Philosophy 103

fit in to Sartre, a philosopher from the World War II and Cold War eras, nation provide create the founding round them, olibanum manipulating their deceases. By doing this, they create certain limitations, speckle to a fault creating more possibilities. Sartre created his philosophical surmisal at a sentence in history when more people were adequate to afford more amenities and luxuries for themselves. more than and more industries, companies, and manufacturers were popping up around the world. This created a global human railcargon in possessing more amenities, especi ally in a democratic hostelry.People were now commensurate to non only afford the items they involve in order to sustain a normal lookstyle, only when they could own things that could agree them and bring them happiness. This is a disembodied spiritstyle that has keep on d wizardness today. M or so(prenominal) people argue that the habit of buying extra items as contrasted to buying those t hat be vital has produce worse oer time. Many of us wonder why this is the case. Sartre states that people may not become what they wish to be because they argon in any case busy focalizationing on their physical possessions instead of nidusing on modify their moral selves.It is the righteousness of the someone to nail down what is really measurable in their stick ups. Sartre as well seduces a few more important notations towards his theory. First, many people think that they provide only be defined by the items in which they possess. People think they provide only be accepted socially if they possess items that be discovered to be hypnotic to opposites. People in any case think they atomic number 18 only defined by what they flummox, not by who they atomic number 18 as people. However, Sartre also says, in reality, the world in which we live in is not composed of all the visible possessions.But we tend to get dispatch when we do possess these. It is our way of escaping obligation. A free market forever manipulates us, and it is easy for us to fall into its trap. When choosing whether or not to splurge on sumptuousness items, we tend to evaluate our lifestyles and consider what be values truly are. When we evaluate our lifestyles, we effectuate ourselves in which we think entrust purify our overall lifestyle. Our values become our material possessions, therefore for createting what is chastely signifi senst in our lives.It is all up to the way in which we evaluate things and our ability in attempting to stand pat our negative and insignificant assumptions of ourselves and the lifestyles we use up to maintain. When doing this, we normally create common arrays for ourselves to abide by. We only will invest in the most pricy items because we believe it will make us appear more superior to everyone else. By doing this, we forget about what is important our knowingness of our spending habits with our money.For example, when i t comes to buying a car, we forget about the role a car is meant to play in our lives. As opposed to focusing on its ability to get us from place to place, we only focus on the way it looks, how fast it can go, how good the sound system is, how in high spirits we can have it lifted, etc. By doing this, people lose sight of what is morally important homogeneous shelter, food, and ones own livelihood. We see this a locoweed in our everyday lives. You see this on billboards, over the radio, in magazines, in movies, and in pauseicular on telecasting. According to dictionary. om, a trafficker is defined as A person whose duties include the identification of the goods and serve in demand(p) by a set of consumers, as well as the marketing of those goods and services on behalf of a company. This meaning that the channel of the marketer is to convince the average consumer that they charter their product, and this is where more oft then not people confuse Luxuries versus needs. First lets die by defining need. In the strictest genius of the word, a need is something that you have to have to get by in this world a necessity.You need food, shelter, c dance bandhing, medical care, which are all examples of the basics. You will probably bang physical suffering of some fork if you dont have your needs met. On the other hand, a Luxury is something that you desire &8212 something you would standardised to have. But by no means will you suffer in any way except perhaps genial anguish, if you dont get the thing you exigency. Wants quite often fall into the category of Luxuries, nice to have, hardly the world wont end without them. The hard part comes when you live in a roaring capitalistic federation, like ours.The western standard of living is so high that rase many of our poor tend to live above the level of basic needs. In 1998, 97% of poor Americans (as defined by the Census Bureau) owned a television &8212 something that could definitely be conside red a luxury. In many third-world countries, less than 30% of the commonwealth sluice has access to electricity, which most westerners would consider an absolute necessity. My intention is not to make anyone feel guilty &8212 its simply to orchestrate out that the distinction between motive and need is often relative.It depends on the playing area in which you live, the company you keep, the lifestyle you admit, and the expectations of the society around you. We are influenced, every day, by the popular culture around us. Television, magazines, movies, and publicise have all done a splendid job of programming us to think that we need a lot of excess consumable goods. Pretend that you are watching TV or flipping through your favorite magazine and see an ad for something awesome. Suddenly, your heart speeds up, and you get a tingly tincture in your gut. Its sinless, how had you ever lived without it before?You blush right to the store, what? You dont have any remaining in s tock? Your heart sinks and you feel a rush of disappointment. You spend the backup man of the day moping because you couldnt find it anywhere. Now, this might be a bit of an exaggeration, but its not far moody the mark for some people. How often have you learned of a new product and were certain that you dead had to have it? What if you had never seen the ad? Would your life be any worse off? Its as if the knowledge that something exists causes the need for it. so brings up the age-old saying of belongings up with the Joneses.With the advent of the global society, the Joneses are not just the people adjacent door anymore. They include movie stars and billionaires and fanciful people on TV that dont even really exist. But we hold these ethnic music up as the standard against which we should prize our own lives. Just because Bill provide has a multi-million dollar house, we think ours is as well small. Certainly, no one is suggesting that one gives external everything they own and become a monk, but it is important that one strikes a offset between those things that they have to have and the things that they would like to have.It is also important that people be able to prioritize their spending. The goal is to focus on those things that will really correct ones quality of life, sort of than just look crummy. Heres a perfect example of prioritizing between two wants. Wouldnt it be nice to retire early? non have to work, spend your time doing what you want? And lets say that while you are view about retiring(a) early, you are also looking to buy a house. You could recognise the $500,000 home with 10 bedrooms, or you could choose the smaller, less-expensive house that meets all of your basic needs.If you choose the expensive home, you can probably flatter retiring early goodbye. But, if you decide that retiring early would improve your quality of life more than having a huge flashy house, the choice is simple. This coincides with Sartres theor y of self-responsibility. He defines it as individuals are answerable for their choice, i. e. , they are the incontestable author of their act. This means that whatever decision a person makes, whether it be good or bad, is their own private responsibility.For example, when a professional supporter is caught victimise by using steroids, throwing a fight, or betting on themselves, etc. they are personally responsible for the actions that take place thereafter. This also applies to Sartres theory on responsibility for others. He states that, in choosing for ones self, one is thus also choosing for others and is to that extent responsible for the others. So by having the professional athlete cheat, he or she is also alter others, such as fans, the teams image, and their teammates, with their actions.Sartres teachings on existentialism are a perfect example for the outcome of Luxuries versus necessities. His idea of personal responsibility and the responsibility of others shows that in Sartres eyes every consumer is responsible for themselves and if their actions cause a negative reaction on the lay of society they person responsible for this permute be held accountable. When choosing between necessities and luxuries its up to ones own moral understanding to decide what is considered a necessity or what is a luxury. So next time your out buying something think to yourself what variety of effect could this it have on society?