Nothing can strip me from "being human" and there's no such thing as a soul. So... wat? [...] The word 'human' means something specific. You want to use it to imply something vague and magical.
Let us be clear (again). You're correct on the specific. There's nothing spiritual, religious, or otherwise non-concrete to my statements: it's as real as you can get. Tan's example of the caged animals was a great one that we can use to contrast.
We are not talking about souls, magic, or anything such. We are talking about
activity, what a certain being, a grasshopper, lion, human,
does in the world, and further, how that
doing affects their sensuous experience.
A human being is a human being not just biologically speaking, but because he or she experiences the world in a certain way, in a human way (i.e., with self-awareness, amongst other things), which is obviously rather completely different than the way something like a grasshopper or a lion experiences the world. This experience comes about by their own activity and relationships to other organisms around them.
If you cage a grasshopper or a lion, then the way they experience is no longer through their own activity, through
what they do. So hypothetically, if those two organisms were self-aware and could communicate, the caged grasshopper and the caged lion would likely describe a similar life experience of living in a caged world all their lives, and then if you contrasted this life experience with two from the wild, that narrative would be wildly different. In this sense, that existence deprives them of
beinga grasshopper, of
beinga lion: because they
do notexperience the world
asgrasshoppers and lions do.
In terms of human beings and commodity overproduction then, it stands to question the role commodities play in our lives. Because commodities, the capitalistic mode of production, are the foundation of this modern society, and we should ask if this foundation, or certain parts of it, are conducive to our mental well-being. Obviously, it's mostly a great thing that we can mass produce blankets (mostly, as oddly most impoverished people around the world yet get them), but physical needs are but one part of total human need: we are talking about mental needs, mental health. And the overproduction of commodities whose purpose are to generate emotion or feelings has the negative consequences of removing the activities we ourselves do that spontaneously beget our own emotions and feelings, to the point where, more and more, the things felt by you weren't because of you.
So as the thesis goes, this leads to feelings of estrangement, emptiness, and alienation in one's own life. These feelings are totally rational because it isn't the person that's mentally unhealthy, but on the contrary, the society in which this individual lives
is.
You don't get it dude [...] His "proof" of his premise was an empty appeal to Marxism.
I put this to rest in
this post. See from the 2nd paragraph.