Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Avatar

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 467
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't see avatar as anti-capitalism at all quite simply because greed, theft and murder does not equal capitalism.

All Humans and All Business is not portrayed as ugly. Sure SOME humans were portrayed as "ugly" because some humans ARE ugly.

Sure a big business entity in Avatar was portrayed as bad. Aren't some big business entities in real life actually bad though? Enron anyone?

I, just like the next person on this forum, would dearly love to see a film showing a GREAT big business entity. And Avatar certainly has its faults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see avatar as anti-capitalism at all quite simply because greed, theft and murder does not equal capitalism.

All Humans and All Business is not portrayed as ugly. Sure SOME humans were portrayed as "ugly" because some humans ARE ugly.

Sure a big business entity in Avatar was portrayed as bad. Aren't some big business entities in real life actually bad though? Enron anyone?

I, just like the next person on this forum, would dearly love to see a film showing a GREAT big business entity. And Avatar certainly has its faults.

It was made clear that humans had trashed their homeworld. How much more anti-man could he have made it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was made clear that humans had trashed their homeworld. How much more anti-man could he have made it?

Why did John Galt create Galt's Gulch? Not exactly the same but still a relative point.

Atlas Shrugged is full of "bad" people. Do we now say that Atlas Shrugged is anti-reason?

No because the "hero" of the book is not anti-reason.

Thus Jake Sully is the hero of Avatar, and he is pro-life. At least as I see it.

Jake Sully becoming a na'vi is kinda like his Galt's Gulch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus Jake Sully is the hero of Avatar, and he is pro-life. At least as I see it.

Jake Sully becoming a na'vi is kinda like his Galt's Gulch.

LOL, yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....Even Joe Stalin was more pro-man, more pro-life, and more pro-reason than Jake Sully. But no, we're not going to think of the Soviet Union as "kinda like his Galt's Gulch."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One good human striving to not be a human in order to be better is not a good example of humanity. Atlas Shrugged had many people who were good or at least average who were relatable and sensible characters. Avatar was the opposite with 5 totally good humans fighting cookie-cutter villains with no middle ground; oh and these good guys all became not humans or made themselves not look like humans.

Oh but Na'vi could be rational beings too! Except they live in tribes with no individual sense and their entire goal in life is communion with nature and no impact on the natural world around them. No matter how much time passes they are content because they have nature. To promote that as the ideal to approach is anti-human. Technology and ideas move us forward; getting rid of technology and new ideas for nature does not advance anything.

Also, love the oatmeal as well. hilarious webcomic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, Giovanni Ribisi's character was the only character that didn't make me want to puke

Wait a minute

Why was Jake at fault for retaliating against animals that attacked him? Is there a deeper explanation, or is this just some crazy earth-humping Na'vi theme.

I was watching this because it was on display at Wal-Mart, so I couldn't really hear it well

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought this movie primarily because I loved the visuals and effects—they're truly beautiful and "revolutionary" (provided you have a screen to do them justice).

In movies like this, I choose to look at the good aspects of its message, instead of being completely standoffish and unable to enjoy it.

I compared the liberation Jake Sully felt in his avatar's body, to the freedom one can feel with rational consciousness as the driver of their own bodies (a metaphor Rand uses in Atlas Shrugged in Galt's speech).

Using analogies in this way, I can appreciate many aspects of the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was Jake at fault for retaliating against animals that attacked him? Is there a deeper explanation, or is this just some crazy earth-humping Na'vi theme.

The hippie space smurf chick explained why he was at fault for killing the animals that attacked him- because he didn't know how to act in a maaner that wouldn't make them attack their attack was his fault, and therefore his fault that they were killed.

So it is a crazy earth-humping explanation, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hippie space smurf chick explained why he was at fault for killing the animals that attacked him- because he didn't know how to act in a maaner that wouldn't make them attack their attack was his fault, and therefore his fault that they were killed.

So it is a crazy earth-humping explanation, yes.

:lol: QuoVadis --- now that's entertaining writing!

One good human striving to not be a human in order to be better is not a good example of humanity.

