The Domination of Matter over Mind

Last week as I was surfing the net, I decided to look up the phrase ‘brand names’ via a dependable search engine. I was awarded for my efforts with the names of 5962 sites, each for a different product. Close to six thousand brand names of products of different kinds and uses! This, to me, was clear-cut proof that brand names have come to play a significant role in our lives. I wondered about all the reasons of why that should be the case, and I came up with three explanations. One is that we are conditioned through the years to rely on these products to enhance and improve our lives. Another explanation is that we are overcome with the need to show off, to prove to ourselves and to everyone around us that we have indeed succeeded in the fast-paced life we are leading today. Yet I do not believe we are as shallow as that even though it says in the Bible (16:7), “For the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance,…”

The fundamental explanation, however, which I knew I should consider when trying to make sense out of this perpetual occurrence is that we buy brand names for a loftier purpose than just mere ostentation. These brands give us something which the other kinds do not, principally reassurance and confidence. We feel comfortable knowing that a certain brand of coffee, oat bran, clothes, or appliances will always exist with its insignia of excellence to make us feel good about ourselves which accordingly will make us feel good about that particular product and, on a larger scale, our society and they way it is run.

A good justification for this phenomenon is that at the beginning of history, before the concept of brand names had been established, the Greek philosopher Aristotle was going about setting the base for his science of ‘Logic’. A great number of people throughout history have come to depend on his philosophy in their daily lives that I find it only fitting I bring Aristotle into this essay. He was one of the very first philosophers in history to advocate “empiricism”, the doctrine that all knowledge stems from experience. He believed that all the concepts, thoughts, and ideas in our heads come first and foremost from sensory perceptions. That is to say, for example, my friend, Jane, can talk to me for two hours about a certain brand of tea that she likes, and is absolutely certain she will never buy any other, but she will not be able to get me to share her love for that brand. I will never taste it in her words, nor will I smell it as she describes it. There is only one way for me to find out if this kind of tea is really as good as she believes or not, and that is that I try it for myself. Therefore, I have used my sensory faculties (smell, taste) to taste the tea, and subsequently formed my own idea of what kind of tea it is (good, bad, etc.).

Aristotle said, “There is nothing in the mind except what was first in the senses.” This theory applies to all kinds of products which have managed to infiltrate our lives. Some have even cast a spell on us and put us under some kind of hypnosis. We go into the supermarket and we head directly to the exact spot where they carry that famous tomato sauce we always buy, without even thinking. In the mall, there are certain shops we have never been in, while others are blessed with our visits practically every week. Why does this happen, you ask. How can a mere tactual product control us? It’s easy. It happens in exactly the same way Aristotle - as well as John Locke, the brilliant English

philosopher who adopted Aristotle’s empirical approach - said all those years ago; by means of our senses.

John Locke established that a baby’s mind is empty of all thoughts and ideas, chiefly because she or he has not had any experience to draw from. Locke calls it ‘tabula rasa’ or ‘blank slate’. Thanks to modern science, it has been proven that Locke’s theory is one hundred percent correct. The amazing thing is that the same point is mentioned in the Koran (16:78) and probably in the Bible as well. When we are born, we have no need for material possessions. Our parents put clothes on our backs and food in our mouths, but whether it is a brand name or not is not our main concern. We simply want to eat, play and sleep. Then, as time moves forward, we find ourselves growing and trying to understand and become familiar with our needs and wants. Once we realize that all we have to do when hunger calls is open the fridge, then it is time to move on to more important things - the power of choice. From that stage onward, we slowly start forming our own concept of things through choice, and trial and error, or in other words, through our sensory organs. Locke maintained that we cannot possibly understand the world around us except by perceiving it through our senses, whether we come in contact with a toy, a new job, or even a marriage proposal. We will never be able to understand any of it until we try it for ourselves. This notion is very important when we discuss brand names because it is through Locke’s theory that we come to understand how different kinds of products must be tried - brand names as well as generic counterparts - before making a final decision. It is by our sensory faculties that we can form our ideas and opinions about each kind, and finally reach the ultimate truth.

A good example of this would be if I wanted to buy my first pair of jeans. My parents would lecture me on which brand to buy, because, basically, they have already gone through the empirical stage while I have not. So I ignore my parents’ preaching and go out and buy a pair of jeans which are not a known brand, but they look fabulous and they are cheap which is exactly what I am looking for. Unfortunately, these good-looking jeans do not last a month with me. I am devastated, sure, but I must keep in mind that I am learning. I am on the path to building my own personal experiences from which I can form my own concepts and ideas, which I will no doubt be telling my kids. Subsequently, I start looking for quality products and ignore the somewhat high prices because I realize I would probably have to pay more if I am forced to buy new jeans every month.

