M.J. Mandoki's Blog, page 2

A Weird Premonition for September 23rd to 27th, 2022

I am not someone who predicts the future. Although I am open-minded about people who can apparently do so, I have never claimed to be one of them. I have what I call “hunches” that have helped me throughout my life. So, I am hesitant to write about something that seems to have gone beyond a hunch.

Last month, in August, I had a dream. I actually don’t remember anything about the dream other than the fact that it was horrifying and that I woke up with the dates, August 23rd to August 27th, 2022 in my mind. I am sure that something is supposed to happen between those dates. And I am more sure about the fact that this so-called something will be a major event in the world that would impact a lot of people. I am leaning toward something political, but it could be business related.

What makes it more than a hunch? Every time ask my mind about it during meditation or simply a quiet time, the same non-specific horror is running through my body. I just feel terrible about. It feels like my mind is trying to warn me about something, but I just cannot put my finger on it.

I had this very feeling when I said good-bye to my mother who left to Europe at the beginning of September with the plan of returning to Canada in early October. I just had a bad feeling about her trip to Europe. Yet, despite this bad feeling, I also had a reassuring feeling that she would be able to come back. So, whatever is about to happen will not prevent her from getting on an airplane. I guess, it’s not going to be the end of the world!

I feel foolish sharing this idea publicly. However, I have had hunches before that I never shared with anyone, only to regret them. Maybe, this premonition is just nonesense, born out of some bad dream. This means that I volunteer for the possibility of looking foolish in front of the world. But if not, maybe we can learn about these strange feelings that go beyond simple hunches by at least acknowledging their often times annoying presence. If I turn out to be right, it means that I am onto something.

So, has anybody out there had any similar premonition lately? Or am I the only one stuck with the dates of between September 23 and September 27, 2022? Please, let me know if you are out there with the same feeling about these dates!

Monika Mandoki

Are Near-Death Experiences Veridical? A Philosophical Inquiry: Over 1900 people have looked at my PhD Thesis!

It’s unbelievable!  I just looked at my thesis website on Western University (University of Western Ontario)  and it showed that 1,958 people looked at my thesis, Are Near-Death Experiences Veridical: A Philosophical Inquiry, since July 23, 2021 when it became available.  This means that I had an average of 150 clicks on it every month for the past 13 months!

But not just the number of clicks I got on it, but also the number of downloads that is impressive.  Altogether, 1,708 people downloaded it!  So, people are not just checking it out, but reading it as well.

This is exceptionally interesting because, according to some internet sources, most PhD dissertations get an audience of 1 to 5 people a year even though they are now electronically available.  Some professors believe that the technical language and the specialization are to blame for getting just a handful of people to read a dissertation.  Well, not mine!

At this point, I think that I need to turn it into a book.  If people are interested in reading approximately 121,000 words (312 computer pages) in a technical language, then I am sure that a shorter version in a more publically accessible language can be a great selling book.  I think I just found my next project after my new novel, The Art of Revenge, finds a publishing home.

M. J. Mandoki

Free Book to Read!

Between July 27th and July31st, you can read my book, The Curse, for free.  I allowed people to read my book for free because I would like to get some feedbacks on it.  So, head over to Kindle on amazon.com and download the book for free.  Here is the link to it:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=M.+J.+Mandoki&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

The Curse by M. J. Mandoki

Please, don’t forget to let me know how you liked it!  Enjoy!

M. J. Mandoki

I am looking for a literary agent who loves revenge books. I would appreciate some help!

I am looking for a literary agent for my book, The Art of Revenge. I would like to find someone who loves revenge books. If you are a literary agent or if you know one who would appreciate a good revenge book written from a feminist perspective, please, contact me: mjmandoki@gmail.com

The following is the description of my work:

