celebrity obssessive culture?!

[cacian]

or is the media hand on it , a lucrative business on the back of people.
I personally see it as Media way of making filthy money and blaming it on the average person.
To hear media going on about it as ''the people who want it/demand it'' is unfounded.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What do you think?

[cacian]

What do you think?

I think it is media related.
Take the media factor out of it and no one would really care.

[tylerdf]

its a culture of envy.

[JuniperWoolf]

I hear that our culture is obsessed with celebrities often, but I don't know anyone who is (maybe I've bumped into one or two, and they're people that I barely know). I hear about it more often than I witness it.

[LilJoe44]

I hear that our culture is obsessed with celebrities often, but I don't know anyone who is.

Agree.

I don't think that it's we're obsessed with the celebrity, but of the insanely idiotic things celebrities do.....

It tells us that having it all, materially speaking, doesn't necessarily translate into happiness.

[Delta40]

Apart from pining, whining teens, I don't think we're an obsessed culture. Although there are numerous mags out there, the only time I come across them is in a waiting room and even then I go for a Readers Disgust.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I also think it is more media driven. However, I also think that the lusting after wealth and status, as represented by these celebrities, is a natural human drive so there is some play the other way. It's nothing new that the media manipulates human drives for the sake of profit though, is it?

[Darcy88]

Its an atavistic social ritual hearkening back to polytheism, aristocratic warrior culture and royalty.

[NikolaiI]

Some parts of our culture are. I do think some of the entertainment shows take it too far, as you say, but like Juniper I don't experience too much of that. My life is centered around other things, and will always be, and I'm happy it is.

One thing you can do is set an example, by your own life, of someone who is not obsessed with media tailored personalities.

[Alexander III]

Its an atavistic social ritual hearkening back to polytheism, aristocratic warrior culture and royalty.

You call it atavistic but i dont think i agree, it is in the manifest source an essential human characteristic to deify certain people. It is thanks to this impulse that art and literature and history are and alway habeen given such importance. A 19 year old girls obsession and deification of snooki arrives from the same human instinct of my mental deification of Napoleon or James Dean or Caravagio. To call it atavistic seems as wrong as calling family bonds atavistic. It is In its primeal form an essential component of humanity.

[hawthorns]

You call it atavistic but i dont think i agree, it is in the manifest source an essential human characteristic to deify certain people. It is thanks to this impulse that art and literature and history are and alway habeen given such importance. A 19 year old girls obsession and deification of snooki arrives from the same human instinct of my mental deification of Napoleon or James Dean or Caravagio. To call it atavistic seems as wrong as calling family bonds atavistic. It is In its primeal form an essential component of humanity.

I agree. It's inherrent in all of us, to one degree or another. Always has been, always will be.

While media certainly plays a role in invigorating and enabling celebrity fervor, to blame them for it is nonsense. By that reasoning, restaurants are responsible for heart disease and high blood pressure and should be immediately closed. Make no mistake, obsession for this crap is high. The reasons behind public worship of celebrities are myriad. Do I condone it or the media's behavior? Hell no. Personally, I consider most of these "stars" as borderline-phonies who've been blessed with a great deal of luck. But there's certainly more factors at work than just the media. Even in the presence of stone-aged technology/communications/media, one could make a case that historical celebrities dwarfed the popularity of today's.

[ryanvision]

culture has quite a long track record of people intrigued by the famous, so it's not something new that is just developing. I am also a strong believer that if people consume something, there is an inherent desire for that thing which is being consumed. Now if the public was informed that, say reading magazines is bad for you physically, than it would lower sales of magazines..marginally. There is still an inherent desire for whatever that is that isn't going to be superseded. And the media won't supply something that isn't wanted.

The media adds to that desire, but it wouldn't be as everlasting (and go through all eras of media) if it was more desired because we were TOLD it was, as opposed to something that is very much wanted.

[OrphanPip]

Some evolutionary psychologists have suggested that it's an important adaptation for navigating the social world. Several studies have demonstrated that human beings have astounding memories for trivial knowledge about other human beings, we are very good at learning about other people. Think about all the little facts we probably know about our friends and immediate social circle. Why do people get together and talk about their lives, their day, their future plans, share ideas? It's all tied together, we are programmed, to an extent, with an intense interest in other people. I think celebrity obsession is just another manifestation of that tendency within most of us.

