Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Avatar

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 467
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.
I am confused as to what you are claiming is the essence. This statement is clear enough, but you also go on in this post and your previous to attempt to establish a "reason vs. mysticism" as the essence. What is confusing me is the naive equivocation of technology=reason and nature=mysticism. Having access to technology does not automatically make people virtuous, nor does a life close to nature as a hunter-gatherer make people into superstitious mystics.

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.
Justification negates mysticism. You just tried to wave off all science fiction as mysticism.

- A (purportedly) super sense-perceptual or sub sense-perceptual experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of sense perception, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection.

I didn't see any of that in the movie.

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.
None of these examples illustrate mysticism. Even the body swapping showed visible traces of something moving between the bodies. It is also fair to interpret the power suited marine as the avatar of brute strength in the last fight.

Attempting to reduce the movie to Attila vs. the Witch-doctor: 3D! does not succeed cleanly on either side.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused as to what you are claiming is the essence. This statement is clear enough, but you also go on in this post and your previous to attempt to establish a "reason vs. mysticism" as the essence.

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.

Having access to technology does not automatically make people virtuous, nor does a life close to nature as a hunter-gatherer make people into superstitious mystics.

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.

Justification negates mysticism. You just tried to wave off all science fiction as mysticism.

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.

Edited by Tenzing_Shaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No, what they were doing by chanting was supplying energy to the neural network to "power it up" for the task at hand. The appellation of "witch doctor" is incorrect. A "witch doctor" is one who purports to commune with spirits, existing in a supernatural realm. The Na'vi spiritual leader is a person who had knowledge of the intricacies of manipulating the neural network to effect tangible phenomena. The Tree of Souls was depicted as a repository of the uploaded memories of their ancestors, which would make it, not supernatural, but natural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what was their means of survival, reason or "the environment" ? Make up your mind.

In order to hunt, one must use reason to assure success. In order to hunt, one must also have an environment to hunt in. Kind of difficult to hunt Rocky Mountain Big Horn Sheep in the middle of Manhattan, although you might be able to bag a squirrel or two in Central Park. Or a nice, fat rat.

I hunt with a recurve bow, which I prefer over a firearm. That must make me an irrational savage, as I prefer the more primitive weapon over the more modern and efficient one.

Edited by Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=240933

... and a few posts following that as well.

Thanks. (It is easy to lose sight of people's posts in a thread of this length. ;)) So your take is basically that he wanted to create an anti-man propaganda movie, but it ended up being a fine work of art--sort of like the Internationale ended up being "the first beautiful thing about the revolution" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. (It is easy to lose sight of people's posts in a thread of this length. ;)) So your take is basically that he wanted to create an anti-man propaganda movie, but it ended up being a fine work of art--sort of like the Internationale ended up being "the first beautiful thing about the revolution" ?

That isn't at all what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Why, can't you read plain English? As to your linked site, so what? I'm speaking to the context of the film, and a work of science fiction. You and others on this thread are being too literalist. It's getting in the way of your enjoyment of an artful and enjoyable film. Just because a film, a book, a piece of art isn't some capitalist wet-dream doesn't mean it has no value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Na'vi spiritual leader is a person who had knowledge of the intricacies of manipulating the neural network to effect tangible phenomena. The Tree of Souls was depicted as a repository of the uploaded memories of their ancestors, which would make it, not supernatural, but natural.

I think we saw the same movie. Pretty much all of the things I see people attributing to being mystical were portrayed in the movie as physically real, such as their biological, not mystical, connection with the Tree and other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, can't you read plain English? As to your linked site, so what? I'm speaking to the context of the film, and a work of science fiction. You and others on this thread are being too literalist. It's getting in the way of your enjoyment of an artful and enjoyable film. Just because a film, a book, a piece of art isn't some capitalist wet-dream doesn't mean it has no value.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That isn't at all what I said.

Which part of it is wrong? The one about Cameron wanting to create an anti-man propaganda movie, or about it ending up being good art? I am honestly confused as to your position.

