Tenzing_Shaw

I agree. This: is an incredible statement. If you think that the absence of the superficial features of modern dictatorship is a sufficient condition for freedom, then our disagreement stretches far beyond Avatar. Living in a primitive society entails constant interference in one's own life by others, to an extent that has never been (and probably cannot be) matched in modern times. While one cannot morally condemn a tribal who does not understand the concept of rights, one can say that the society he lives in is bad for man's life.

By the way, Zip, have you listened to Dr. Peikoff's podcast which is being discussed? If not, I recommend it; he makes the argument better than I could. Here is a link: http://www.peikoff.com/podcasts/2008-05-19.015.mp3 (the relevant question is addressed in the last few minutes of the podcast).

When did I say any of these things? Yes, I agree (although I haven't made up my mind about duels yet). I don't think you understood my post at all. The distinction is epistemological. You have an inalienable right to your life, but you do not own your life, because the concept of property does not apply to your life (or to any human life). Did you mix your effort with nature and/or trade in order to acquire your life? Can you trade your life or present it as a gift to someone else? No? Then it doesn't fall under the concept "property". That is what I remember Dr. Peikoff saying in his podcast. When you say that you work every day at your life, this is true, but what you really mean is that you work every day to achieve your values (not all of these values are even property, by the way; for example: a spouse, a child, a new bit of knowledge you have learned). By the way, before going on a rant implying that I am a mystic/statist, you might in the future give me the benefit of the doubt at least to some extent, since this is an Objectivist forum and I haven't been banned yet (not to mention the fact that I was defending Dr. Peikoff, who happens to know a thing or two about Objectivism).

Well, there is a precise correspondence to the way most modern environmentalists in fact do "argue" with their opponents. They insist that the scientific facts are on their side, and accuse their opponents of ignoring them out of blind greed, while completely disregarding serious opposing arguments. This is exactly what happens in Avatar. You will get no argument from me there. It is poor and unpersuasive because modern environmentalism is poor and unpersuasive.

I think A is A has the right of it here. Yes, your life is yours meaning that it pertains to you (in fact, it is you). This is not the same as saying that you own your life. When you say you own something, you mean that it is a value you have created (or traded for, or received voluntarily from others). So Peikoff's objection, if I remember the podcast correctly, related to epistemology, not ethics or politics. Yes, you have a right to your life, and you have a right to your property, but you only own the latter, not the former. Note that the word "my" does not always refer to ownership (my friend, my fault, my birthday, etc.). Another example of something you have a right to, but do not own, is the air you breathe. You have a right to it in the sense that no one may actively prevent you from breathing it. It is not property because of its abundance to the extent that no effort must be expended to obtain it (this is not meant to be an analogy to the life case, but only an example which shows that not all rights pertain to property). A final thing to note is that if you literally own your life, then murder and assault would be forms of theft, but these crimes are actually distinct.

I don't think I have mentioned religion thus far, and I certainly don't believe that Avatar seeks to promote religion (or only in the sense that religion and environmentalism are related examples of the same set of basic errors). I am curious whether you would agree with the final sentence of my last post: "Isn't this element of the film just representing the common environmentalist claim that their opponents are "ignoring" the supposed scientific facts which support their position?" In that case, it might be better to call the Eywa phenomenon pseudoscience, which I have been considering as a form of mysticism (distinct from religion). Yes, this would have been much more consistent, but Cameron is a modern environmentalist, and the modern environmentalist movement is not that consistent (yet).

OK, I think this is a theme in Avatar, but I don't think that what you said is the whole story. If this were the only purpose of that concrete, it would not in any way explain why this concrete was chosen as opposed to the countless others that could have fulfilled the role. In other words, why Eywa and a biological network instead of anything else? Another way of saying this is to ask "what is it that is being ignored, and why is this significant?" I say that it is the (supposed) power of unexploited nature that is being "ignored". This would explain the particular nature of the concrete chosen (a connection between the Na'vi and nature on Pandora), and would connect this side-theme with the main theme. Otherwise, you would have to say that these are two unrelated themes. Isn't this element of the film just representing the common environmentalist claim that their opponents are "ignoring" the supposed scientific facts which support their position?

Yes, I know: (Emphasis added)

But Eywa is another concrete, not an abstraction. Phrased differently, my question is: what is the purpose of describing this pheonomenon, in terms of the theme of Avatar? Strictly speaking, this is true, since "comfort" and "a sense of purpose" are subjective, emotional terms (someone could also claim that using drugs provides him with "comfort", and this would be true in the same sense). The real question is whether religion/spirituality (spirituality in the non-secular sense) can be good for a man's life, and the Objectivist position is that it can't.

