DUNGER Bloom Argument Map by Dylan Unger

The Lure of Luxury: Paul Bloom

dau29 — 2024-09-27 14:45:50 UTC

“The Lure of Luxury - Boston Review.” Boston Review, 24 June 2024, www.bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-lure-luxury/. Accessed 27 Sept. 2024.

‌

Central Claim

dau29 — 2024-09-28 23:09:57 UTC

Bloom's central claim is that we, as humans, are not drawn to an object for its physical attributes and cost but rather how it makes us feel.

Premises

dau29 — 2024-09-28 23:11:29 UTC

"We are not empiricists, obsessed with appearance. Rather, the surfaces of things are significant largely because they reflect they reflect an object's deeper nature" (8). Throughout this essay, Bloom argues that we don't buy products because they make us look better but because they make us feel better.

Empiricist: a person who supports the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses.

Evidence 1

dau29 — 2024-09-29 15:59:13 UTC

"I am anti-anti-luxury goods.- Few people will ever own a Rolex or a Vermeer, but we are all sensitive to the value of history, and most of us possess at least some things that we wouldn't trade for perfect duplicates" (11). Calling himself "anti-anti-luxury goods" means that Bloom is against the idea that we shouldn't purchase and consume luxury goods. Bloom believes that people who are against the consumption of luxury goods don't understand the object's value below the surface level. A family heirloom could've been bought for 5 dollars, but it increases in emotional value as it gets passed down from generation to generation, which might cause the price of the item to increase. Even if there is a newer object that looks and functions even better than the heirloom, it's less valuable because we don't have an emotional connection to it.

Objection 1

dau29 — 2024-09-29 16:11:03 UTC

"Economist Richard Layard argues that contemporary research- 'the new science of happiness'-- shows that our happiness is exquisitely sensitive to relative status. If my neighbor owns a fancy car and I want one but don't have it, this will make her happy and me sad" (9). Layard argues that an object brings us happiness because it gives us a feeling of superiority over our peers. While it still affects us emotionally, the feelings are more superficial than rooted in admiration for the object's history. A sense of connection and curiosity to an object is less powerful than envy when someone has something that we don't.

Secondary source

Rebuttal

dau29 — 2024-09-29 16:24:22 UTC

"If I buy a watch to impress my friends, one can worry about the cost of envy. But what if I buy it because it gives me pleasure? That one child enjoys a teddy bear doesn't seem to detract from his playmate's enjoyment of his own. That no one watches me eat mom's cooking doesn't make it taste any less wonderful" (9). Layard's argument implies that something can not provide you with joy if there is nobody to see you be happy puts not only an object's value but a person's value solely on the impression it leaves on their peers. We only enjoy things so those around us can see how much happier we are than them, not because we genuinely appreciate what we purchased. Assuming that people only purchase things to impress others strips us of our self-autonomy. We can live our lives for ourselves rather than choosing a different lifestyle to appear to the public eye. We make our own choices, and to assume that everyone lives for the approval of others is to imply that we are not individuals.

Evidence 2

dau29 — 2024-10-01 14:57:16 UTC

"Then we asked how much they would pay for a specific object, such as a sweater, that was owned and used by this person. When our subjects were told that the object would be thoroughly sterilized before it got to them, they dropped their offers by a third" (6). Where an item has been and it's cultural significance is what gives the item its value. Even if the reasoning behind purchasing this item is as superficial as getting bragging rights for owning something that was touched by a celebrity, the reason we want it is still because of the item's history.

Primary source