Difference between revisions of "Talk:Materialism"
(→Economics isn't materialism?: Why do you say that?) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::How are race, gender and wealth superficial? A poor black female is certainly not the same as a rich white male, in my experience. Also, the quote in the quotes section does not have a name associated with it, and is linked to a website written by a man with a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamental forces which are: gravity, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force. Furthermore, the sentence "Materialism denies that most great intellectual breakthroughs were the result of faith in the unseen" has no associated explanation whatsoever, and probably assumes that it is true because most scientists had faith in the unseen, without realizing that that might not be the ''cause'' of the breakthrough. -JZim | ::How are race, gender and wealth superficial? A poor black female is certainly not the same as a rich white male, in my experience. Also, the quote in the quotes section does not have a name associated with it, and is linked to a website written by a man with a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamental forces which are: gravity, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force. Furthermore, the sentence "Materialism denies that most great intellectual breakthroughs were the result of faith in the unseen" has no associated explanation whatsoever, and probably assumes that it is true because most scientists had faith in the unseen, without realizing that that might not be the ''cause'' of the breakthrough. -JZim | ||
| + | ::: Race at least is superficial. Why do you say that the quote is written by someone with a "fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamental forces"? As for the cause of the breakthroughs, see [[Natural science#beginnings]]; it was a cause. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 7 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 01:58, November 8, 2008
I think this needs a full citation for the book you used. --John 00:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Yeah... I think we need citations on some of this. Barikada 21:24, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Economics isn't materialism?
This article states that Democrats tend to be more materialistic than Republicans, however, it cites economics as an issue which Republicans traditionally focus on, and uses this as evidence that they are less (or not) materialistic. Well, my issue with this is that as far I can guage through my knowledge of the concept, economic is the truest form of materialism! It is essentially an axiomatic, consensus-based system of trading commodity for hypothetical value, is it not? Green paper or shiny metals in exchange for useful goods? Perhaps if this article could explain this ostensible contradiction away by explaining that Republicans are more likely to view it as a vital organizing device for society, or at least, that they are prone to downplaying this aspect of the hypocrisy. Just sayin'.
Hollybibble 17:25, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
- We definitely need citations for this article, maybe quote some democrats and show their materialistic nature. Or evidence supporting the claims of a trend in democratic policies to only focus on superficial things like gender, race, and wealth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discipleof88 (talk)
- How are race, gender and wealth superficial? A poor black female is certainly not the same as a rich white male, in my experience. Also, the quote in the quotes section does not have a name associated with it, and is linked to a website written by a man with a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamental forces which are: gravity, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force. Furthermore, the sentence "Materialism denies that most great intellectual breakthroughs were the result of faith in the unseen" has no associated explanation whatsoever, and probably assumes that it is true because most scientists had faith in the unseen, without realizing that that might not be the cause of the breakthrough. -JZim
- Race at least is superficial. Why do you say that the quote is written by someone with a "fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamental forces"? As for the cause of the breakthroughs, see Natural science#beginnings; it was a cause. Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- How are race, gender and wealth superficial? A poor black female is certainly not the same as a rich white male, in my experience. Also, the quote in the quotes section does not have a name associated with it, and is linked to a website written by a man with a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamental forces which are: gravity, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force. Furthermore, the sentence "Materialism denies that most great intellectual breakthroughs were the result of faith in the unseen" has no associated explanation whatsoever, and probably assumes that it is true because most scientists had faith in the unseen, without realizing that that might not be the cause of the breakthrough. -JZim