€dd

I know that this isn't really a scientific topic, but I didn't know who to ask offline and thus I came where I was sure to find answers. With this said, I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you talk about taking examples from the natural world, as almost all philosophies have elements derived from the observation of the world around us and some (like empiricism) are solely devoted to using a more scientific approach. Anyways, there are still some questions I have and I don't think that I would get the answers I'm looking for if I asked them in the philosophy section, so I might open another thread in this section.

First of all, I want to say that this has been really helpful, I don't want to sound ungrateful and it isn't my intention to have a debate on an topic that I don't know that well. Also, what you say about grand narratives is true, but, the point is, that that wasn't my objective. The reason I asked these questions is neither about biology nor it has to do with animals (even if it refers to them), it is purely philosophical. To be more specific, I'm trying to put in a different perspective some key concepts of contractualism, utilitarianism and natural law.

Ok so I agree with the responses but I think I have to be clearer: I know that animals don't have property the way we do, but the point I was trying to make is to link territoriality with aggressive behaviors and violence in general, and predators are generally more aggressive. There are some obvious exceptions, for example hippopotamuses (I don't know if that's how you say that) are very aggressive and territorial. To get to the point, I guess you could boil down my argument to: a species that establishes their domain over some land does so thanks to violence and can only maintain it through violence. P.S. The philosophical definition of property I refer to is: not giving willing access of something to somebody else (which leads me to believe the territory of a territorial animal can be defined as his property) P.S.2 I am not a commie (I thought I needed to clarify)

Hello, I am a philosophy student and I'm in need of some information for a project I am working on. What I'm interested in is to research the origin of land property, which canonically in philosophy is thought as a peculiarity of men, but it seems to me that it can be considered more as a characteristic of predatory animals in general (the reasoning being that as far as I know if a group or a single predator gets in an area where another group of predators resides there will be confrontation), but, with this said, I'm in no way an expert, so I was hoping that someone more competent could confirm or debunk my hypothesis. Btw I'm not a native English speaker so I hope that I have been as comprehensible as possible