My proposed story The Art of Revenge is not new in concept; in fact, the story is as old as humanity.  The wife, Georgia, discovers that her husband, Maurice, is cheating on her with another woman.  She decides to take revenge on both her husband and his mistress.  What is new is her solution to the situation.  On the one hand, it would be tempting for some to just judge her action as immoral and demand that she take the morally right steps.  On the other hand, it would be tempting for others to desire a cheesy Hollywood story-ending where the bitter wife takes revenge on the sinful lovers and then drives into the sunset.  However, Georgia realizes on her journey that life is not that simple.  She takes her feminist inspiration from her aversion to a typical politician’s wife who holds her cheating husband’s hand in front of the cameras while he apologizes profusely for having hurt his family and his country.  Georgia knows that she could never become such a passive and meek woman as the politician’s wife.  She has rage inside that she needs to unleash.  Nevertheless, she also learns to appreciate the complexity of her situation.  She is not a cold-hearted woman.  She knows that, despite his betrayal, her husband is the love of her life.  Ultimately, with her private investigator friend, Olivia, and her outlaw biker acquaintance, Skinny Tyler, she handles the situation in her own unique way.

This contemporary story is generally classified as a crime thriller because of its revenge aspect.  However, it also possesses elements of romance, philosophical and psychological fictions, and comedy. The inspiration for this story came from several sources representing these elements:  Emily Brontё’s Wuthering Heights (1847), Stiegg Larsson’s The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Net (2009), and Olivia Goldsmith’s First Wives Club (1992).  Also, a series of philosophical works mainly from Simone De Beauvoir, bell hooks, and Jacques Derrida guides the characters’ insight into the complicated matter of revenge-taking. 

My work is approximately 87,000 words in length and I have written it in third person limited perspective following the main character.  I have also edited the work based on Renni Browne and Dave King’s guide book Self-Editing For Fiction Writers: How to Edit Yourself Into Print (2004).

Many thanks for the help in advance.

M. J. Mandoki

How to Force Oil Companies to Lower the Gas Price. Join Us–It Will Cost You Nothing!

I had it with the gas prices!  There are all sorts of excuses for the high price at the gas pump: from the Russian war to inflation.  But the U. S. Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg, said it right in his interview with CNN on June 6, 2022 when he claimed that this is nothing but corporate greed!  This means that it is time to fight back these large oil companies.  How?  The following is my idea.

We need to boycott these companies.  Of course, it is impossible to go without gas, and this is what the companies are counting on.  However, there is a way to boycott without going empty in the tank.  Here is how to do it in the appropriate way. 

We pick one company to boycott and demand that this particular company lower the price to less than one (1) American dollar per litre (or 3.8 American dollars per gallon).  I suggest that we pick the Shell Company because it is truly international, which means that people in almost all countries can participate in this boycott.  So, we demand that Shell lower its price to less than one (1) American dollar per litre, and we refuse to fill up at their stations until they do.  So, we can go to any other company to fill up except for Shell.  If we all stay away from Shell, their corporate profit will fall and eventually they will have to give into the demand.  As soon as they lower the price to less than one (1)  American dollar per litre, we switch to Shell only: we fill up nowhere else but at Shell.  Naturally, this move needs no incentive since people automatically line up at the gas station where it is the cheapest.  As a result, all other companies will be forced to lower the price to less than one (1) American dollar per litre to compete with the Shell price.  Hence, we lowered the price.  At this time, we can fill up at any gas station of any company whoever sells below one (1) American dollar per litre.  However, as soon as a company raises the price to over this amount, we abandon that company’s gas stations.  If they all raise the price, we go back to boycotting Shell.  This way, we can control the price and corporate greed.

Here are the steps again:

We pick one company to boycott–the Shell Company–and refuse to fill up at their stations until they lower the price to less than one (1) American dollar per litre (or 3.8 American dollars per gallon).  (This may take weeks and possibly months depending on their panic.)When Shell gives in and lowers the price to less than one (1) American dollar per litre, we only fill up at the Shell stations and nowhere else.When other companies lower their prices to less than one (1) American dollar per litre, we can fill up at any such company’s stations.If they all raise their prices above (1) American dollar per litre, we go back to boycotting Shell.

If we want corporate greed to stop, we need to pull together until an alternative to oil, which is widely available, is presented to us for better environmental protection.  We, citizens of the world, deserve to be able to drive to work at a reasonable price.  These corporations should not hide behind any excuse to raise the price to an unreasonable level as long as they are making ever increasing profits of billions of dollars quarterly.   There is no excuse for such a greed!