Yes, I do. How does this not contradict your quote above?

I certainly agree with this. But what standard would you use for evaluating the ideas in fiction? It is not the lack of a complete explanation that I am faulting. Completely explaining any phenomenon would almost always be out of place in fiction. What I am faulting is the nature of the phenomenon described, given the theme of the film. I gather you agree that this aspect of the film was not an accidental detail (there aren't many accidental details in Avatar)? In that case, what would you say is the abstraction that this detail concretizes? I think it is deeper than slanting. Both Atlas Shrugged and Avatar are romantic fiction, which use every concrete in their respective stories in order to represent the abstractions they seek to convey. Of course, AS is brilliantly written and conveys true and profound abstractions, while Avatar is crudely (though effectively) written, and conveys false and vicious abstractions. Well, for one thing, their lifespan and standard of living rose dramatically. There are high rates of drug addiction and alcoholism in the former Soviet Republics also. This does not prove that life was better during Soviet times. Why do you put superior in quotation marks? If the words "technology" and "superior" mean anything, then the technology of the Europeans was vastly superior to that of the Native Americans. I have a question for you: given your comments, do you honestly believe that Native Americans who suffer from depression today would be better off reverting to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, rejecting modern technology and trade with others? If so, what do you think that man's proper means of survival is?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Could you elaborate? Yes, I agree. Oh, I think that "technology vs. nature" is the principle theme of Avatar. The reason vs. mysticism theme is not directly present in the film (I apologize if I was ambiguous about this earlier). However, choosing unexploited nature over technology does imply a rejection of reason, since reason is the tool for exploiting nature (and trading, of course, which relates to the more minor anti-capitalist theme), and is not needed otherwise. This is not directly adressed in the film, to be sure, and Cameron may not even understand it himself. In fact, the modern environmentalist movement constantly tries to reverse this relationship, claiming that reason is on their side. That said, I do think (as I have been arguing) that the Eywa/biological network concept is a mystical element. It is not part of an explicit reason vs. mysticism theme, but is instead a mystical part of the technology vs. nature theme. That such an element exists in Avatar is not surprising, because there is no rational way to argue that humans would be better off abandoning technology and living in the forest. I realize that you disagree about this part of the film constituting mysticism. But perhaps mysticism isn't even the most precise term to use (I haven't been regarding such distinctions as important within the present context). How about New Age pseudoscience? What I cannot accept is that a mysterious "connection" goverened by some kind of collective planetary mind, characterized by mysterious glowing lights flowing through plants, and powered by the communal chanting of a primitive tribe constitutes a harmless piece of speculation about exobiology in the context of a film devoted to promoting environmentalism. Do you agree that there is something decidedly irrational here?

Yes, this is exactly what I was getting at. Let's assume that the ID propagandist includes clear evidence in his story that the creator is supposed to symbolize God, without actually identifying him as such. Should the absence of this explicit identification shield him from any accusations of mysticism? I address this question in more detail below. I think both. There is, in external reality, nothing which has the property of being mystical. Therefore, any symbol of a supposed mystical phenomenon or being would in fact symbolize nothing in a sense. However, in evaluating the theme of a story, we cannot simply proceed as though the symbol didn't exist. It is still possible to identify that the story's creator intended to symbolize a (nonexistent) mystical thing (such as the Aslan symbol in Narnia). As I see it, our main point of contention is: given that the creator of a story makes no explicit reference to anything mystical, and attempts to provide non-mystical explanations for all phenomena he describes, and given on the other hand that there is clear indirect evidence in the story that the creator actively seeks to promote mysticism, can we call the story itself mystical? I say yes, because in the context of fiction, we must consider abstractions over the particular way in which these abstractions are concretized. In Avatar, I see Cameron as attempting to convey a mystical abstraction using at least superficially non-mystical concretes. The problem with this, as I see it, is that stripping Avatar of these things (which saturate the entire film down to minute details such as lighting and costume design) would make it into an entirely different story, with an entirely different theme. Instead of technology vs. nature we would have a struggle for freedom against coercive oppression. In this case, I think the story would be very similar to the series V, in which the Vs are clearly technologically superior to the humans. In V my sympathies lie entirely with the human resistance, and I think the story is perfectly valid. Note that in this case, the technological gap is simply a plot device to allow the Vs to get to Earth in the first place and (at least in the new series) is legitimately explained by a dictator taking over a basically rational society.

