Nature

Re: Nature
Ray

A good question and a very embarrassing answer.
What is nature? I would say it is the interaction between us and external stimulus.

And the difference between natural and artificial? Well, natural things are there, with no purpose. Artificial things are made by human beings with a purpose. A tree is something "given", it's there, even if we don't care about it. A table is also there but in order to be used for a certain purpose. Even if no one uses it.

Right and wrong? I don't know if we can speak about their "nature". What is right or wrong depends on historical, social, economical factors. Perhaps those criteria are the "nature" of right and wrong, I don't know ...

Well i choose to realise that nature is alive and well not confortable with what it sees happening.A species that exterminates itself through misguided capitalism based on regious riddles.

EVERYTING is nature. I repeat EVERYTHING. Even synthetically crafted chemicals are a part of nature, since they are synthetically crafted by creatures that are natural and a part of nature, using abilities that are given them by nature.

Good point, Cyracuz. We sometimes forget that we, too, are a part of nature. I think it is fair to ask: how is a dam constructed by beavers a part of nature but a 100-story skyscraper built by man not?

exactly. This didn't occur to me until it was pointed out to me by a child.

Val, good answer. It still boggles me how nature can lead to us, living, sentient beings. It almost as if there is a purpose after all, but then I think of bacterias reproducing themselves until it becomes destructive and I question if there is a purpose after all.

I keep hearing things like it's in the nature of man, or it's natural, regarding a certain action, and I wonder if our thoughts of right and wrong are true, but I do think that it's true, and doesn't that make it naturally real for us to know that? People can have different views though, which might be affected by their feelings, so what should we follow? Should we just give in? Is one person more right than the other?
I believe the latter, but I'm not sure if I can provide a good enough argument for it.

Why is it that every time this subject comes we talk in terms of nature AND man, as though man was separate from nature in any way.

I challenge you all:
Give me one example of how man is separate from nature. I don't think you can.

val wrote:


There is is. Between us and external stimulus? Are we not natural beings? Is anything a human being is capable of doing unnatural?

And what is artificial? Nothing is artificial. What that word means is that whatever it applies to is crafted by man, but man himself is, as I have said above, a part of nature, so in a way nature has produced all these "artificial" substances.

One more example:

Take a look at a beehive for instance. Is that an artificial or a natural thing? I am pretty sure you all agree that a beehive is a natural thing, but nature didn't create it. It created the bees, wich in turn created the hive. How does that differ from humans and their dwellings?

Beehive, hornet's nest, beaver dam, bird's nest, Empire State Building, anthill -- all are constructions by life forms endemic to this planet. If that concrete-and-glass building is not "natural", then neither is any of the other structures mentioned.

Yes. And further: All our ideas and ideologies, the internal struggle of our species, the nuclear bomb, even the toughts in our heads are subject to the rules and laws of evolution, same as everything else on our planet. They are nature. Nothing that man is capable of goes against nature in any way. It is not in our power to be godless so to speak.

Everything that exists is natural.

That seems to be the case.

In my experience the concept of right and wrong, is ineffective, as those words indicate an unchangeable meaning. In other words, what's wrong is wrong, and it will always be wrong.
But we know that sometimes, actions that we consider wrong, can have positive outcomes.

We decide what is right or wrong by our experiences and the opinions of others, which we then reshape into a moral code that reflects what we've learned. (positive or negative) This however doesn't always work for the benefit of society. (The way many actions that are actually harmless are considered wrong)

The concepts of Right/Wrong and Positive/Negative do not see eye to eye very often. Right and wrong implies a stablished moral code, and positive/negative actions fluctuate according to the situation.

Cyracuz, I think it's a matter of semantics. We often diffrentiate ourselves from nature sometimes because we don't understand nature, nor does nature have a cognitive existence.
The Nature that we see is unordered, disorganized, random. Sometimes nature is beautiful and yet sometimes nature is cruel. It depends I guess on what objects of nature you are describing.

And on the right and wrong thing, doesn't the attitude of positive vs. negative tend to lead to oppression? I think that even if the after effect of wars are positive, it does not cancel out the negativity of the death of millions. I don't think it works out as integers do.

You're probably right ray. But what about the consequenses of this. I believe that the immortal phrase "cogitas, ergo sum" for instance, is a direct result of "forgetting" our origins.

Re: Nature


Everything is natural. But things which are built by people are a special form of "natural" called "artificial".

I have often objected to the idea of "artificial" because we humans are as much a part of the natural world as is everything else.

I used to think of natural and artificial as opposites, but now I think of artificial as a subset of natural.

Re: Nature


Rosborne... what can I say. You are so awesome sometimes.

Re: Nature


Thanks Auntie Buddha

I figure if I throw enough ideas out there, eventually something's gotta make sense to someone.

Of course, the concept, "nature", is a construction. Its meaning is, therefore, WHAT WE MEAN by it. If you ask what is its essence (essentialism) you are pointing to some extra-linguistic objective phenomenon. But note, if everything is nature, as someone suggested, it is impossible to literally point to (all of) it. If you ask what is the meaning of the word, then it depends on conventional understanding; for that we go to the dictionary. Any concern for the meaning of the term, nature, must ultimately take into account the linguistic context in which it is being used.