Evening Gents.

I read Antoine de Saint Exupery's "The Little Prince" today, a wonderful, short fable which held some very potent messages for kids and adults alike (i.e. I recommend it).  One passage stuck out to me, though.

Pardon the long quote. The scene is the Little Prince finds a Businessman counting the stars and claiming he owns them.  It all leads to the point, but I highlighted the real focus of my post.

“How is it possible for one to own the stars?”
“To whom do they belong?” the businessman retorted, peevishly.
“I don’t know. To nobody.”
“Then they belong to me, because I was the first person to think of it.”
“Is that all that is necessary?”
“Certainly. When you find a diamond that belongs to nobody, it is yours.
When you discover an island that belongs to nobody, it is yours. When you get
an idea before any one else, you take out a patent on it: it is yours. So with me: I own the stars, because nobody else before me ever thought of owning them.”
“Yes, that is true,” said the little prince. “And what do you do with them?”
“I administer them,” replied the businessman. “I count them and recount
them. It is difficult. But I am a man who is naturally interested in matters of
consequence.”
The little prince was still not satisfied.

“If I owned a silk scarf,” he said, “I could put it around my neck and take
it away with me. If I owned a flower, I could pluck that flower and take it away
with me. But you cannot pluck the stars from heaven. . . ”
“No. But I can put them in the bank.”
“Whatever does that mean?”
“That means that I write the number of my stars on a little paper. And
then I put this paper in a drawer and lock it with a key.”
“And that is all?”
“That is enough,” said the businessman.
“It is entertaining,” thought the little prince. “It is rather poetic. But it is
of no great consequence.”
On matters of consequence, the little prince had ideas which were very different from those of the grown-ups.
“I myself own a flower,” he continued his conversation with the businessman,
“which I water every day. I own three volcanoes, which I clean out every week (for I also clean out the one that is extinct; one never knows). It is of some use to my volcanoes, and it is of some use to my flower, that I own them. But you are of no use to the stars. . . ”
The businessman opened his mouth, but he found nothing to say in answer.
And the little prince went away.
“The grown-ups are certainly altogether extraordinary,” he said simply, talking
to himself as he continued on his journey.

So then, what does it mean to "own" something as humans?  I own shoes, a computer, foodstuff, sheets, rights to water and power, dozens of accounts online, and on and on.  But, what's the point of me owning them?  Traditionally, we say we own things so we can make use of them.  How we make use of them varies--a hammer is more practically used than a neglected library card--but because we can justifiably say "I have more right to utilize this than others," we claim it belongs to us.

Antoine comes at it from the other side.  If we own something, we are obliged to manage its care and somehow be of consequence to that thing.  Simply claiming you own something but not contributing to it (e.g. holding a plot of land but letting it go wild as nature wills) negates any reason behind your claim.  I find this an amazingly true insight.  If I don't use or care for my shoes, they sit silent in the closet as if they don't exist.  My food will spoil, water go to another mouth, car age and deteriorate, and my phone will slowly drain its battery until it is a fragile brick.  In order to lay claim to anything, we must spend some of our lives contributing to the purpose, existence, and function of said thing.

I guess the mantra "don't let your things own you" applies here, but, in a way, I now suspect it is impossible to own things without them somewhat controlling you.

Any thoughts from ye men?

Views: 131

Replies to This Discussion

Interesting that the Australian Aboriginal concept of ownership in the context of Native Title and Sovereignty is more like, "the land owns us, and we have a responsibility to care for it."

 

Australia's aboriginal stewardship models brought to Canada

Aboriginal conservation in Arnhem Land

 

Disclaimer: I am from Australia and know some Aboriginal Australians.  From that context I know just a very little about their culture but don't claim any expertise at all.

I agree there's no moral obligation to things.  It would be ridiculous to feel like you owed it to your dresser to put clothes in it.

On your metals: It would be silly for someone to lay claim to them, since you clearly earned them as a boy.  Now you say they sit in your basement to only rarely be seen and valued.  Let me run my mind from a child's perspective (as Exupery does in his book).

A child came across the metals and decided they were perfect for banging together and making noise.  You find him and say to stop because they are yours.  The boy asks what you do with them, and you say they are mementos from long ago.  To him, though, it seems a waste for two perfectly good noise makers to sit idle in a box.  He could then think the unused metals should be used as he wants to, and only direct action by you to protect the medals can enforce your ownership, because you otherwise are not apparently using the medals.