I am starting today by boycotting Shell.  Please, join me!  Let’s take our power back!  This will not cost you anything.  It might perhaps just take you an extra block to drive to the next station which is not Shell.  Remember, this strategy works by number.  The more of us join in, the greater chance we have to lower the price.  I call upon you, citizens of the world, to unite in this effort to fight back and lower the gas price!  Thank you for your participation in advance.

M. J. Mandoki

The Importance of Speaker Attribution

Speaker Attribution

Some writers and editors swear that the right speaker attribution is almost always said.  These people argue that the use of a variety of verbs does harm to the writing.  For example, Rene Browne and David King, in their book Self-Editing for Fiction Writers (2004), claim that “The reason for those well-intentioned attempts at variety don’t work is that verbs other than said tend to draw attention away from the dialogue” (89).  In their opinion, the use of a variety is a sign of amateur writing.  I respectfully disagree with their position.  I believe that whether one uses a variety of verbs depends on what kind of book the person is writing.  In fact, most of the time, I would argue, a variety of verbs may be necessary.

To demonstrate my point, I would like to offer an indirectly told short story.  It consists only of a few lines.  In this very short story, a woman tells the tale of a previous meeting with her doctor to her friend.  Here it is:

I met my doctor on the street yesterday.  He asked me how I was doing.  I complained to him that I had stomach trouble.  He wanted to know if I had traveled lately.  I told him I did not.  Strangely, he inquired at this point if I even had a passport.  In my surprise I didn’t know what to say, so I denied it.  I lied that I had ever had a passport.

This is an indirect way of telling a story because the conversation is not cited.  I highlighted the important verbs to see that their use is necessary to accurately reveal what went on between the woman and the doctor.  Now, note how it looks like when I change this to a direct conversation.  Here is the direct form:

I met my doctor yesterday.

“How are you doing?” he asked.

“I have stomach trouble,” I complained.

“Have you traveled anywhere lately?” he wanted to know.

“I didn’t,” I told him.

“Do you even have a passport?” he inquired.

In my surprise I didn’t know what to say, so I denied it.  “I have never had a passport,” I lied.

In this direct communication form, most verbs were simply transferred to the end of the line to be used as speaker attributions.  The verbs from the indirect communication were not lost, just provided in a different form. Now, the “he said, she said” stylists would say that it is not necessary to keep the speaker attributions when the story is told directly quoting the participants.  So, this is the version they prefer:

I met my doctor yesterday.

“How are you doing?” he said.

“I have stomach trouble,” I said.

“Have you traveled anywhere lately?”

“I didn’t.”

“Do you even have a passport?”

In my surprise I didn’t know what to say, so I denied it.  “I have never had a passport.”

Certainly, the he said, she said scenario speeds things up.  However, this form reveals the poor quality of the conversation when it is turned back to indirect speech.  Here is their indirect version of he said, she said:

I met my doctor on the street yesterday.  He said how I was doing.  I said I had stomach trouble.  He said if I had traveled lately.  I said I did not.  Strangely, he said at this point if I ever had a passport.  In my surprise I didn’t know what to say, so I denied it.  I said I had never had a passport.

Does it sound sophisticated?  Actually, it is not even intelligible.  But, even if I correct the grammatical mistake in places, where the word asked  should have appeared instead of said,the text still seems flat.  In fact, it seems like a colloquial, broken social media creation of a teenager.

The he said, she said scenario may speed up the conversation, but it takes the quality away from it.  To repair the problem of the loss of quality, often times, people try to replace speaker attributions by beats, just like I did in the last line: In my surprise I didn’t know what to say, so I denied it.  Although this breaks up the flow of the dialogue, the die-hard he said, she said, stylists still prefer this solution over speaker attributions.  Here is what they would propose:

I met my doctor yesterday.

“How are you doing?” he said.

“I have stomach trouble,” I said.

He wanted to know more about this trouble.  “Have you traveled anywhere lately?”

I told him, “I didn’t.”

He inquired further into the matter.  “Do you even have a passport?”

In my surprise I didn’t know what to say, so I denied it.  “I have never had a passport.”

Did anything change?  Maybe.  However, in this scenario the beats have simply become a replacement of speaker attributions transferred to the beginning of the sentences.  What the he said, she said stylists miss is that often times they just sneak the missing information back into the text they managed to eliminate in the first place. 

