The subject of ownership, Object of ownership - Philosophy

The subject of ownership

The subject of law is a physical individual (a certain conventionality is allowed here: for an ethereal spirit needs nothing, and in paradise there are no legal relations, and therefore the idea of ​​corporality of the subject of property is emphasized, otherwise there is no one to ask). From legal practice, especially modern, it is known that the actual subjects of property rights are not only individuals, but also legal entities - "social organisms", such as enterprises, joint-stock companies, etc. The aggregates of individuals do not represent a certain chaotic mix of human individuals: these are certain similarities of personalities, primarily in the person of the leaders of a given enterprise, who enter into legal relations (on behalf of the whole collective) with other enterprises, state institutions, foreign firms or individual physical entities . Legal entities are like physical entities, they are no less physical and no less spiritual and in this respect are similar to individuals with their physical and spiritual needs and interests. Therefore, they are also subjects of rights and duties, like individuals.

The acquisition by a subject of ownership of possession and disposal of it creates for him a new sphere of freedom: he can dispose of property in many ways. His right to be the free owner of property is realized by the person who invests his labor in his property, thus communicating his goal, his definition and his soul with his work, the creative energy of his soul. His will receives a new way of his being: property serves his purposes. Hence, property forms a new reality, it gives a new being to the will of the subject. This is necessary for his life: the subject invests his spiritual and physical powers in his property with the hope of its "return" return, i. that the property will satisfy his vital needs and goals, will participate in realizing the meaning of his life. Justice requires that everyone has property, because each subject is inscribed by the very fact of his birth and life in the context of social being, in the system of legal relations. This does not mean at all that property equality is necessary and prudent. People are not equal neither by nature nor by their peculiarities, they are equal only as legal persons before the law.

Property object

The object of ownership are all those objects of material or spiritual order created by man or given by nature, in which people need, but which exist in a relatively limited number and therefore can not be equated to, say, air (for now (!) suffices all on the planet, and no one wants to divide it and assign it as personal or public property.)

In the history of mankind, there were always two ways of acquiring property - forcible capture (say, a piece of land) or processing of an object. The acquisition of property rights pushed the need for what was available only in limited quantities and that it was necessary to somehow divide and seize. The rarity, value and necessity of a thing form the basis of interest in property. Thus, a man who uprooted the forest and cultivated a piece of land, was thus entitled to consider it his property; if he somehow marked this site (for example, fenced), then the surrounding area was perceived as someone's property. The basis for such a right is wit, labor and assignment (of course, here we do not mean theft, but the appropriation of a thing that does not belong to anyone).

Belonging in the sense of property is fundamentally different from what constitutes "parts" our "I", such as hands, feet. So, the famous French historian and politician Louis Thiers (1797-1877) wrote: "Let's look at ourselves and on what is near us. I feel, I think, I want: these feelings, these thoughts, these disturbances - they all concern me. The first of my possessions is mine: I myself. We will move now farther from my inner world, from the center of my self. My hands, my legs - are they not mine without any dispute and doubt. Here, therefore, the first kind of property: I myself, my abilities, physical or intellectual, my legs, hands, eyes, my brain, in a word, my body and my soul. "

We believe our works of our mind: scientific, philosophical, artistic articles, books and all sorts of inventions. In a sense, we can agree with W. James, who believes that it is difficult to draw a line between what a person calls himself and himself. A person also makes up the sum of everything that man "can call his": not only his physical and spiritual qualities, but also his dress, his house, his wife, children, ancestors, friends, his beloved people, his reputation and his labors. To this I would add another name, surname and patronymic of the person, because these are not just words, but words filled with a meaningful and affirmative meaning. This is something with which a person merges, that is inalienable, except for cases when someone changes all this for a definite purpose, apparently even getting used to the replacement, but in the depths of his soul he knows what his real name, patronymic and surname are. All this is an object of ownership. Unlike other property forms name property is not bequeathed, not sold and, as a rule, does not change. This family-nominal type of property is filled with many subtle nuances of a semantic nature. We say, for example, "Pushkin". This name is not limited to belonging to the genius of United States poetry, but is filled for us by the aura of his brilliant creations, and this is his property and it is priceless. The books of his creations are sold, and the spiritual aura of his creations is always with him.

Behind this first property ostensibly follows the second, namely the one that does not constitute the parts of the body and the soul of man, on which it is directly connected, making up their continuation as an instrument of labor. The weapon that a man holds in his hands is, as it were, the continuation of his "I": the person considers him his own and considers him his property. If we approach from a purely psychological point of view, then we can assume that the concept of property arose as a result of transferring certain ideas borrowed from the corporeal and mental world of a person to the area of ​​people's relations to surrounding things.

However, this can not serve as an explanation for the origin of the idea of ​​ownership. As an assimilation, you can, of course, say: "The Will belongs to me"; as well as "I own my clothes". But in essence here the inner meaning of the phenomena, denoted by the word belongs to is completely different. What belongs the composition of our bodily organization and our spiritual world, is connected with our "I" such a subtle intimate connection that it would be a mockery to compare it with our socks or cap: here comes the complete destruction of my "I" in his being. What is the fundamental difference here? The fact that property is something alienated: you can lay, sell, buy, lend. And can this be done with my character, mind, head, hand? Of course, this is basically impossible to do. If it were possible to create such "miracles", then we would destroy our "I". The components of our bodily and spiritual "I" are inalienable, and property is alienable. The property can not be not only some part or property of the individual, say talent, but also the person as a whole. If we mean slavery, when a slave was considered a slaveholder's property, then this historical fact is an exception and can not serve as a model of the property principle.

thematic pictures

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)