IdeaSave

I agree.

It is very dubious to believe that any system other than a rights-respecting one could make a journey of the sort the humans did in this film. Additionally, they were quite clearly _Americans_. Also, the profit motive was explicitly attacked in the film - such a motive is incompatible with anti-capitalist systems. On top of that, James Cameron and Hollywood as a whole are anti-capitalist, and so wouldn't do a film indicting socialism et al when it is so easy and natural for them to indict capitalism. Putting all of that together, there is no _way_ that the system being criticized is anything other than capitalism. In any case, "... anti-capitalist only because ..." is still anti-capitalist, which what I'm claiming is a primary theme of the film.

Then _every_ human being who ever lived at at least the tribalist level had a "rudimentary" grasp of rights - which empties the term of all meaning. The cognitive distance between that alleged grasp in a primitive's mind and in the mind of say, an Englishman circa 1492-1688 (i.e., prior to the first published explicit statement of the principle) is so vast that calling the former grasp "rudimentary" is like calling a parrot's grasp of English rudimentary. The idea that the Na'Vi were fighting for their rights is for that reason (among many others) just projection or wishful thinking. What the Na'Vi (or any stone age tribe) did in this situation was just territorial behavior. I doubt that any writer now working in Hollywood would even _want_ to write a screen play about defending rights - those writers don't accept the principle themselves (and neither does James Cameron).

That is exactly what any primitive culture possessing language would say ... and it isn't enough to show they had a rudimentary grasp of rights or property. They were tribalists, and "This is our home" is a collectivist notion, not an individualist one. The Na'Vi were defending their tribalist territory, not their rights.

If anything, their biological connection makes the analogy to the American Indian even more apt, because it brings them closer to the status of ordinary animal life. Such a connection is irrelevant to rights anyway - it is the possession of a rational faculty that confers rights, not biological connections to nature. You put your finger directly on the reason why this film is so corrupt: that barbaric technological species is _us_, which is precisely what that film is trying to say.

"The idea that a movie that condemns the use of force to take what isn’t yours is anti-capitalist is just weird, and says more about the people who would make this argument than the movie itself." This misses one important thing: The film portrayed the nasty behavior of the "capitalists" as the essence of capitalism. Polluting the environment, driving primitive people off their land, using force to take what is wanted, crass indifference to life, spiritual emptiness, etc. were all presented (by virtue of showing no contrast) as simply the way an advanced, capitalist culture is by its nature. That's why the film is anti-capitalist. The film doesn't condemn the use of force - it condemns modern, advanced, capitalist cultures as evil because such force is (allegedly) inherent in them.

Rights begin with biological _disconnection_, so how does this fantasy about biological connection, well, err, connect? Your use of the term "barbaric" supports my view.

How is that relevant? We're not talking about whether rights apply, we're talking about the motivation of the Na'Vi for fighting and the theme of the film. How can one claim that the Na'Vi or any other primitive people are defending their rights when such people don't have even a rudimentary grasp of rights? To legitimately claim a person is motivated by X, doesn't X have to be present in that person's mind? I think it does, but X isn't present in this case. The concept of rights also is not present anywhere in the film. If it was even hinted at, it wasn't actually rights but "collective rights", which are not rights at all. And as I pointed out, tribalist cultures and rights are incompatible. I think the most that one can say is that the Na'Vi were motivated by the tribalist view that the ground they walk on is "theirs", i.e., the tribe's. They viewed their land as a tribal possession, not as property (they didn't have the concept of property). Given that motivation plus the portrayal of the Na'Vi as a spiritually/environmentally pure culture, the film was just another presentation of the myth of the noble savage, with a stronger than usual dose of praise for environmentalism and primitive cultures, and condemnation of technology and advanced cultures.