The bigger problem is that the he said, she said style carries the wrong analogy the defenders of this style rely on in order to justify its use.  The fans of this style often compare the role of the dialogue to a theatre performance.  They claim that the use of speaker attribution is like a person running on a stage during a play and asking the audience, “Did you see what the character just did?”:  It basically calls attention to itself.  However, this is a mistaken idea.  Speaker attribution was designed for a purpose: a piece of fiction is not like a theatre.  A theatrical performance takes place in a three-dimensional universe where the characters don’t have to stand on the stage and declare, “It is the doctor talking now!”  In a three-dimensional universe the actors can stand on the stage and talk because everybody can hear and see them–no speaker attributions are necessary. 

However, this theatrical image is not comparable to storytelling.  In storytelling, the writer tells the story of something that has already happened or something that has never happened where the three-dimensional theatre strictly exists in the writer’s mind and nowhere else.  Writing is a first-person effort where nobody can see those three-dimensional images that are present in the writer’s mind.  Unlike the theatre action, which is publically available to all who are present in the room, the writer’s world is privately present; this is a completely different type of world that does not mimic a theatrical, public event.  The writer’s job is to translate this private world into the written page for the reader to imagine it.  The storytelling is the transfer of images from one person to another without a three-dimensional visual hint.

In this transfer of images, the writer may choose to share more or less of the details of his/her image creation.  In certain stories, the writer maximally allows the reader to use as much imagination as the reader wishes or capable of accomplishing.  In this case, very few speaker attributions are necessary.  For example, the writer can create the line, “I had enough!” and let the reader decide what level of volume the character used to say the line.  Since not all readers are created equal, a reader, for example, with a non-confrontational personality will read the line imagining a lower tone of voice than a reader with a confrontational personality who is generally loud in life.  This maximal amount of freedom creates a variety of possible interpretations of the characters and the entire novel.  However, this could be a double-edge sword where the writer’s intent may be misunderstood.  This maximalist approach can potentially backfire, if the writer is not careful.

In other stories, the writer may not want to be maximally generous to the reader (many times to avoid misunderstanding).  For example, if the writer creates an atypical character, an atypical situation, and/or an atypical chain of events, the writer might want to restrict the amount of imagination the reader uses while reading story.  In this case, speaker attribution  becomes necessary beyond the he said, she said.  For example, if the writer creates the line, “I had enough!” for an atypical character who responds with an unusual and unexpected level of volume, the speaker attribution becomes essential.  There are subtle differences between the interpretations of the following lines: 1) “I had enough!” she cried out.  2) “I had enough!” she yelled.  3) “I had enough!” she howled.  These interpretations are carrying slightly different volumes and, hence, slightly different emotions.  When the writer wants to be in control of how he/she wants the reader to interpret the line, the use of speaker attribution becomes essential.  The atypical character might have a specific emotion that a reader would never guess because the reader would never behave in the manner that this character does.  This means that, in this case, the writer needs to play the role that a sound engineer and a cinematographer would in a movie.  To create the distance between the reader and the character in certain situations, the writer needs to provide the sound and the picture to the reader even if this sound and picture make the reader uncomfortable.  For instance, it might be essential to make the non-confrontational reader uncomfortable when forcing that reader to hear the character yell out on top of his lungs: “I had enough!”

Ultimately, there is no one-size fits all to novel writing.  Whether the speaker attribution becomes necessary depends on the type of novel one is writing.  Currently, I am writing a novel where a woman in rage is taking revenge on her husband’s mistress.  I am using speaker attributions because I want to dictate to my readers how to read her lines in terms of pitch, volume and tempo.  I want my readers to become uncomfortable with the crazy woman who at some point decides to shovel horse manure into the mistress’ car.  I certainly do not want to have my readers left to their own devices with an atypical character who has nearly lost her mind in the midst of her fury.  Sometimes, speaker attributions are necessary to have tighter control of the work.  Other times, the writer can just let the readers’ imagination go wild.  There is no right or wrong answer to use of speaker attribution.  Each writer should just do what works in a particular novel.

Write to M. J. Mandoki

Why Does Real-Life Magick Work?

Magickal World

Those who practice magick know that it works.  But many do not know why.  How is it possible?  And, why should it work?