[Darcy88]

You call it atavistic but i dont think i agree, it is in the manifest source an essential human characteristic to deify certain people. It is thanks to this impulse that art and literature and history are and alway habeen given such importance. A 19 year old girls obsession and deification of snooki arrives from the same human instinct of my mental deification of Napoleon or James Dean or Caravagio. To call it atavistic seems as wrong as calling family bonds atavistic. It is In its primeal form an essential component of humanity.

It comes from alpha male primate mentality which became polytheism and warrior culture which in turn became aristocracy and royalty. I call it atavistic because its ridiculous. Its one thing to deify the tribe's best hunter or a man like Lycurgus or Socrates, its wholly another to do so to some soiled-kleenex-of-a-human-being like Snooki or Paris Hilton. It used to be a legitimate phenomenon. The best hunters and warriors deserved to be thus lionized. Nowadays the recipients of such attention do not deserve it. But their widespread media exposure, the modern equivalent of tribal gossip and lore, taps into some evolutionarily adapted facet of our psyches. Hence why I call it an atavism. It used to make sense but no longer does. Athletes are a little different, as are true genuine paragons of culture, but not Snooki, not Paris Hilton, not even Princess Kate. The worship of them is atavistic.

[ryanvision]

It comes from alpha male primate mentality which became polytheism and warrior culture which in turn became aristocracy and royalty. I call it atavistic because its ridiculous. Its one thing to deify the tribe's best hunter or a man like Lycurgus or Socrates, its wholly another to do so to some soiled-kleenex-of-a-human-being like Snooki or Paris Hilton. It used to be a legitimate phenomenon. The best hunters and warriors deserved to be thus lionized. Nowadays the recipients of such attention do not deserve it. But their widespread media exposure, the modern equivalent of tribal gossip and lore, taps into some evolutionarily adapted facet of our psyches. Hence why I call it an atavism. It used to make sense but no longer does. Athletes are a little different, as are true genuine paragons of culture, but not Snooki, not Paris Hilton, not even Princess Kate. The worship of them is atavistic.

This is a bit subjective, especially your understanding. Who's to say that Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian aren't worthy of being a paragon of culture. Aren't they essentially the modern day royalty? There value is certainly questionable, but comparing them to an athlete, a medium and association entirely distant, doesn't particularly work for me. I understand your argument, but your subjecting these tween no talent celebrities as undeserved and though that may be, there "lionization" as you like to call it, is based on their media presence and their rich (financially) nature as people

[hawthorns]

It comes from alpha male primate mentality which became polytheism and warrior culture which in turn became aristocracy and royalty. I call it atavistic because its ridiculous. Its one thing to deify the tribe's best hunter or a man like Lycurgus or Socrates, its wholly another to do so to some soiled-kleenex-of-a-human-being like Snooki or Paris Hilton. It used to be a legitimate phenomenon. The best hunters and warriors deserved to be thus lionized. Nowadays the recipients of such attention do not deserve it. But their widespread media exposure, the modern equivalent of tribal gossip and lore, taps into some evolutionarily adapted facet of our psyches. Hence why I call it an atavism. It used to make sense but no longer does. Athletes are a little different, as are true genuine paragons of culture, but not Snooki, not Paris Hilton, not even Princess Kate. The worship of them is atavistic.

:rofl: I see what you mean now.

[Darcy88]

This is a bit subjective, especially your understanding. Who's to say that Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian aren't worthy of being a paragon of culture. Aren't they essentially the modern day royalty? There value is certainly questionable, but comparing them to an athlete, a medium and association entirely distant, doesn't particularly work for me. I understand your argument, but your subjecting these tween no talent celebrities as undeserved and though that may be, there "lionization" as you like to call it, is based on their media presence and their rich (financially) nature as people

Yeah.....no. My post made perfect sense. Its not a subjective thing to refuse to label Paris Hilton a paragon of culture. Are you kidding me? That post of mine was well thought out and at least half-way eloquent and you go and butcher it like this? I am offended.

Their. Their. Their. Their. Their.

I was already in a bad mood but damn. Re-read my post, re-read yours and then beg God's forgiveness.

[smerdyakov]

Yeah.....no. My post made perfect sense. Its not a subjective thing to refuse to label Paris Hilton a paragon of culture. Are you kidding me? That post of mine was well thought out and at least half-way eloquent and you go and butcher it like this? I am offended.

Their. Their. Their. Their. Their.

I was already in a bad mood but damn. Re-read my post, re-read yours and then beg God's forgiveness.

alrite darc, you're always argiun for a young fella

{edit}

[Darcy88]

Has not been a good night in Darcy88's life, but I stand by the purport of that post. I come here for a reason and that reason is not to be butchered like a country ham.

