
We can see this example come true in the avatar movie. The Na'vi people lived lived happily and peacefully depending only on nature for survival. There was no competition against anyone. We will consider the Na'vi people as one man who is satisfied with the housing, the clothing, the weapons, and the food supply. It seems like their world is perfect when "humans" are not present. However, when the humans come and begin to colonize around the same area as the Na'vi people, this is when all the joy and peace come to an end. The humans begin to fight for the Home Tree in order to take it over. This is where we see the Na'vi people go from being a naturally gentle group to become fierce fighters ready to kill. Here is the point I think Rousseau was trying to make. Although we see the Na'vi being angry and fighting to kill off the humans who destroyed their home tree, although the Na'vi kill them with anger, and kick them off the planet we don't consider the Na'vi people as being cruel and only seeking evil. Rather, we realize that they were just defending their land and their anger was justified by what they were doing. They would not be considered completely wicked people only searching for destruction, but instead they would be praised for their victory and success. Therefore, we are not evil trying to find a glimpse of good, but rather we are naturally gentle trying to defend and protect that identity.

First off, I like that you chose this argument from Rousseau to write about and I like the comparison you drew between them. Yes it is true that Na'vi are peaceful and just trying to protect what is theirs, what they obtained with their "own ability". But by that same respect, aren't the humans using their "own ability" to take whatever they want. But overall I do agree with you that its not until we begin to compete and desire more that we separate ourselves from each other, just as humans have clearly done in this movie.
ReplyDelete