What is magick?  Amber K (2015) states that “magick involves using forces to affect willed change in our own perceptions or consciousness” (3).  So, real-life magick is not a parlour trick or an imaginary supernatural force exercised over natural force.  It is rather an internal change within the person that has a positive result of changing a person’s life.  Is it than just a psychological change?  No, it is not.  The important part is that reality around the person reflects back the change that happens inside the person.  How is this possible?

If reality is physical in nature, magick should not be possible.  The physical universe cannot respond to internal changes in the person.  For example, if I learn to believe that I am lucky, this belief should not make me luckier in a fixed, predictable physical world.  So, reality cannot be physical in nature if magick works.

If reality has both mental and physical aspects, it should also not work.  If the mind has the power to change, but the physical reality is fixed and predictable, then, changes should not take place in physical reality as a result of any mental change.  So, magick should not work in a dualistically designed mental-physical system either.

The only way that magick can work is if reality is entirely mental in nature.  In a mental reality, everything is made of mental force or power, and this reality allows for changes made outside the person’s internally perceived world.  Amber K explains it in the following way: “We know we can manipulate energy, and we do it all the time in rituals.  And if even solid things are really (or sometimes) energy waves, then they are not as rigid and static as they seem, but susceptible to change by the power of imagination, will, and directed energy” (37).  Basically, if the internal world of an individual and the external world of people, in which they collectively participate, are made of the same energy, then, reality in the external world can reflect changes that happen within the internal world of an individual.  They just have to be made of the same energy.  Of course, this energy has to be mental in nature because the mental power of imagination, will and humanly directed energy can affect it.  Thus, reality has to be mental in nature at the end.

All in all, this means that reality is mental in nature if magick works.  Naturally, those who do not work with magick may deny that magick is possible at all.  But those of us who made it work before with good results know that it is not only possible but that it is very real indeed.

Similar articles:

Book Review: True Magick by Amber K  Are Near-Death Experiences Veridical? A Philosophical Inquiry,  Why Is Mind-Body Dualism Problematic?  Materialism Is Not Just Metaphysically Mistaken But It Is Also Dangerous,  Why Can the Brain Not Be Responsible for Near-Death Experiences?

Monika Mandoki, PhD

Why is mind-body dualism problematic?

Do people have both a separate mind and a separate body?

Even though most people feel that having a separate mind and a separate body is intuitive, this philosophical notion is problematic.  It does not seem to be workable.

The first problem is with the mind-body interaction.  If the mind is a mental substance and the body is a physical substance, how do they interact?  Two physical objects have surfaces and, therefore, they can interact by touching, pushing and shoving each other.  However, the mind and body are not alike.  The body has a surface because it is physical, but the mind is not an object and does not have a surface to make contact with the physical body.  This means that, because they are so different, they do not seem to have a way to interact with each other.

The second problem is the allocation of certain attributes.  For example, it is easy to say that thinking belongs to the mind and muscle motion belongs to the body.  But, what about seeing?  Does it belong to the body or does it belong to the mind?  Since eye injury can cause blindness, a lot of people would think that seeing requires the eyes, which means that it is a physical trait.  However, people do see during dreaming when their eyes are closed.  They also see during out-of-body and near-death experiences.  So, it seems that the eyes are not necessary to see visual images.  Of course, seeing cannot be strictly a mental trait either because of the possibility of blindness without the eyes.  So, it is unclear whether seeing is a mental or a physical trait.

Some people say that maybe seeing is both a mental trait and a physical trait.  This seems simpler.  If the person has a body, eyes are required.  If the person does not have a body, mind is required.  This sounds like a great solution.  However, if the mind is enough, why do people have bodies then?  What is the point of having a body?  After all, the mind has a chance to survive death and the body does not.  So, why do people have bodies in the first place?  It seems superfluous.  Therefore, this is not a solution to the dilemma either.

Mind-body dualism has always been problematic for philosophers.  As intuitive it may sound to people, it is difficult to make it work.

Similar articles:

Are Near-Death Experiences Veridical? A Philosophical Inquiry,  Materialism Is Not Just Metaphysically Mistaken But It Is Also Dangerous,  Why Can the Brain Not Be Responsible for Near-Death Experiences?