[smerdyakov]

Has not been a good night in Darcy88's life, but I stand by the purport of that post. I come here for a reason and that reason is not to be butchered like a country ham.

{edit}..check this ou:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFSCcbL6EJQ

[Darcy88]

{edit}...check this ou:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFSCcbL6EJQ

I've been listening to Radiohead nonstop lately. See there you have an example of some guys who ought to be worshipped as Gods, but next to Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton, in the media spotlight, they are like dwarves alongside those hideous giants. Thom Yorke is famous, but he's nowhere near as famous as the aforementioned Miss Kardashian. What is with that? I don't get it. Why do people care about that woman? She is everywhere I go. She has no meaning or relevance to their lives. That's why I call it an atavism. It hearkens back to a time when such worship was meaningful and justified. Would the Macedonians had conquered much of the known world had not a little boy named Alexander read the Iliad countless times and sought as a man to match the great warrior Achilles' glory? Or would Caesar have done the same without Alexander's example and the profound envy it engendered in him? I think not. How about Socrates? How about the forgotten hunter of some forgotten primitive tribe. A man of sharp instinct and imposing physique who killed enough mammoths to get his kinfolk through the nasty interminable cold and dearth of winter?

Back then, in those contexts, it made sense. Now, in relation to Kim Kardashian or Ozzy's son whose name I don't remember and am glad to not, it doesn't.

[smerdyakov]

I've been listening to Radiohead nonstop lately. See there you have an example of some guys who ought to be worshipped as Gods, but next to Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton, in the media spotlight, they are like dwarves alongside those hideous giants. Thom Yorke is famous, but he's nowhere near as famous as the aforementioned Miss Kardashian. What is with that? I don't get it. Why do people care about that woman? She is everywhere I go. She has no meaning or relevance to their lives. That's why I call it an atavism. It hearkens back to a time when such worship was meaningful and justified. Would the Macedonians had conquered much of the known world had not a little boy named Alexander read the Iliad countless times and sought as a man to match the great warrior Achilles' glory? Or would Caesar have done the same without Alexander's example and the profound envy it engendered in him? I think not. How about Socrates? How about the forgotten hunter of some forgotten primitive tribe. A man of sharp instinct and imposing physique who killed enough mammoths to get his kinfolk through the nasty interminable cold and dearth of winter?

Back then, in those contexts, it made sense. Now, in relation to Kim Kardashian or Ozzy's son whose name I don't remember and am glad to not, it doesn't.


Ozzy was a leg tho, check this song ou:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReuBms-qZQk

u are rite man but u are too achingly philosophical man. iam 27 now and {edit}

[Darcy88]

Ozzy was a leg tho, check this song ou:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReuBms-qZQk

u are rite man but u are too achingly philosophical man. {edit}

A Farewell to ArmsW. H. AudenJonathan SwiftLivyPlutarch.Crime and PunishmentThe IdiotEmpire of IllusionBlood MeridianA People's History of the United States.Shakespeare's sonnetsThe Myth of SisyphusThe Republic (Plato)History of the Peloponnesian WarOne Hundred Years of Solitude.Leaves of GrassTropic of CancerArthur RimbaudThe Complete Poems of Dh LawrenceLady Chatterley's Lover.Chuang TsuOn the Genealogy of MoralityAlbert Camus/The PlagueThe Rebel Albert CamusThe Bible.Confessions of St AugustineHeart of Darkness.

Took it off my facebook book list. Sorry for the terrible formatting or lack thereof.

[smerdyakov]

A Farewell to ArmsW. H. AudenJonathan SwiftLivyPlutarch.Crime and PunishmentThe IdiotEmpire of IllusionBlood MeridianA People's History of the United States.Shakespeare's sonnetsThe Myth of SisyphusThe Republic (Plato)History of the Peloponnesian WarOne Hundred Years of Solitude.Leaves of GrassTropic of CancerArthur RimbaudThe Complete Poems of Dh LawrenceLady Chatterley's Lover.Chuang TsuOn the Genealogy of MoralityAlbert Camus/The PlagueThe Rebel Albert CamusThe Bible.Confessions of St AugustineHeart of Darkness.

Took it off my facebook book list. Sorry for the terrible formatting or lack thereof.

Thats a mouthful. I read half them books at some stage...Rimbaud, Dostoevski and Swift jump out...Rimbaud in particular cos of his age and talent - he was veryb special writing that poetry at 14/15...

[smerdyakov]

Lets talk about magic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3rwczpf50w

[smerdyakov]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-g1OGxUBa8&feature=fvst