Aristotle and Sarte bath have two different views on ownership. Aristotle’s view of ownership is tangible, to own something does not always mean to have a physical object, like a book. However, Sarte’s view of ownership is intangible, to own an inedible object, such as a theory of idea. Ownership is both tangible and intangible.
Sarte’s view of ownership appeals to ethics, a branch of knowledge that deals with morals and principles. Since Sarte’s perspective of ownership is intangible, and to own something does not necessarily mean to physically own something, but to realize something as apart of us, like a thought. Sarte appeals to ethics, because he thinks that we can own something with or through our minds. Aristotle’s view is tangible: he believes that an object has to be physical if it is going to be owned. An example would be reading a biography- I am reading someone’s life, but I do not have the credit for writing the book, because it would be inhumane to take credit of someone’s work. But I own it, because I remember the story, in my thoughts. However, I do not own the initial meaning of ownership, but I own my opinion of ownership. We own the things we know, because we comprehend them, which turns to ownership.
The line between sense of self and ownership is very fine; fine as string, ownership and sense of self become one at a point in life. I own every characteristics of myself, I own up to all my beliefs, and I flaunt them. I own my Christianity━━yes, others believe in Christianity, but I interpret it in different ways, therefore, the ownership is different. Christianity goes back into the beginning of history, many ways of life have been traced back to Christianity. Owning my beliefs is just as equal as owning a physical object. I own my mind, I control what goes on around me, as everyone else too; the mind is the same as owning one self, which ties into sense of self, owning all the flaws and characteristics of ourselves. My...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document