In the same sense that the magic in a fantasy novel is real, in the context of that novel?

What does it even mean to say that the link was "very real"? Real in what sense? Since things described in fiction are not real in themselves, they can only be real in the sense that they represent things which are actually real in our universe (or do you disagree with this?).

To complete my argument above, I am going to argue that the "network" in Avatar was actually intended as a symbol for our own "connection" to the Earth. I think the best way to see this is to ask why Cameron chose to include this element in the movie. Since no major aspect of Avatar is accidental, there must have been a thematic reason for this. Now, it is clear to me that Pandora and the Na'vi represent the Earth and the human race as they can and should be, according to Cameron, not in the details, but in essence (in almost any serious non-naturalistic film, we can say that the "good guys" represent the ideals of the author to some extent; in a didactic story like Avatar, this is always the case). It seems clear then that the connection between Pandora and the Na'vi is also meant to symbolize a corresponding connection on Earth. Any doubt about this should be dispelled by considering the environmentalist message of the film (which is surely evident even to those who do not believe that it was the primary theme), and by reading what Cameron himself has to say about environmentalism. Here is a sample of this: Quotes are from http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/18/the-fi...ctor-of-avatar/.

On the contrary, I am trying to make a serious argument, which I will describe further below. The issue here is: when can we say that an aspect of a work of fiction is mystical? The principle is: look at what the aspect is supposed to represent in reality. If this is mystical, so is that aspect of the story; if not, not. The principle cannot be to literaly evaluate the description of that aspect in the story. If this were so, then Galt's motor and the magic in Harry Potter would be mystical, which they aren't. This also works the other way in that a description in terms of scientific-sounding words cannot save an aspect of a story from being mystical. Otherwise, someone could write a propaganda story about Intelligent Design, in which a being which is described in natural terms creates living organisms using physical means. Such a story would be mystical, because the implication of the story about the real world is mystical. One clear example of mysticism in fiction is the resurrection of Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia. Even if C.S. Lewis had provided some attempt at a scientific explanation of this event, it would still have been mysticism. One clear example of a nonmystical element in fiction is the magic in, say, the Sword of Truth series; although Goodkind never attempts to explain this magic in scientific terms, what it represents in reality (arguably, technology) is very real and nonmystical. Do you disagree with this analysis? If so, why, and how would you account for the examples I have given?

I have absolutely no idea what this sentence means. On this topic, I suggest the following essay: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4002.

I would say that "technology vs. nature" is the primary theme of Avatar. The "reason vs. mysticism" theme is present primarily by implication, since the first theme can be regarded as a subset of the second. Few modern environmentalists would actually claim to be pro-mysticism and anti-reason, but this is the fundamental root of their philosophy nonetheless. If you abandon reason, what are you left with? Either force or mysticism. The Na'vi exhibit both. In reality, the most we can say is that more technologically advanced cultures will tend to be more rational (since rationality causes technological development while irrationality hinders it). In fiction, however, it is imperative to examine the characteristics of the protagonists and antagonists which the creator chooses to emphasize, since these will never be accidental. In Avatar, the relative level of technological development exhibited by Humans and Na'vi is certainly not accidental. In scene after scene, we are subjected to "look at the pretty flowers/insects/landscapes" followed immediately by "look at the dreary, sordid human technology". The message: it is moral to choose the flowers over the technology. Not at all. Proper science fiction (and fantasy for that matter) provides a backdrop for a story, which is often quite entertaining in itself. The perposterous "data flow network" concept in Avatar is, by contrast, an important symbol which exists to serve the theme of the movie. It symbolizes the supposed symbiotic connection of humans on Earth to each other and to the environment. The only meaningful sense in which we can talk about any part of a work of fiction as being true or false is by determining what it represents in reality, and evaluating the truth of that. Since there is no such "connection" in reality, this aspect of Avatar is mysticism. By contrast, Galt's invention in AS is not mysticism, because what it symbolizes in reality is any great, world-changing invention (and such inventions do in fact exist). Now, if another story, with no environmentalist theme, contained the same biological data network concept, it would not necessarily be mysticism in that story: it would simply be an entertaining plot device and would in this case represent a generic metaphysically given fact of the characters' environment (and such facts do exist on Earth, and do affect the lives of real humans). Also, notice how the pretense at a scientific justification quickly degenerates into a communal gathering lead by a witch doctor, in which the Na'vi chant and wave their hands in the air. The chanting implies something which comprehends the chanting; i.e. a consciousness. Ascribing the faculty of consciousness to nonliving entities, or of understanding to beings below the conceptual level, is the essence of mysticism.