Monika Mandoki, PhD

The Sceptics Claim that Near-Death Experiences Are Not Real: A Philosophical Reason Why the Sceptics Are Wrong About Their Conclusion

How real is reality?

The reality of near-death experiences (NDEs) have been questioned by the sceptics.   The sceptics have put forth a number of physiological and psychological explanations for the cause of NDEs: hypoxia, hypercarbia, endorphins, katemine, temporal lobe seizure, depersonalization, fantasy proneness, cultural influences and so on.  These explanations lead the sceptics to believe that NDEs are not real.  They are just images produced by the dying brain.

Susan Blackmore claims that the dying person picks up some sensory information that the person uses, together with previous knowledge and the power of imagination, to piece together the event.  For example, a person who sees the operating room during her operation while dying simply registers some pictures, sounds and tactile sensations during the event.  Then, she assembles this information, using previous knowledge about operating rooms and her colourful imagination in order to come up with the result.  Basically, the person reconstructs the reality of the operating room out of sensory information,  previous knowledge and colourful imagination.  But the experience is not real.

The claim that NDEs are not real is problematic even on the empirical level.  For example, Janice Miner Holden (pp. 185-212) reviewed ninety-three reports of out-of-body perception during near-death experiences and she found that ninety-two percent were accurate, verified by outside sources.  It is very difficult to claim that people make up these images when these images have such high accuracy rate.

Beyond the empirical proof, the philosophical interpretation is also troublesome.  People who have NDEs claim that the experience is real.  On the other hand, the sceptics basically say that it is not real, just seems to be real even though they experience it as real.  Their argument is that even though the experience is not real, it seems as real as the waking state of consciousness the rest of the people exist in.  However, if this claim is taken seriously, the reality of people’s lives are in trouble.  After all, if both the NDEs and the waking state of consciousness are experienced as completely real, then, what makes one experience real but not the other?  In short, how does one determine what is real if human beings cannot trust their experiences to tell what is real and they can be so easily mislead by these experiences?

If the above sceptical claim is taken seriously, it is possible to argue that the waking state is not real either.  René Descartes has advanced a possible argument in the seventeenth century that the waking state is not real.  He argues that people can experience a dream as real, so it is possible that they can also mistake the waking state as real.  Maybe, the waking state is a dream and people just think that it is real.  Descartes could be right.  It is possible that death is the moment of awakening from this dream to a state that is even more real, a reality that the sceptics so nonchalantly dismiss.  Of course, it is possible, but only possible, given the uncertainty of people’s experiential status in this argument.  The point is that this entire argument removes people’s ability to figure out and rely on which human experiences are real and which human experiences are not.  After all, if NDEs seem only real and they are not, maybe the reality people usually experience seems only real and it is not.

Basically, the sceptics of NDEs need to be careful about removing people’s ability to tell what is real.  If the sceptics claim that one experience is perceived as real as the so-called real reality, but it is still not real, they put people’s ability to tell what is a real reality in jeopardy.  In this case, the sceptics have to advance a further argument about why anybody should think that the world perceived in the waking state of consciousness is real.

Similar articles: The Veridicality of Near-Death Experiences, Are Near-Death Experiences Veridical? A Philosophical Inquiry Materialism Is Not Just Metaphysically Mistaken But It Is Also Dangerous

Monika Mandoki, PhD

Materialism Is Not Just Metaphysically Mistaken But It Is Also Dangerous

Materialism has altered people’s metaphysical belief, economic focus and moral–and in large part ethical–standard, which has negatively affected the overall quality of life.  Materialism is not just a failed metaphysical theory but a dangerous pursuit.  It should be given up.

Materialism is attractive but flawed 

Materialism seems to fulfill the human intuition that there is a world independently existing of the human mind that all conscious beings share.  There is something permanent, stable and objective about it that human beings seem to be able to rely on.  However, materialism is false.  Despite its appearance, the theory is flawed.  As Bernardo Kastrup argues, materialism puts a substance into nature that it cannot prove to exist, it places this substance outside the mind and it tries to reduce the mind to this rather abstract version of substance it created.  Kastrup explains this using the metaphor of a painter who creates a self-portrait, learns to believe that he is really his self-portrait, and tries to explain how it is possible that he is really his self-portrait and not the painter who produced the portrait.  Basically, materialism projects matter into reality and then tries to convince everybody that he or she is not the self, the soul or the mind that each person experiences, but the body to which this self, soul or mind belongs.  Materialism falsely creates something extra in order to reduce the mind to it.

