Nature

Cyracuz

You say men and nature are the same. Don't you think it would be better define, in first place, what nature is?

0 Replies

It's already been done Val.

0 Replies

val, in the hopes of determining what nature is it strikes me as easier to say what is not nature. Everything is nature.

0 Replies

cyracuz

I think I understand your point. If I am correct, you are saying that everything is physical. If that was your opinion, I must say I agree with you.
But to say that everything is physical does not mean that everything is the same thing. When I open a door there is an interaction between me and the door. If you were right, there would be no "me", and no "door". There would be no interactions, no relations. Science would be impossible.

The fact that I have, in part, the same "nature" of the door - at least in a micro physical level - does not change that other fact that I perceive the door as something that is not me. That is outside me. When I say "outside" I am not, for now, talking about other dimension of reality. I only mean that I am an individual entity with it's identity, and that makes me different from a door.
So, tell me: am I giving an abusive interpretation of your position?

0 Replies

Yes, val, you are an individual entity with your identity, but you are still a product of natural development, same as the door. I am not saying that everything is physical, just that everything is natural. Even science is a part of nature. It is so because it is an art developed by a creature that was itself developed by natural evolution. Just because humans are now making the choices and driving development forward it is still natural evolution.
We will never be separate from nature. We are not above nature in any way. At best we are only standing at evolutions frontline. Using that analogy further it is easy to see that the war is not governed by the soldier fighting on the front, but by the general in the rear. In this case humans are the soldiers, and evolution is the general.

0 Replies

Had any of you here seen what I saw last night, there would be no need for a definition of nature. I watched; it performed.

0 Replies

Hmmm. This could bring about some inteesting possibilities. Such as . . . everything we do is okay because it's natural and just a part of the evolutionary process, even if it damages earth, animals, bugs, air, etc. Much like it's natural for a wolf pack to kill prey or a bear to kill salmon, or a beaver to build a dam that drowns insects and rodents. Then, the answer to the question, "Why should we be allowed to cause harm?" would be, "Because we can." After all, evolution really only implies survival of the fittest, absolving us of all responsibility for our actions. Isn't that where this leads at the extreme?

0 Replies

Idaho wrote:

Hmmm. This could bring about some inteesting possibilities. Such as . . . everything we do is okay because it's natural

No, only the people who believe that nature is a special mystical power justify morality by naturality. One would hope that anyone capable of accepting that everything is natural would also be capable of realising that thus being natural is nothing special, nor a fitting goal to aim for.

Quote:

After all, evolution really only implies survival of the fittest, absolving us of all responsibility for our actions. Isn't that where this leads at the extreme?

Dawkins, when asked a similiar question to yours about the law of evolution once said "Just because we have a law of gravity doesn't mean we should go around pushing people off of tall buildings". The laws of evolution merely describe what does occur, it is not a useful scale for determining what should occur.

0 Replies

Quote:

Dawkins, when asked a similiar question to yours about the law of evolution once said "Just because we have a law of gravity doesn't mean we should go around pushing people off of tall buildings". The laws of evolution merely describe what does occur, it is not a useful scale for determining what should occur.

But, by its very definition, whatever we do DOES occur. Pushing people off buildings to prove gravity is entirely different, if it does not aid survival of the pusher - not really a valid comparison.

0 Replies

Idaho wrote:

Hmmm. This could bring about some inteesting possibilities. Such as . . . everything we do is okay because it's natural and just a part of the evolutionary process, even if it damages earth, animals, bugs, air, etc. Much like it's natural for a wolf pack to kill prey or a bear to kill salmon, or a beaver to build a dam that drowns insects and rodents.

As sentient representations of Nature, we cannot hold Nature in one hand and say that it is elemental, while holding it in the other and recognizing our place in it. The two visions are one.

Even though Nature itself perceives no right or wrong, and will never judge us, we are inextricably linked to Nature such that our judgement becomes part of the process.

We are Nature's judges, and will judge ourselves until the last thought dies, and all things are forgiven. To make our way through, we only need to be true to ourselves.

0 Replies

Rosborne, wonderfully thought and beautifully expressed.
Idaho, don't you think that if "nature" and "natural" have empirical meaning (as opposed to the non-empirical "supernatural"), their reference must be to everything (making them very problematical terms). And "evolutionary process" includes that which results in the extinction as well the as survival of our own species.

0 Replies

Idaho wrote:

But, by its very definition, whatever we do DOES occur. Pushing people off buildings to prove gravity is entirely different, if it does not aid survival of the pusher - not really a valid comparison.

It is entirely valid, your perception not withstanding. Perhaps you should reread the original statement and think about it further. Your post above clearly demonstrates that you don't have a clue what I'm talking about. For instance proof was not mentioned or relevant to my original statement.

0 Replies

Idaho wrote:

Quote:

Hmmm. This could bring about some inteesting possibilities. Such as . . . everything we do is okay because it's natural and just a part of the evolutionary process, even if it damages earth, animals, bugs, air, etc. Much like it's natural for a wolf pack to kill prey or a bear to kill salmon, or a beaver to build a dam that drowns insects and rodents. Then, the answer to the question, "Why should we be allowed to cause harm?" would be, "Because we can." After all, evolution really only implies survival of the fittest, absolving us of all responsibility for our actions. Isn't that where this leads at the extreme?

Everything is natural, yes, and everything is in the interest of our own survival. Then we need to ask ourselves how those interests are best preserved. I think everyone would agree that making enemies is not a step towards this goal, neither is throwing people off buildings.

I'd like to stress my point from earlier that nothing is separate from nature. By damaging nature we damage oursevles, just as damaging ourselves is damaging nature. I would go so far as to say that even free thought and free will are attributes of nature, bestowed on man by nature somewhere along the line.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know