"you arewhat you own"
Ultimately for Waide, if you falls into this assumption, you will belesshappy.
It doesnot matter what you own, but what thetheoverall message.
Theideais that, insteadof fullfill thevirtuewhich theadvertisement is talking about by hardwork
ing, by practiceit, peopletendto purchasetheproduct which we maynever want or need, to conv
incethemselvesthat they own suchvirtue, they own suchnon-market product.
Theideology: you needto own morestuff, which needsto debt. Theconcern of Waideis wenegl
ect non-market desireswhich we cannot buy. In theendleadsto thequestion: how would oneindi
vidual livesalife of excellence？
It seemstherefore, webecamealesshappy personliving in theconsuming world, practicing false
virtuesby purchasing junksthat we may never need.
In theend: doyou agreewith theideaof "you arewhat you own"?
Peoplein today'ssociety, aremoreor lessinfluencedby theproduct we buy. Not only that theite
mswe bought alsobrought usadditional need, want, desire, it cultivateour virtueandreplant the
productsinstead, in away createsanew but falsevirtueof theconsuming world. If you don't hav
ethisproduct, you donot cherishyour friendship. Sincewe arefriends, it is great if wehavethes
amedevices.If you don't haveanIphone,you aresoout of fasion.
Sincemorepeoplearebuying in theidea, moredesireanddemandcreatedby themarketers, more
andmoreproductsmanufactured. It seemsis aform of dumping of thenewproduct, robbing peo
ple'smoney.As long asmarketersareconvincepeoplebuying more, wearein away fueling the
it is thefundamental problemof humanity. That, weareall attractedby thefancy package.....
1) it doesnot vialateour autonomy
2) our non-market desiresaresatisfied
Waideis trying to arguethat they areall wrong.
Associative advertising is not violation of our autonomy. So, it claims thereis nothing worng with
advertisement. Theadvertisement is sopowerful to determineyou to buy something. Thearguem
ent is that theadvertisersshould beashamedof making usbuying thosestuff. Waide'sarguement
is that, it may not beviolating our autonomy, however, it is still objectionable. Why?
violating theautonomy is not theo