Besides the false metaphysical portrayal of reality, materialism is also dangerous.  It deeply affects people in a number of areas of their lives.

1. Metaphysical Belief and Preoccupation With the Body

The metaphysical belief that all the person is the body leads to preoccupation with the body.  For example, Carl Cederstörm and André Spicer argue that people suffer from “wellness syndrome”.  Wellness has become a central preoccupation that rose to the level of moral obligation.  People need to be strong enough, tough enough, thin enough, sober enough, perfect enough and beautiful enough.  They feel obligated to have the ideal body, since there is nothing else other than the body.  If the body is all there is, nothing else can be important.

Since materialism has nothing to offer other than the material body, people try to fill a void inside.  There is no soul to nourish, self to discover or mind to cherish.  The void is deep and it needs to be filled with something.  Since the body is offered as the only “thing” that exists, the body becomes the focal point.  The emptiness of materialism creates a dangerous preoccupation with the body that its metaphysical belief now advocates

2. Economic Focus

Since the material universe has nothing but matter in it, the goal of existence is defined solely in materialistic standard.  This creates an extreme form of capitalism and the pursuit of economical gain at a speed Jonathan Crary calls the “24/7 universe”.  While previous eras had busy times and down times for people, the current era has a built-in non-stop economic pace.  Most human needs have been turned into commodities.  Corporations can offer up junk food, specialty drinks, porn magazines, internet friendships, life coaches and even religious televangelists on a silver platter.  No area of life is ever exempted.  Naturally, the goal is to posses as much of the tangible reality as one can in the only life a person lives from birth to death.  Success is measured by the person’s bank account in this system because the higher the number on the account, the more of the tangible universe can be purchases and possessed. 

Of course, this economic focus pushes all other interests in the background.  Art is insignificant if it is not expensive.  Contribution to charity is only important if it leads to more brand name recognition and more revenue for a company.  Spirituality is great if it leads to more sales of yoga mats, religious scriptures and self-help books.  Everything is defined in terms of economics and nothing can rise above this materialistically defined universe.  All values are substandard to the ultimate value of materialism.

3. Moral and/or ethical standard

Since matter is the only form of reality, which is expressed through the body, and, since economic focus is the goal of human activity, which can be defined in terms of the number in someone’s bank account and ability to possess tangible items, happiness in this materially defined universe can only be ultimate defined in terms of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. This is the best people can do.  Whatever maximizes pleasure is good and whatever creates pain is bad or evil.  Since there is no God, no greater spiritual force, no enduring mind and no afterlife to create an alternative standard that can offer something more enduring, well-defined or absolute for moral and ethical standard, the pleasure and pain principle is all that is left.

Pleasure and pain principle based on materialism is all pervasive.  Corporations can maximally exploit their own employees to achieve their own maximal happiness and employees are willing to work to exhaustion to chase after their own happiness.  Ultimately, the system knows no boundary.  At the end, those exhausted people who cannot succeed in this system perceive themselves as a failure and give up.  According to Franco Berardi, suicide is on the rise as a result of this materialistically conceived system.  But the system destroys not just human lives.  Humanity is also facing an environmental catastrophe where even mother Earth is making her way to the exit door.  Since materialism cannot offer a moral/ethical standard for human beings that rises above the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain, the end result is an egoistic pursuit that produces suffering, chaos and death.

The Final Verdict

Materialism is dangerous.  This philosophical theory has done a lot of damage beyond metaphysical misconception of reality.  It has created a belief that is body oriented.  It has forced people to chase after money and possession.  And, it has carved out an unsustainable moral/ethical system that leads to suffering, death and extinction.  Materialism needs to be replaced with something more valuable and more healthy for both people and the planet.  It is time to revisit the theory of philosophical idealism!

Similar articles: The Veridicality of Near-Death Experiences, Are Near-Death Experiences Veridical? A Philosophical Inquiry

Monika Mandoki, PhD