Thor: Ragnarokis funny, exciting, and visually nifty. The third in a series (the first two wereThorin 2011 andThor: the Dark Worldin 2013), it's a great two-plus hours of entertainment. But it's not just entertainment; there's more inThorphilosophically than you might think of when you are caught up in the action.

Some of what's philosophically interesting aboutThor来自挪威神话。Ragnarokis the Doom of the Gods. It may be cyclical rather than apocalyptic. And it may be spiritual rather than physical. Norse mythology, at least on my (very basic) understanding of it, leaves these questions for human contemplation.Thor: Ragnarokmakes some apparent choices about how to portray this greatest of battles. But beyond the special effects, avid watchers ofThor Ragnarokmight want to read further in Norse mythology to get a sense of how neither power nor destruction are absolute or final and what this might mean.

Caught within these godly struggles are the people of Midgard, we humans. Spoiler alert: an explicit message of the movie is that territory isn't what ultimately matters to Midgardians, as long as they can resettle. This might be a message that is difficult for refugee populations to accept, especially those who remain in camps in hopes of returning home rather than because they have nowhere to go.Palestinean campsestablished after the Second World War have now existed for four generations, for example.

领土的无关性也是一个信息，它对身份的假设是有问题的。人们可能会继续作为个体生活，但这并不意味着他们会作为一个民族生存下去，或者他们的生活将继续以以前的方式有意义。作为一个民族是一个群体身份。This assertion doesn't require a separate metaphysical entity in the form of a group, although it is certainly understandable in suchholistic terms.

It could also be understood in terms of the relationships people have to one another. These relationships might be primarily individual-to-individual relations: families, friendships, shared activities, and the like. Or, they might also include shared beliefs, cultural traditions, or religious practices. Some of these shared bonds may be enriched by, or inextricably linked with, the land. A people might have a common sacred site: the Dome of the Rock, Navajo Mountain, or Angkor Wat. A people might have activities linked to the land, such as agriculture, harvest festivals, or worship. Severing these links to the land might make it practically difficult or even conceptually impossible for the people to continue to function as the people they were.

Nor is there any guarantee that the people will find land where they can continue to exercise what bonds them together. At the end ofThor, the people of Midgard apparently are going to Earth—a pretty place that unsurprisingly looks rather like coastal Norway. Perhaps the land will be unoccupied, waiting for them in the style ofLockeanunappropriated land to be turned intoproperty.More likely, the travelers cut adrift from their homeland may find themselves in an unwelcoming new place, forced into a diaspora. In that regard, viewers ofThormight wish to consider the plight of Pacific Islanders onKiribatiwhose lands have been submerged by the sea and who are planning to relocate to land they have purchased on Fiji.

Thor IVis clearly in the works. Perhaps we will see whether the people of Ragnarok remain a people without their lands or what they had built upon them. Or, in the meantime, particularly avid watchers ofThormovies just might want to apply for citizenship onAsgardia, the first spatial kingdom in the form of arecently-launched satelliteorbiting the earth. After all, Asgardia claims to be free from the turbulence of contemporary politics or the constraints of law.