Another example: I collected Lego Star Wars ships as a child.  I would build them, then put them on a display case and enjoy the accomplishment of having them built.  In late high school, my younger cousin (I think he was in elementary then) began coming over from time to time, and wanted to play with my Legos, since he sees them as toys to be played with.  I told him I didn't want them messed with, but he couldn't see how I enjoyed them without using them.  In the end, I donated my collection to him, since I realized I was getting no use of them, while he would have plenty of fun breaking and making his own creations.

Now, granted in both cases the child is detached from the emotions associated with our respective accomplishments.  But, there will come a day when possessions must go on to someone else (death, donation, etc.)  They may be valued by your descendants, reused by another person, recycled and made into something else, or whatever their new owner deems useful/possible.  Though they may technically be yours, at some point your claim to ownership faults because they are of no use to you, and you are of no consequence to them. 

Hmm...not sure if actually presented a new point or just ran my mind there.

An interesting and very old discussion with many points of view and definite outcomes exist. I would add to the question of 'ownership',it comes down to individual laws of individual societies throughout the world that have ranged from nomadic tribal law to vast republics? These laws very greatly and may be well defined and documented to implied in general less defined terms. The question of ownership or use rights only became an issue after the world started to become populated and conflicts between individual people, herdsman, villager, communities, and on and on. As you defend your views on the subject, this age old question continues to be played out around the world to this day. Consider Israel and Palestine, a small uninhibited island in the Pacific being contested by China and Japan, Tibet, and as you pointed out above, intellectual and copyright ownership to illustrate just a few. Consequence and usage of property is also define by societal law. Tough question to resolve considering the varied values and views that exist.

RSS

Latest Activity

David R. replied to Drew's discussion Women with body image issues
"As a side bar, I was told years ago that when Playgirl magazine was first published, men for the first time got to feel what it's been like for women forever it seems.  (No one of either gender can compete with the perfect air-brushed…"
7 minutes ago
Lumberjoe replied to David R.'s discussion "Iron sharpens iron" in the group The Great Debate
""I'll also add: if there needs to be a change, the leaders of the change should be members of the group. For self-appointed guardians to decide for other ethnicities what they should be offended by seems pretty demeaning." "Of…"
9 minutes ago
David R. replied to David R.'s discussion "Iron sharpens iron" in the group The Great Debate
"The whole "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" thing is B.S.  I remember meeting a woman in her 80s a few years ago who shared with me that when she was a child she was called ugly, and that stuck with…"
11 minutes ago
David R. replied to David R.'s discussion "Iron sharpens iron" in the group The Great Debate
"Those times when I hear (even in the 21st century!) someone use "Jew" as a verb really upsets me (I am not Jewish).  C'mon, people.  "The times, they are a-changin' " is the truth, and many of those changes…"
16 minutes ago
Lumberjoe replied to David R.'s discussion "Iron sharpens iron" in the group The Great Debate
""White became... white." Depends who you ask. Some people prefer Caucasian. (Even though it's not technically correct most of the time.) Some people prefer American of European ancestry. Some people prefer white. Some people…"
31 minutes ago
Lumberjoe replied to Sir's discussion The Cost Disease in the group The Great Debate
"On the topic of education, particularly post-secondary education, I just want to point out that my wife's law degree probably cost her less than 15,000 CAD in total. (Including her undergrad!) She graduated in more or less 2007 I think.…"
49 minutes ago
Drew replied to Drew's discussion Women with body image issues
"Hi, Thanks for the reply, its good having a female perspective on this. I've been with her about 5 years so I know about the 'up in arms about every little thing' issue haha. On a serious note, I don't think her mum realised…"
3 hours ago
Sir added a discussion to the group The Great Debate
Thumbnail

The Cost Disease

[I]n the past fifty years, education costs have doubled, college costs have dectupled, health insurance costs have dectupled, subway costs have at least dectupled, and housing costs have increased by about fifty percent. US health care costs about four times as much as equivalent health care in other First World countries; US subways cost about eight times as much as equivalent subways in other First World countries...[A]ll of the numbers above are inflation-adjusted....And this is especially…See More
7 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service