Exactly my take. We know Cameron is low rent, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought this movie primarily because I loved the visuals and effects—they're truly beautiful and "revolutionary" (provided you have a screen to do them justice).

In movies like this, I choose to look at the good aspects of its message, instead of being completely standoffish and unable to enjoy it.

I compared the liberation Jake Sully felt in his avatar's body, to the freedom one can feel with rational consciousness as the driver of their own bodies (a metaphor Rand uses in Atlas Shrugged in Galt's speech).

Using analogies in this way, I can appreciate many aspects of the movie.

Ben, correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost seems to me that you're saying that if you rationalize 90% of the movie, you'll be able to enjoy it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben, correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost seems to me that you're saying that if you rationalize 90% of the movie, you'll be able to enjoy it?

I'm able to enjoy the movie because of the visual appeal and how unique/creative it is, and many of the admirable/entertaining aspects of several of the characters. (I take what I want from it). There's certain movies I can't do this with, but Avatar is definitely one I can enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One good human striving to not be a human in order to be better is not a good example of humanity.

It is our mind that determines the essence of our humanity. He only jumped bodies and his choices reflected the most noble of human values. He was also hired to learn about them so him participating in their culture and activities was not his attempt at not being a human. In the end, he stayed behind to be with his girlfriend. If I made that choice, I would also think of the most practical way of living on that planet and permanently taking control of that body does seem very reasonable choice to me considering the circumstances.

I understand that there were enough bad aspects in the movie that made it not enjoyable for some but let's not make stuff up that simply was not there. Restrain that rationalism.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he gave up was a crippled body

He was promised an operation to fix his leg back home, so no, he didn't have to go native for a healthy body. Rejecting life qua man was his SOLE reason for going native.

and a culture that placed no value on the rights of others if they were in the way of what they wanted.

You first need to show that the Na'vi had rights in the first place.

In our present context here on Earth, we say that rights apply to man, since they are derived from man's defining characteristic: the fact of reason being his primary means of survival. If at some point we discover another species that shares this essential characteristic, then we will extend the scope of rights to include individuals of that species--but if we discover a new species that is only similar to man in other, non-essential characteristics, then it would be a mistake to apply rights to that species.

There was no evidence in the movie of the Na'vi using reason as their primary means of survival; in fact, their fundamental distinction from man was that they survived by "connecting" with lower animals and NOT by reason. It has been mentioned that they were able to speak, which was supposedly indicative of their possessing a conceptual faculty--but in reality as opposed to fiction, a species would not evolve the ability to use language unless it needed it for its survival; if a species like the Na'vi could speak a language, it would only be an indication that they once used to be rational animals and still retain their linguistic faculty as a vestige. They would in effect be what the viros would like man to become: an ex-rational animal that has stopped using reason as its way of survival.

It is in our rational self-interest to recognize the rights of other rational beings because dealing with them as traders promotes our lives while dealing with them by force would risk our destruction. It is not in our rational self-interest to attribute rights to beings that we cannot deal with as traders, either because they have no rational faculty or because they refuse to use it. To do so would be to sacrifice our values to a floating abstraction.

It is our mind that determines the essence of our humanity.

And it was his mind that he gave up.

The fact that he switched into a different body was a required part of the plot but not an essential part of the message. The movie is themed around what I would call environmental theology: it attempts to suggest that the mystical elements of the environmentalist ideology have a basis in reality, and that, even though irrationalism is obviously powerless against those acting rationally, Eywa Gaia will eventually come to the rescue. It is anti-mind not only at the level of ethics, but right down to metaphysics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You first need to show that the Na'vi had rights in the first place.

No irrational or altruist code of ethics can be practiced consistently. It may well be that it is also impossible to portray realistically an irrational or altruist code of ethics being practiced consistently. Any movie that tries to do so will have contradictory elements, especially if it conservatively follows the Hollywood tropes of financial success by having a hero, a boy gets girl subplot, and a happy ending. Responding to the contradictory elements then becomes a kind of Rorschach test with no correct answer.