It has been claimed here that Avatar is primarily about rights and the fight for freedom. I think that is an example of wishful thinking or projection. Setting aside the fact that Cameron himself is no defender of rights, the fact is that the Na'Vi were essentially a stone age, tribalist people. Such people by their very nature can have _no_ understanding of the concepts of rights or freedom. Those are political concepts, and primitive people haven't yet even discovered philosophy as a subject matter, let alone its most abstract branches. Additionally, there is a fundamental contradiction in that view. Tribalists are inherently collectivists, but rights are an individualist concept. For that reason, to claim that tribalists are defending their rights is to claim that the tribalists are individualists, which contradicts the premise that they are tribalists. Somebody else in this thread recently hinted at what I think is the actual theme of this film. Yes, the film is anti-business, anti-military, anti-capitalist, pro-environmentalist - but those are only a means to an end. The end is to communicate one idea: "Primitive culture is superior to all others, it is the moral ideal, and hence you should hate your (Western) culture because it is the destroyer of the primitive". That explains the feelings of depression I've seen reported about an apparently non-trivial number of admirers of this film. That also explains why I was alternately bored out of my skull and enraged while watching this film. The "noble savage" myth has been done so many times before that as soon as I saw that Avatar centered on a conflict between primitives and moderns, I knew what was going to happen. And the "noble savage" myth _is_ a myth, primitive culture is not the moral ideal but the anti-ideal, and hence I don't hate Western culture, but love it.

The only peace the Nobel committee can achieve is the "peace" experienced by a zombie. According to them, peace consists of evasion - evading the the difference between good and evil, between true and false, between fact and non-fact ... all in order to pretend that none of those exist. They give their prizes to those who are the best pretenders. On their view, the world would be better off if the mind of every individual were scooped out and replaced by mush, making all of us zombies. Just like in the movies, the zombies would all end up dead. Unlike the movies, Nobel zombies would die at the hands of evil, not good, i.e., they would die at the hands of the very thing the Nobel committee wants to evade. Mark Peters

This has nothing to do with the topic, but although I like "People Eating Tasty Animals", a more philosophically correct name for the group is AUTOPSY - "Animals for the Unethical Treatment Of People" (just throw in the "sy" to make it work). I give credit to John Lewis on OSG several years ago for coming up with the catchy acronym for the part in quotes. Mark Peters

"Stealing Heaven" - the story of Heloise and Abelard. This is one of the most philosophic movies I've seen, with its main theme being the conflict between the religious view of love and sex and the secular view. Mark Peters

Hmm. I think almost everything made _after_ 1970 was over-rated or worse (frequently approaching if not exceeding "anti-art"). Movie makers have dispensed with plot, replaced purposeful dialog with stream of consciousness babbling, replaced heroes with anti-heroes, replaced thoughtful, important themes with invitations to navel staring and saying "Oh wow, man" and replaced pretty much everything else with mindless action. There are exceptions, but overall the aesthetic level of movies since 1970 or even 1960 is very, very low compared to before then. I think that should be unsurprising, in fact expected. There is no way philosophic corruption of the sort that produced James Joyce's "Ulysses", "modern abstract art" and the hippie culture of the 1960's could leave movie making untouched - it just took longer than it did for other art forms. Here are some examples of what I consider to be fine examples of pre-1970 movie making. Gee, as it turns out, they're all pre-1960: "Queen Christina", 1934 "The Prisoner of Zenda", 1937 "Only Angels Have Wings", 1939 "The Four Feathers", 1939 "Ninotchka", 1939 "This Land is Mine", 1943 "The Winslow Boy", 1950 ""High Noon", 1952 "Shane", 1952 "Twelve Angry Men", 1957 "The Big Country", 1958 "Rio Bravo", 1958 There are hundreds more like these that I have seen but don't have their titles handy. My personal favorite is "This Land is Mine" for the superlative speech the Charles Laughton character gives near the end. Mark Peters

I agree with what D'kian wrote, with the exception that I think Harrison's relative lack of talent/ability was only with respect to songwriting - the man was a _master_ guitarist, especially rhythm guitar. Although I'm just an amateur, to this day after years of practice playing guitar, I still cannot imagine how he squeezed all that amazing subtlety out of his rhythm guitar on songs like "I'm Happy Just to Dance With You", "The Night Before" and many others. Mark Peters

Isn't the union in question a coercive labor union, i.e., a union that employers are required by law to deal with, and that employees are required by law to join? If so, then the particular issues prompting the strike are irrelevant. What is relevant is that the union is violating the rights of each side and that the strike itself amounts to a gun being put to the heads of the studios (or whoever it is that employs the writers). This immoral means invalidates the ends, no matter what they are. If it isn't coercive, then of course the writers have a right to strike, and the outcome will be determined by negotiation and/or civil suits. The strike itself is probably not being covered more than it is because the one recycled article says everything that needs to be said. Mark Peters