Now, I have used my senses to create a personal experience, and I have also come to a very sensible decision. How did I reach this reasonable conclusion if I have not had enough experience in the world? That is the same question Immanuel Kant, the German idealist philosopher, asked. He wanted to know how we can trust our senses when everyone feels differently about different things. He believed that there must be some kind of supporting force working alongside our senses which enables us to reach such logical conclusions. The answer he came up with was that both ‘sensing’ and ‘reason’ come into our conception of the world. Kant believed that reason - which stems from the mind - is the means by which the phenomena of experience is translated into understanding. This means that even though I have formed my own concept of which brand of jeans to buy, I did not fully comprehend this experience except when my faculty of reason worked side-by-side with my senses. This is mainly the reason why people prefer to buy brand names over their generic counterparts; they have tried out

both and have learned through personal experience - via empiricism and rationalism - that what they can count on is for products to be reliable and give them their money’s worth which only brand names can offer.

So, as Kant believed, when we come to differentiate between right and wrong, we use our reason, and, in the same way, when we come to differentiate between products, we also make use of our reason. Therefore I can make it a point to buy shoes from Nike after previously buying anonymous sneakers for these two essentially fundamental reasons: 1- I know through my sensory perceptions that Nike’s wide variety will give me the color and style I want, and 2- I know through reason that these shoes are of good, durable quality so I am certain my money is not going down the drain.

But surely not everybody thinks like me. Not many people would venture paying more money just to get a product with a famous name on it, and everyone knows that brand names are usually expensive. Yet they are still chosen over their generic counterparts nine times out of ten. Why? This is a question that Karl Marx would have loved to answer. Marx believed that history is mainly about who owns the means of production. So when the people own their means of production, it is a communist society - which Marx firmly believed would solve all our social problems, and if the bourgeoisie own the means of production, it is a capitalist society - which we happily live in today. We have learned through invaluable hindsight what communism has done to people and countries. This is why it is a good idea for our capitalist economy to remain. In order for us to keep the wheels of capitalism rolling, those who own the means of production must create favorable working conditions, comfortable prices and products that last without being inconvenient or unattractive. This is basically why brand names get a thumbs-up most of the time, because they have more to lose than mere money. They have their reputation as a respectable brand name to lose which is more important - it is their strut on which their business is supported, without it, their fortress crumbles. Had we lived in a communist society, we would not have had the luxury of choosing brand names over their counterparts, we would have been considered lucky to have got our hands on any kind of product at all. Hence, it is capitalism which permits brand names to obtain their power and permanence. Then when we purchase these products, we are giving back to economy exactly that which it bestowed on these products and the wheel keeps on turning.

Marx thought capitalism was mobile, but I believe he was wrong to think it was moving towards communism. Nevertheless, I think Marx would be pleased with the capitalist system we live in today. The brand name products taste better, look better, and ultimately feel better than their counterparts which as a result makes us feel good about our choices and our society in general. He probably would appreciate the fact that his theory of dialectical materialism - where the ‘base’ (economy) affects the ‘superstructure’ (religion, society, culture, etc.) and vice versa - holds true after all these years. This relationship can be illustrated as follows: when an economy feels secure, its society feels secure. When society is secure, it will lavish itself with more and more expenditures to increase this addictive feeling of power even more. This will reflect on the economy by revitalizing it and making it stronger and even more secure, and the process keeps going back and forth. Brand names play right into this dialectical relationship because they are the catalyst by which this process moves forward. Marx’s

theory of ‘superstructure’ keeps the economic wheel progressing and keeps brand names at the top of everyone’s favorites list.

When we were in school it was well-known that we had to look good, no matter what the cost was. We even went around reiterating certain phrases the older kids were saying, thinking that by the donning of Gap shirts and Guess jeans we would reach the apex of success and popularity. However, back in those days, we did not understand exactly what that meant. We had not yet tried and proved anything for ourselves. Now, we realize brand names are fundamental in our lives because we have used both our empiricism and our rationalism to arrive at the conclusion that the name of a product is in itself a guarantee that you are not just purchasing a product, you are buying a certain lifestyle of security and long-life contentment.

Not only teenagers love to parade in their brand names, people of all ages seek the magic touch that brand names grant them because they enable them to transcend the dreary reality of life as we know it and live in a secure environment where certain goods can be depended upon. Everybody searches for that buoy in life that can be their anchor or their safety net, something we can cling to in difficult times. In an arduous world where everyone is for themselves, they provide us with a clutch to seize lest everything around us comes falling down. So, the next time someone tells you, “There is no trusting appearances.” as Richard Brinsley Sheridan in The School for Scandal said [I. ii (p506)], tell them that there indeed is not, but there is our mind and there are our senses, and those can never be distrusted.

-- Dalia AbdelMegeed