Class Notes (838,702)
Canada (511,054)
Philosophy (1,300)

Mar 21.rtf

3 Pages
Unlock Document

Philosophy 2074F/G
Dean Proessel

"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 marketing machine. it is thefundamental problemof humanity. That, weareall attractedby thefancy package..... Objections: 1) it doesnot vialateour autonomy 2) our non-market desiresaresatisfied 3) Levitt'scriticism Waideis trying to arguethat they areall wrong. Waide: 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? Reasonsare: 1)connectswith Machan'spaper violating theautonomy is not theo
More Less

Related notes for Philosophy 2074F/G

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.