Edited by Capitalism Forever
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Well its been a big influence in my life in general, you know, being a child in the 60s, and sort of coming to that point in the development of your cognitive processes, as a teenager in the late 60’s, early 70s – which was the birth of the environmental movement, and its always been a big deal to me – even though I haven’t been an activist until more recently.

And now with climate change pretty much dooming the coral reef habitats over the world over the next 50 years, which not enough people are talking about, I do feel a sense of outrage, in the sense that as an artist, its kind of my responsibility to create a warning and remind people. People need to be reminded from every direction.

I just want them to internalize [in the viewers] a sense of respect and a sense of taking responsibility for the stewardship of the earth.. and I think this film can do that by creating an emotional reaction.

Quotes are from http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/18/the-fi...ctor-of-avatar/.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which part of it is wrong? The one about Cameron wanting to create an anti-man propaganda movie, or about it ending up being good art? I am honestly confused as to your position.

I never said nor implied that it was a fine work of art. Additionally, in at least a couple of my earlier posts, (and yes the thread is getting long) i already stated that i thought his intent was to create an environmental statement with the movie. Your question created a false choice between what positions could be construed from my posts.

Additionally, there is the difference between what he intended, an environmental statement, and what can be taken from the movie as it is actually portrayed. Cameron believes our link to the earth is every bit as real as the Na'vi link to their world. He believes we are greedily destroying our world with technology. While his analogies fail, the link of the Na'vi to their world is very real (biological in fact) taken in context of the movie. It was entirely rational for them to protect their home based on the facts of the 'reality' presented in the movie. It was entirely an initiation of force against the Na'vi perpetrated by the humans in destroying their home.

It seems to me that what you and some others are arguing is based on what he intended to represent whereas my argument (and I think others as well) is based on what is actually portrayed by the events of the movie. It would not be the first time an artist failed to accurately draw the analogy they sought to represent with their work.

My comments on your post had nothing to do with what I thought of the quality of the art. If you are still confused about my position, please go back and re-read my posts. Aside from me mentioning the visual effects, I've made no other evaluation of the quality of the movie as a whole piece of art because that has not been the primary thrust of this conversation.

What disheartens me is exactly what Maximus alluded to in an earlier post. The position of the opposition here appears to be easily summed up as "technological might makes right".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While his analogies fail, the link of the Na'vi to their world is very real (biological in fact) taken in context of the movie.

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?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?).

Yes, I disagree. They can be taken within the context of the world presented in the art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but think that many are letting their animosity towards Cameron's personal & political agenda get in the way of rigth and rational thought.

(and Cameron's ideas merit all the scorn that can be hurled at them of course)

Put aside any of the scenes of the military and corporations being portrayed as evil. Imagine just seeing scenes of the Navi themselves, away from the context of the bigger story. They have a home and a concept of what that means. They have valued interpersonal relationships. They understand property enough to bother having tools and training hunters and warriors as part of their way of life. Primitive and mystic, yes. I am firmly on record as disliking the movie.

But you cannot claim rationally these beings have no rights.

One of the things I disliked so much about the movie was its complete lack of originality- it was nothing more than Dances With Wolves (In SPACE!)

You cannot say that there was a right to slaughter the Navi and take their homes anymore than there was a right to slaughter the native tribes of the Americas.

To say that the right exists because they were more primitive ignores the fundamental nature of rights.

I don't have a right to my life only so long as I am more powerful than the people who would take it from me.

I have a right to it.

You can't say that there was a right to take their home because trade had been attempted and they didn't want to trade so force was necessary- because by that logic if someone wants my vintage Danelectro Longhorn bass guitar and I don't want to sell it at ANY price they have a right to break down my door, kill me and take it because I am irrationally refusing to trade.

Edited by QuoVadis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

So far, so good. The villians in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer tv show were like that, representing various life challenges of the week and of the season.

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.
Craig Venter actually did that like last week, so ... bad example. Was the storyline mystical the week before last and not mystical today, or was it never mystical? Unless the Intelligent Designer is identified as God, it was never 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.
I can understand the mysticism here without using your principle. Lewis' metaphysics of Narnia implemented primacy of the laws of the "Deep Magic" to which reality had to change itself to conform. Reifying rules that way as causal agents is reifying consciousness, so this was primacy of consciousness a.k.a. mysticism. The shortcut (your principle) would be to realize Aslan represents Jesus, but if I accepted as factual that Jesus existed as described in the Bible then it would not be mystical. We can save your principle from subjective interpretation by realizing that Jesus himself is mystical, so any representations and literary analogs will also be mystical.

