between killing so that there is something to eat and killing for fun. And so in all areas, it's cold - buy clothes, what's the problem? But do not collect wardrobes from hundreds of fur coats, stimulating poachers to chaos. Don't buy new household appliances, if the old one works, don't enrich the landfills. Take the highest quality available, but don't take anything that you won't use.
For a consumer it sounds crazy, I willingly believe. But the consumer should already know that he is going to die. Soon, 20-30-40 years old this is such garbage by the standards of the planet. And his duty as an intelligent, thinking creature is AT LEAST, NOT TO BE FUCKING AROUND DURINGLY IN YOUR LIFE.
If he does not understand this, he should not be considered reasonable. In this case, his life is not even equal to the life of an animal. Why? Because none of the known species of animals causes irreparable damage to the planet. And the man does.
requiemmm
Oh yes, thanks, you need to add "littering the planet" to the list of beggar's commandments. How scary to live ...
And most importantly, Russia is the most spiritual nation! Unlike well-fed countries.
Gauguin
The whole tsimes is that the 5% that everyone can buy and allow will gradually knock out the remaining 95%.
As a result, 5% will create formations to suppress any excitement against themselves, sho will cause an even greater outburst of 95% with a pronounced desire to divide everything by zero.
As a result: blood, lynching, gebnya
* drunks and other grubs are not taken into account
. Ideally, a consumption society implies the absence of a low-income population as such, only the middle and elite classes.
Gauguin
And whose will you be? From beggars, or a person who has satisfied his wishes?
Gauguin wrote:
Therefore, you should not be led by the false moralizing of the poor - this is just envy dressed in armor.
Heh, heh ... How is your moralizing truer than the deceitful moralizing of the poor?
And by the way, I hope you know the folk wisdom?
Do not renounce your wallet and prison.
This is a personal matter for everyone, it makes no sense to raise such questions - it makes no sense
Excessive consumption is indirectly related to the consumer society. The essence of modern society is in consumption, as in purpose and thought. For example, I do not get pleasure from food, I do not feel the desire to eat a certain dish, at the level of perception I do not understand the expression: "they cook deliciously there." The most fundamental difference is always the difference in thinking. My example does not quite point to the consumer, no, to have a desire to dine out a delicacy - not at all about the consumer society, the consumer will go to dine without even having the desire to eat, obeying the consumer instinct urging to do what you always do, to get what you always get, to save the face of society, its stable, measured work, which allows you to get comfort, consume - because you have to spend money, work - because, that money needs to be disposed of. Commodity-money-commodity, supply and demand - this is absorbed into the consciousness of people not as a science, a model, but as the laws of the universe. The world of mankind has grown so much that beyond its borders one cannot see the world in its most direct understanding. People have never obeyed the system so diligently, even drug dealers work through call centers, this is a trend, there is no need to shirk any crime.
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos The
speech is about the synthesis of "need" with "want" in the modern world. When I talked about "necessary" I meant Wishlist, no matter what they are based on, on the characteristics of character and taste or on fleeting hobbies for advertising or status. If by "necessary" we mean what is vital for a person, then it turns out that a piece of bread, a bottle of water and rags from the market will be enough. And this looks rather strange in the 21st century, with the movement of the so-called progress.
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos wrote:
I, for example, do not enjoy food
Wow, and this happens, which is rather strange for me personally. I have a narrow stomach, but at the same time I feel annoyed when I cannot taste all the variety of dishes before it is full.
Gauguin
without marijuana is somehow a chaste.
Morality is not in narrowing the circle of what a person needs, but in the fact that he sees the top of the Masau pyramid not only on the page, otherwise this very pyramid for a person seems to be an unattainable peak, everything is at the foot where it's warm. In general, of course, ideas have dried up: what to do next with society. At the beginning of the 20th century at this very time, only a hundred years ago you yourself know what things happened in the world, in people's lives. If we take strictly 100 years ago: September 15 - the first use of tanks in combat in the history of world wars. The British on the Somme threw 49 Mk.1 tanks against the Germans. In 15 days anniversary - they used new weapons instead of horses. It's like using combat mechs now, like in riddick.