is the concept "nature" metaphysical?

In a broad sense, everything is formed by nature. But there is a sub-set of natural things called man-made (or artificial).

Until someone creates or identifies something which is supernatural, then everything is natural.

Here's a related thread.

Yes, right.

And as rosborne says, there is the sub category of artificial, which basically means man made.
But I wonder, does a birds nest fall under this category? A beaver dam?
Are they natural, or are they artificial constructions?

I guess it would be:
Big Set: Natural
Sub-set: Artificial (made by life)
Sub-Sub-set: Man made, Beaver made, Bird made, Worm made (Caddis Fly shells), Polyp made (Coral), Bacteria made (Stromatolites), etc

It's starting to look like a cladogram

We might have to start figuring out where crystal structures fit into that nomenclature.

why do you need the "sub-sub set"? isn't that just what makes up the sub-set?

Maybe. I don't know. I'm starting to confuse myself. That's the problem with philosophy, eventually you arrive at the conclusion that you don't have a foundation to start from.

That's only if you are doing it right, rosborne

Anyway, to me, the distinction between natural and artificial seems to be a matter of how we look at ourselves more than the objects that these terms may apply to.
If you see yourself completely as a part of nature, then the distinction is meaningless. And I think we can all agree that whatever we are, we are not more than nature.
So I'd rather define the artificial as that which is made to serve a purpose we can discern.

That's an interesting definition. Did you come up with that?

Actually, I did. But though I haven't read it anywhere doesn't mean nobody wrote it anywhere before me..

The term, natural, can, of course, be whatever its users intend it to mean (forgetting conventional restraints), but artificial can only mean for me man-made, and natural can best mean made by nature, at least that part of nature that goes beyond human-kind, narrowly defined.

But I tend to think of "natural" as a fundamentally metaphysical notion insofar as it defines "supernatural", which is clearly metaphysical.

I think everything is "natural" by definition, just some of it happens to be made by humans; whom I believe are simply part of nature.

So I guess it boils down to whether or not you believe humans are part of nature.

But, do you mean supernatural in the literal sense, or in the colloquial sense? It could be argued that something supernatural (above and beyond what could be considered part of the realm of nature in the literal) would [by our current scientific grasp] not be a de facto metaphysical thing. However in the colloquial supernatural (something of the spiritual realm) that thing is partly defined by its metaphysicality.


... which also makes me re-ponder EP's original post. are we talking about the literal or colloquial version of "natural?" In context within the English language, the word natural has come to mean anything that was not intentional; e. g. anything that humans intentionally create would not fit that description. But in the literal sense (since humans are part of nature) anything created by a human might be considered natural. My building a car which gets me laid equates to a dandelion building a little whispy wind catcher to spread its seed.