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.
Not familiar with that, can't comment.

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.
There is no such corresponding connection on Earth. So does it symbolize mystically or does it fail to symbolize anything? I say it fails to symbolize because there is nothing for the symbol to refer to. Mysticism must bring in primacy of consciousness, and Eywa as a conscious alien life form does not establish the primacy of consciousness any more than does the presence of any other alien or human consciousness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What disheartens me is exactly what Maximus alluded to in an earlier post. The position of the opposition here appears to be easily summed up as "technological might makes right".

Wow. And I thought I was confused about your position! Of course I don't believe that technological might makes right. Which of my posts was it that made you think so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. And I thought I was confused about your position! Of course I don't believe that technological might makes right. Which of my posts was it that made you think so?

Perhaps I have unfairly lumped all of 'the opposition' into one basket. If that does not apply to you, my apologies.

Rather, what I should have taken from your specific position is that since you don't think they are rational beings, and they won't trade with the humans (even if offering to trade itself implies some recognition of ownership on the part of the other party, recognition of some right to compensation and voluntary agreement), the humans can just take whatever they want and be morally clean.

The humans in the film even recognize several times that the home tree belongs to the Na'vi, they just don't care because it is in their way. Of course, the destruction of their home and numerous lives were just mis-steps, as you put it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shortcut (your principle) would be to realize Aslan represents Jesus, but if I accepted as factual that Jesus existed as described in the Bible then it would not be mystical. We can save your principle from subjective interpretation by realizing that Jesus himself is mystical, so any representations and literary analogs will also be mystical.

Yes, this is exactly what I was getting at.

Was the storyline mystical the week before last and not mystical today, or was it never mystical? Unless the Intelligent Designer is identified as God, it was never mystical.

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.

There is no such corresponding connection on Earth. So does it symbolize mystically or does it fail to symbolize anything? I say it fails to symbolize because there is nothing for the symbol to refer to. Mysticism must bring in primacy of consciousness, and Eywa as a conscious alien life form does not establish the primacy of consciousness any more than does the presence of any other alien or human consciousness.

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.

Put aside any of the scenes of the military and corporations being portrayed as evil. Imagine just seeing scenes of the Navi themselves, away from the context of the bigger story. They have a home and a concept of what that means. They have valued interpersonal relationships. They understand property enough to bother having tools and training hunters and warriors as part of their way of life.

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.

Edited by Tenzing_Shaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather, what I should have taken from your specific position is that since you don't think they are rational beings, [...] the humans can just take whatever they want and be morally clean.

Yes, that is much more like it. (Whether or not their action is moral in the end depends on a number of other things, as there is a lot more to ethics than not initiating force, but if there are no rational animals to use force against, then it is clear that no use of force is taking place.)

offering to trade itself implies some recognition of ownership on the part of the other party, recognition of some right to compensation and voluntary agreement

Offering to trade was a part of the process of discovering the nature of the Na'vi. When they arrived on the planet, they didn't know whether or not the Na'vi were rational beings. In order to find out, they tried treating them like rational beings to see if they reacted like rational beings. If they did, they would have recognized them as persons having rights. But if they didn't (as was the case in the movie, IMO), then the humans would conclude that there was no property owner there to take the offer.

It's a bit like asking "Is there anybody home?" Asking the question does not imply that you think there is somebody to answer, only that you find it possible that someone might be there to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offering to trade was a part of the process of discovering the nature of the Na'vi. When they arrived on the planet, they didn't know whether or not the Na'vi were rational beings. In order to find out, they tried treating them like rational beings to see if they reacted like rational beings. If they did, they would have recognized them as persons having rights. But if they didn't (as was the case in the movie, IMO), then the humans would conclude that there was no property owner there to take the offer.

And this may be where we differ. IMO, they did demonstrate they were rational and the humans simply did not care.

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...