I agree that making the Na'vi seem like people is essential, as in necessary, to the story. The reason for this is the environmentalist deception that things like civility, culture, learning, and romance are compatible with the abandonment of man's means of survival. When I said that it was inessential I meant rather that it was not essential to the deeper meaning of Avatar, which is that unexploited nature is superior to technology. Also, the "connection" of the Na'vi to their environment wasn't non-mystical. In order to make something non-mystical, it is not sufficient to simply invent some scientific-sounding phrase such as "data flow network" (I forget the exact wording). Again, this deception was included in the film for specific propaganda purposes: the goal is to plant in the viewer's mind the vague notion that environmental mysticism concerning our "connection" with nature can be justified scientifically. I disagree. Almost every scene in the film is specifically designed to present a contrast between human technology and the mystical connection with nature possessed by the Na'vi. In the battle scenes near the end, we see helecopters being destroyed by flying animals, ground machines being routed by massive, insensible jungle beasts, and a marine in a powered suit defeated by brute strength/agility and primitive hunter-gatherer tools. The final battle as a whole shows technology being overcome by brute strength of numbers. The central manifestation of this contrast is of course Jake's two bodies: his limp, crippled human body which must rely on technology vs. his Na'vi body which is presented as the epitome of exhuberant vitality. During his training with the Na'vi, Jake's excursions into the forest show him using his strength, agility, quick reflexes, and even his emotions (when he must "bond" with the flying creature, or when he courts the female Na'vi), but never his reason. In the end, Jake scorns medical treatment for his legs in favor of a mystical ceremony which will cause him to switch bodies. Every scene showing technology has an empty feel, with subdued colors, and a lower level of excitement. Every scene showing nature and the Na'vi features brilliant colors, and heightened excitement. As I recall, near the end of the movie, one of the Na'vi even makes an explicit statement to the effect that the humans will be stopped from destroying Pandora as they destroyed Earth. As an engineering student, it was also interesting for me to observe that the human technology in the film is ridiculously designed to the point of being deliberately ineffective. For example, the machine which sets out to clear the Na'vi from the vicinity of the tree apparently possesses a single visual sensor, comically protruding from its hull. Once Jake easily disables this sensor with his bare hands, the operators of the machine are left blind! In order to destroy the tree near the end, the human commander's plan consists in dropping crates of explosives out of an open cargo-bay. In reality, a space-age civilization would probably have the technology to extract the Unobtainium without the Na'vi ever noticing a foreign presence.

This is a good point, and it actually makes Avatar much worse than the example I gave. In saying that no explanation is given for the violent behavior, I was primarily referring to the marine commander, who is written as simply enjoying killing (it is not clear that he even cares about the Unobtanium). Also, you are correct in saying that the Na'vi being rational is not a premise of the film. My point here was that one should not automatically infer from the details given in the film (their language and tool use) that they are rational. Any work of fiction makes claims about reality only in its essentials. The seemingly semi-rational behavior of the Na'vi is non-essential; their mystical "connection" with their environment is the essential. The whole film could have been remade with the Na'vi not exhibiting any civilized behavior at all, and it would be the same film in terms of fundamentals (the purpose of the traces of civilized behavior is to get the audience to identify more with the Na'vi). When Ayn Rand described John Galt's motor in Atlas Shrugged, was she trying to imply that such a device is actually possible? No; the specific nature of the device is non-essential. When I evaluate the essentials of AS, I conclude that they are true, even though Galt's motor is impossible. When I evaluate the essentials of Avatar, I conclude that they are false, and some incidental traces of rationality possessed by the Na'vi cannot change this. When I say that I am on the side of the humans in Avatar, I am looking only at the essentials of the story. When I do this, I see an advanced, rational civilization defeated and humbled by the mystical forces of unthinking nature. If Avatar means anything in reality, this is it. It is impossible to correctly evaluate any work of fiction without identifying its essentials. Without doing this, one would be forced to attach significance to such things as Animal Farm being about farm animals, Harry Potter being about wizzards, or John Galt building an impossible device. Let me first say that I proudly stand by my use of this term. It is revealing to examine the etymology of the word savage (see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=savage). When I used the word savage as I did, I was in fact closer to its original meaning (the Na'vi lived in the forest, and were clearly "untamed" and "wild"). The fact that this word came to denote violence and ferocity is interesting, since civility is indeed often proportional to cultural and technological development. Edit: I see Thales has beaten me to it on defending the use of the word savage! I also agree with his statement.