I agree with this. But I think it misses my point, or perhaps we're talking about entirely different things without realizing it. If all that you and others here mean can be distilled down to what musenji wrote in his/her last posting, namely "there is no fact that excludes the possibility that Mal acted as an Objectivist would, given his context", then I agree, but my reaction is "So what?". There are many characters in the history of film who are like that. The character of Mal is no less admirable because of it, but he is less remarkable. I've seen several other claims in this thread, however. The one above, as I said, is fine. I've also seen "He _is_ an Objectivist" (implied at least) and "He _could be_ an Objectivist". The former is plainly wrong, and the latter is very debatable, depending on what "could be" means. If that is essentially the same as "it is possible", then is that the metaphysical or epistemological sense of the term? The metaphysical sense leads to another "So what?" from me - it's true but not important. The epistemological sense leads again to the issue of what an "Objectivist" is, and as I've written, if that is followed through, yields the answer "No, it is _not_ possible". Mark Peters

RationalBiker, I thought that I understood your view, but now I find it unclear and confusing. First, in your most recent response you seem to accept the idea that the character is not an Objectivist, but is just similar to one. But in a previous response to that same idea, you rejected it. Which one is your actual view? Next, this "Objectivist by name and action" idea is unclear. "Name" and "action" are not all there is, unless by "name" you mean "Understands the philosophy and accepts it". If that's what you mean, using the term "Name" for that trivializes an essential part of what it means to be an Objectivist. The term "Objectivist" means "Someone who understands, accepts and lives by the philosophy of Ayn Rand". Each of "understands", "accepts" and "lives by" are essential. If a person lacks any one of those, he might be similar to an Objectivist, but that's all. If somebody qualified fully but never read Ayn Rand, then I think that person would have to be a genius of the same caliber as Ayn Rand - there is nobody like that in this. Perhaps you don't accept that view of what an Objectivist is? If so, what is your view, and how do you justify it? Lastly, "could be" as you used it in "Understanding Objectivism would not be essential for virtually any author to create a character who could be an Objectivist" is a very odd concept. The only possibilities I see for what that means are "Isn't an Objectivist, but can be made into one by adding/removing qualities" and "Is really an Objectivist, but the fact is being hidden or kept secret". If you mean the latter, why? No evidence for that has been presented. Is there another possibility that hasn't been mentioned or that I have somehow missed? Mark Peters

I think it makes perfect sense. Nobody but Ayn Rand could have created Howard Roarke, John Galt _or_ Toohey because nobody else understood the philosophy well enough to do it. Those characters are not paper thin cutouts - they have a depth to them that can't be created by somebody who doesn't have an equally deep grasp of Objectivism. Without that depth of understanding, a character might have surface similarities to an Objectivist, but that's all ... and that is not the same as _being_ Objectivist. If Whedon understands any of Objectivism, it has to be at a very shallow level. That's because nobody with his stated antipathy to non-liberal ideas could possibly be motivated enough to do the work required to understand the philosophy at a deep enough level. Keep in mind too that virtue existed before Ayn Rand. There was enough understanding of virtue in the culture for many heroic characters to be created. All Whedon needed to create a character like Mal is that kind of understanding. Note also that the virtues exhibited by that character are in no way distinctively Objectivist. It is not possible for Mal to _be_ an Objectivist for those reasons. To be similar to one, yes, but not to _be_ one. Mark Peters

Well, then we disagree. The character of Mal could not be an Objectivist because the man who created him doesn't understand the philosophy. In fact, Whedon has publicly stated his antipathy towards non-liberal ideas. Having said that, I am certainly on your side regarding the views of "The Cynic", which certainly match his handle. Mark Peters

