Ownership Can Be Viewed In Multiple Ways

Explain adverse possession, and describe the acronym that is commonly used to remember the elements of the concept.

My life up to today has given me a well made opinion on the events that happen. A big question, especially towards the end of my highschool career is, what is it going to take for me to be happy. This requires knowing what ownership means and the sense of self. For many cases it depends on the person; some may think that it’s about having wealth and being able to have, or own, anything you want. Others have the opinion that it be able to be happy with less, to own your greed and for it to not run your life. Looking at the type of person I am today I believe that ownership depends on the type of person you are and what it’ll take to make you happy in life. For me, ownership resembles material things such as, cars, clothes, and other accessories; but I still can’t lose sight of my moral code so I don’t get corrupt with money.

Ownership is the act and state of having something in control or possession. Aristotle claims that owning tangible objects help to build moral character, while Jean-Paul Sartre proposes that ownership extends beyond to include intangible things such as skill or knowledge. Different objects can have varying effects on the development of self identity, leading us to who we grow as a person. A sense of self can be a reflection to what we own, whether it is a tangible or not. Ownership of intangible and tangible objects play a vital role for the growth of self identity, as it teaches crucial morals in life to develop personal character.

Anywhere in the world, someone acquires something, whether it be money, a car, or even an idea. We can “own” many intangible and tangible items in life, but how does ownership relate to a sense and development of self? This question has been constantly answered for centuries through intelligent people like Plato, Aristotle, and Jean-Paul Sartre. However, the question has received no agreeable answer. In the end, people will agree that there is a strong and positive relationship between ownership and a sense of self because the things you own will define and develop who you are positively by exhibiting what you like, what you can and cannot do, and in the end, characterizes you, as long as you use the things you own properly.

The relationship between our identities and possessions remains on going. In fact, Joan Kron elaborates on that matter in her essay The Semiotics of Home Décor and mentions how we barely know what is actually beyond our home décor and possessions (74). Kron argues that our possessions and home décor grants us with various aims that cater to our human needs “Our possessions give us a sense of security and stability. They make us feel in control…we use things to compete.” (75). Also, Kron talks about status and how its vitality is depicted through our possessions. Something as simple as the price tag, the originality and rareness of the object and its competence can say something about our status. With this in mind, Kron asserts that “Some objects

The ability to have ownership over something, tangible or not, can give a person a sense of value or superiority when comparing themselves to others. Furthermore, as humans, it is easy to desire things as one’s own and claim it, but the way something is treated differs from person to person. As a result, the material items and skills a person has ownership over provides a glimpse of his or her’s true nature.

When the topic of owning something comes up, the conversation can go two ways: one may argue that ownership is owning an object, many other people, such as Jean-Paul Sartre believe that you can own something by becoming an expert in a certain skill and knowing something thoroughly.It's possible to own an idea or a skill, such as my idea about ownership, and to own a tangible object, such as a book. The verb " to own" doesn't just mean to physically have something, it also means to know something, or to make something a part of ourselves.

Anywhere in the world, someone acquires something, whether it be money, a car, or even an idea. We can “own” many intangible and tangible items in life, but how does ownership relate to a sense of self? This question has been constantly answered for centuries through intelligent people like Plato, Aristotle, and Jean-Paul Sartre. However, the question has received no agreeable answer. In the end, people will agree that there is a strong and positive relationship between ownership and a sense of self because the things you own will define and develop who you are positively by exhibiting what you like, what you can and cannot do, and in the end, characterizes you, as long as you use the items you own properly.

Whenever we mention the word property in conversation one automatically thinks about physical items such as land, cars and houses. Reed (2014) suggests that, “property is not just an object or thing, nor resource but a right that relates people to each other in regard to limited resources.”

Owning things, such as a car or a phone is a privilege that most people get without even realizing. However having the ownership of things also give u the responsibilities that follow. It’s painful to say but there are still many people that refer to themselves as the owners of their children and pets, which is a contradicting statement. In the worst cases, this dangerous feeling of ownership sometimes even leads to child abuse and violence. It’s an universal fact that parents should be responsible for their children until they become adults but does this give them the full ownership of their free willed children? Throughout the tragic play Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, many scenes showcase the inappropriate incidents of characters

Everyone has a different view of what ownership is, and what it does to a person. For many, owning something is thought of as possessing a physical object that can be called yours, though it can be much more. Plato says that the idea and act of owning anything is harmful to someone as a person. Aristotle has a brighter outlook, saying that the act of owning something is beneficial to a person. While Sartre claims that the idea of ownership goes beyond simply having an object, and can apply to things that don't actually exist. While all of these views are valid, with each being able to hold it's own ground, it is up to the listener of the three to figure out and justify which applies best to them.

Property can have any kind of effect on people but it depends on how they approach it. In quote 2 written by Ralph Waldo Emerson, he explains that he see’s selfishness built around people. He talks about the esteems of man which is centered around his ownership. Although too much pride isn’t for property isn’t bad, selfishness can build around man and can cause loss of identity because it can overtake his mind, disguise his character, and intrude the life. Property can take over the mind as an enemy.

Taking ownership in life is when you stop blaming others and actually own up to not only your success, but mistakes also. Most people tend to find what other people did wrong in a bad situation rather than looking for what they did wrong. Taking ownership is not only owning up to mistakes but also having

Locke uses the term 'property'…to connote that something is one's own, either inclusively or exclusively. That is, anything which is in any sense one's own is one's property. This seems to be the conventional seventeenth-century use of the term (Tully 112).

All the three philosophers, whose work I am going to scrutinize on, have very specific, yet in most cases common views on property. First of all, let me define what the term property means. Property, as I see it, is an object of legal rights that is possessed by an individual or a group of individuals who are directly responsible for this it.