Property. - Tree of Souls

ZenitYerkes · #1 05-24-2010, 10:38 PM

I believe it is simply and exclusively a mere abstract thought that doesn't change the nature of the owned thing at all.

Though it prevents us from killing ourselves when the "Whose this land?" questions arises.

But on the other hand, it also makes us kill ourselves when the answer is given, and the owner is not you.

Property: need or arrogance?
(cheesy newspaper headline)

Sacred Tsahaylu · #2 05-24-2010, 10:45 PM

You need to explain more what you mean. Are you suggesting that we don't own anything and that we are merely in possession of objects? That is what the Native Americans believe, and I'm sure it's a belief commonly held among indigenous tribes.

fkeua vrrtep · #3 05-24-2010, 11:11 PM

It's not a belief , it's a fact .

You can't own something which you cannot control .

**Woodsprite** · #4 05-25-2010, 04:53 AM

The Na'vi fought and died for their land (and for the Tree of Souls); so did the native Americans. "This is our land!" Capitalism, right there.

Spock · #5 05-25-2010, 06:48 AM

Woodsprite, notice how the word "our" is used. That would indicate that the Na'vi are collectivists not capitalists.

**Woodsprite** · #6 05-25-2010, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spock

Woodsprite, notice how the word "our" is used. That would indicate that the Na'vi are collectivists not capitalists.

That'd be true, but only if it was used in a certain sense. Jake was referring to the land as the Na'vi's. If he were truly referring to it in the collective sense, he would've meant it's the human's land as well.

Spock · #7 05-25-2010, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

That'd be true, but only if it was used in a certain sense. Jake was referring to the land as the Na'vi's. If he were truly referring to it in the collective sense, he would've meant it's the human's land as well.

Well, I would argue most senses. Jake's definitions are irrelevant. He used "our" which pertains to a collective society. I may also add that we see no evidence of property ownership by individual Na'vi when refering to land.

**Woodsprite** · #8 05-25-2010, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spock

Well, I would argue most senses. Jake's definitions are irrelevant. He used "our" which pertains to a collective society.

Well then that's your interpretation, and noted. But I stand by my guns on this one: Jake was referring to the Na'vi only, not everyone on Pandora.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spock

I may also add that we see no evidence of property ownership by individual Na'vi when refering to land.

True, since the Na'vi are all part of a tribal society. Native life, whether it be the Na'vi, or any tribe here on earth, tends to resemble life in a boarding house. Everyone partakes; everyone shares certain things; everyone knows everyone.

Spock · #9 05-25-2010, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Well then that's your interpretation, and noted. But I stand by my guns on this one: Jake was referring to the Na'vi only, not everyone on Pandora.

I see that. I just wanted to not how the Na'vi that Jake was refering to were a collective society, the movie exemplifies how well collectivism works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

True, since the Na'vi are all part of a tribal society. Native life, whether it be the Na'vi, or any tribe here on earth, tends to resemble life in a boarding house. Everyone partakes; everyone shares certain things; everyone knows everyone.

The smell of collectivism. Lovely.

That's the point I wanted to make anyway.

**Woodsprite** · #10 05-25-2010, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spock

I see that. I just wanted to not how the Na'vi that Jake was refering to were a collective society, the movie exemplifies how well collectivism works.

The smell of collectivism. Lovely.

That's the point I wanted to make anyway.

Within tribal societies, though; only with tribes. Gotta make that distinction.