I would first like to express my complete agreement with what Capitalism Forever has written in this thread so far. I am not sure whether this precise point has been made yet, but I think one important issue here is that one should not automatically grant all of the premises of a work of propaganda. In other words, when we see the Na'vi using language and simple tools, we should not automatically conclude that they are rational, and therefore possessed of rights. Similarly, when we see the humans looting and pillaging, we should not automatically conclude that they are nihilistic thugs. Suppose someone were to write a story about a peaceful, prosperous nation, called "Commutopia", in which every citizen is hard-working, benevolent, and absolutely loyal to the wise ruling party. Commutopia is then attacked by an army of ruthless killers with dollar signs painted on their uniforms, who wander around burning things, impaling infants, and comitting other atrocities, for no particular reason which is ever explained. Eventually, a brave band of peasants unites and drives out the invaders. Upon hearing this story, would we be compelled to praise the band of peasants and condemn the invaders? After all, was the government of Commutopia violating the rights of its citizens? No, every single individual citizen voluntarily agrees to abide by the will of the collective (the author states this clearly). Did the invaders act rationally and respect rights? Clearly not. If I were to hear this story, I would refuse to accept its premises, and would choose the side of the invaders over the "heroes". I found myself doing exactly this near the end of Avatar; I even began to admire the "evil" marine commander after a fashion: I saw him as a symbol of capitalism and the military, who was being slandered by a corrupt director. Note that my example above is essentially Avatar with environmentalism replaced by communism in the theme. In general, any story is an account of fictitious events, which is being relayed by the story's creator. Is it even possible to disbelieve this account? My answer is yes. If at the end of the Harry Potter series, it was revealed that Voldermort is good while Harry is evil, readers would rightly disbelieve this revelation, since it contradicts the rest of the story. What about things like magic or faster than light travel, which are clearly impossible in our universe? My answer is that in fiction only the essentials are subject to this kind of disbelief. We can believe the magic in Harry Potter, or the technology in Star Trek, but we should not believe the situation I presented in my propaganda example above. Should we disbelieve the fictional "facts" presented in Avatar? Yes. A tribe of jungle savages is not a perfect, utopian society. A capitalist civilization capable of space-travel is not a gang of nihilistic barbarians. Military commanders are not mindless, sadistic killers. Advanced technology is not powerless in the face of nature. Machines are not ugly abominations and untouched nature is not a beautiful paradise. These are the essentials of Avatar, and they contradict the facts of reality.

Dmitriy and I were in high school together in Almaty, and both read (the same copy of) Atlas Shrugged in our senior year. We used to often discuss politics and economics, and Atlas Shrugged caused us to rethink our previous ideas. Welcome to the forum, Dmitriy!

I enjoy Dexter very much, and am currently in the middle of season 3. I agree with this; however, considering the "broken" state of Dexter's mind (and assuming you accept the premise that such a state is actually possible), I think he has made the best of his situation in a way. In any case, I can't help but sympathize with him, in spite of his lawlessness (this, of course, is what the creators of the program are trying to achieve).

What is your opinion of the countless Objectivist intellectuals who advocate for concrete political measures (for example voting for/against a given candidate or proposal)? They routinely attempt to convince far more than 300,000 people to take a specific action, which will not lead to a completely free society, but which will either slow or counteract the rise of collectivism. Leonard Peikoff has said that it is useless to try to run a purely Laissez-Faire based political campaign in the United States today, and this is true. Such a campaign would never succeed given the current state of the culture. As the original poster said, however, Iceland is a tiny country facing a major crisis. Also, the measure being advocated is a concrete step towards LF (albeit a large one), not an attempt to create an objectively perfect government. I remind you that several smaller nations, such as Hong Kong and New Zealand, have significant LF policies in place, while not having perfect governments or cultures by any means (see http://www.heritage.org/index/). Why should it be impossible for Iceland to follow these examples, and even take them further? I am not saying that the OP's idea is likely to succeed (such ideas usually are not), but the potential benefit is large, and I see no reason it should be impossible (keep in mind that convincing all of Iceland would be approximately like convincing a single, medium-sized city in the United States).