Anyway, the capacity to control the minds of animals was a science fiction element added onto what were otherwise shown to be people. All literature is ultimately about the people who read it, hear it or in this case view it. Of course the Navi are people, if they were sufficiently alien they would be unsympathetic and no one would care what happened to them and the story and movie would fail. If they look like people and act like people then inductively they are people. People have rights. Their additional "means of survival" is under the command of their volitional faculty, so it does not become a primary means of survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No irrational or altruist code of ethics can be practiced consistently. It may well be that it is also impossible to portray realistically an irrational or altruist code of ethics being practiced consistently.

Exactly. But isn't it obvious that Cameron was trying to do that? The Na'vi were meant to be a concretization of the viro dream come true, of men that have abdicated reason and "rejoined nature."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was promised an operation to fix his leg back home, so no, he didn't have to go native for a healthy body. Rejecting life qua man was his SOLE reason for going native.

He was promised an operation to restore his ability to walk, but at the price of sacrificing his honor. His commander had no intention of allowing peaceful resolution through negotiation, he wanted to use force as a means for his own perverse personal satisfaction.

You first need to show that the Na'vi had rights in the first place.

The Na'vi were volitional beings. It was their planet, their home. The Humans had no right to take what was not theirs.

In our present context here on Earth, we say that rights apply to man, since they are derived from man's defining characteristic: the fact of reason being his primary means of survival. If at some point we discover another species that shares this essential characteristic, then we will extend the scope of rights to include individuals of that species--but if we discover a new species that is only similar to man in other, non-essential characteristics, then it would be a mistake to apply rights to that species.

That's a good rationalization to justify exploiting them.

There was no evidence in the movie of the Na'vi using reason as their primary means of survival; in fact, their fundamental distinction from man was that they survived by "connecting" with lower animals and NOT by reason. It has been mentioned that they were able to speak, which was supposedly indicative of their possessing a conceptual faculty--but in reality as opposed to fiction, a species would not evolve the ability to use language unless it needed it for its survival; if a species like the Na'vi could speak a language, it would only be an indication that they once used to be rational animals and still retain their linguistic faculty as a vestige. They would in effect be what the viros would like man to become: an ex-rational animal that has stopped using reason as its way of survival.

They were individuals who had independent thoughts and took action on their own initiative. The planetary synoptic connection was an evolutionary design unique to their world, functioning in a similar manner to the computers we are utilizing right now, but on a mega scale. It is organically based technology. Different than ours, but no less advanced and in many ways superior.

It is in our rational self-interest to recognize the rights of other rational beings because dealing with them as traders promotes our lives while dealing with them by force would risk our destruction. It is not in our rational self-interest to attribute rights to beings that we cannot deal with as traders, either because they have no rational faculty or because they refuse to use it. To do so would be to sacrifice our values to a floating abstraction.

So, if we come across some primitive screw-heads, and they don't take our alcohol, drugs and plastic crap, we are justified in declaring them "irrational" and wiping them out and taking their resources? Really?

The fact that he switched into a different body was a required part of the plot but not an essential part of the message. The movie is themed around what I would call environmental theology: it attempts to suggest that the mystical elements of the environmentalist ideology have a basis in reality, and that, even though irrationalism is obviously powerless against those acting rationally, Eywa Gaia will eventually come to the rescue. It is anti-mind not only at the level of ethics, but right down to metaphysics.

On a deeper level, it was about right vs. wrong, love and honor. Concepts that seem to be overlooked in this thread or dismissed as "irrational." Regardless of Cameron's personal environmentalistic beliefs, these are the themes underlying this film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The planetary synoptic connection was an evolutionary design unique to their world, functioning in a similar manner to the computers we are utilizing right now, but on a mega scale. It is organically based technology.
What do you mean by "evolutionary design" ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. But isn't it obvious that Cameron was trying to do that? The Na'vi were meant to be a concretization of the viro dream come true, of men that have abdicated reason and "rejoined nature."

Yes. But judging the director and his motives is not the same as judging the movie itself. The movie as an end product is its own entity; it is not equivalent to the director's intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...