And you mean that in the sense I named, i.e., that the character as created by Whedon isn't Objectivist, but one can add virtues to (and maybe remove vices from) him that would make him so? That could be done with any character, but I think you're saying that a lot less adding/removing is necessary with Mal than with a great many other characters. If so, I agree. That character certainly has many admirable traits. To the extent he has not-so-admirable traits, I think they're unimportant. If I could enter the world he inhabits, I would be proud to have him as a friend. I'd say the same thing about many great characters from traditional westerns as well. What is good about Mal comes from the same place as what made a great character in a western. As Mal might say "It ain't perfect, but it's a goram sight better than most else." ;-) Mark Peters

Since Joss Whedon is a liberal, he doesn't know what an Objectivist is, and even if he did, he would not approve of such a person. Also because he is a liberal, and to the extent that he is, he is a cynic - if he thinks heroes are possible at all, he thinks they are doomed to failure. Because of this, the character of Mal is certainly not an Objectivist, nor could he be ... at least not by design (the design of Whedon). He _could_ be, but only in the sense that somebody else can look at his qualities and "fill in the blanks" with the right virtues - virtues which were not put there by Whedon. That's a very tempting and understandable thing to do, given the lack of heroes in film, but it has nothing to do with the actual nature of the character. The way I look at Mal is that he was in the strongest possible position to defeat the alliance, was seemingly making progress, then was simply abandoned - a very demoralizing thing. He then retired to the fringes, becoming an outlaw in the eyes of the alliance, but not continuing the fight in any direct way. Perhaps that is Whedon's cynicism showing through - maybe he is declaring through Mal that "You can't win, so just give up". I can think of much more thorough forms of cynicism, however. Maybe an Objectivist would act differently than Mal, but maybe not. It's virtually certain, though, that an Objectivist writer would have made Mal and/or the whole show have a very different essence. Having said that, I think Firefly is admirable in its own right without "filling in the blanks", and I enjoyed every minute of it. Mark Peters

In my judgment, it shouldn't take an educated adult more than about five minutes to figure out that pacifism is false. Consequently, anybody over about 25 with a decent education who accepts pacifism is simply not somebody who thinks. For that reason, it is essentially impossible to change their minds - they didn't accept pacifism through thinking to begin with. For that reason, I think pacifism is one of those ideas that requires some degree of evasion to accept. At the very least, evasion of the need to think. With somebody like Jimmy Carter, evasion is an all-pervasive method of "functioning", i.e., such people are intellectually dishonest through and through. Mark Peters

I saw a video in which an Air Force fighter jet was placed on a runway, aimed at a concrete bunker at the other end, and crashed into it at about the speed at which the 9/11 commerical jets crashed. That fighter jet _vaporized_ - there was nothing left of it but dust after the crash. Jets are just flimsy tubes of metal, and when they crash at high velocity into a significantly more massive object, vaporization is to be expected. Mark Peters

The reason why the PP argument is wrong isn't fundamentally to be found in ethics or politics - it's to be found in epistemology. In order to reach the Objectivist ethics, one must first learn what a principle is and why one must act on principle. Prior to that, one must've learned the importance of integration - of keeping all of one's knowledge as an integrated whole, of being dedicated to following every conclusion to discover its implications in all the rest of one's knowledge (particularly in philosophy). Accepting the PP argument requires rejecting the concept of principle, and that in turn requires rejecting all the concepts in Objectivism that logically precede and logically follow from it - if you want to keep your knowledge integrated. If you don't want to keep your knowledge integrated, or don't care to, then you have removed yourself from the debate, and there is no longer any reason to listen to you or care what you think. Leonard Peikoff's "Why One Should Act On Principle" lecture is a very good place to get an antidote to the PP nonsense. Mark Peters

All of Ayn Rand's characters, good and bad, are "realistic" in the sense that the qualities they embody exist (or can exist) in actual people. People with the same qualities as any given character may or may not exist, but that isn't the point. Ayn Rand's characters weren't the result of copying or modeling after actual people - they resulted from choosing the principles she needed to make her artistic point, and then creating characters embodying those principles. Those characters ran the gamut from pure good (e.g. Galt) to mixed (e.g. Eddie Willers) to pure evil (e.g., Toohey). Even Roark and Rearden were mixed, though to a far lesser degree than characters like Willers. In the real world there are far more mixed types than pure types, but even so, very few are of the stature of Roark, Rearden or d'Anconia. Pure types, good or bad, are exceedingly rare. Mark Peters