How do you define nature

[nameless]

Originally Posted by zolasdisciple

In many philosophical doctrines nature plays a key role. How do you define nature? I am constantly wondering if man is from nature or is man nature/a part of nature itself. Today I made an observation that maybe nature is innate life. This would really help me in my studies so what do you guys think?

Nature is existence!
'Nature' is what 'is', all there is, naturally.
There's my definition.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by BaCaRdi

You guy are over complicating this;

The simple truth "Nature Is Indifferent"

Welcome thy Occam's Razor!

-TRoN

BaCaRdi,

I agree nature is indifferent, well not quite, indifference is a human quality, inferring awareness of, yet disinterest in. Nature is simply unaware of you and your need to survive. How does this understanding alone inform us of how to live with nature. If we can live with nature in a way which support the vitality of the conditon of nature, then we are onto something. Basically our present approach is mindless, distructive and as we are finding out, deadly. Personally I cannot think of a better defination than to say nature is a complex condition, or nature is a complex system. If we are causing disfunction of the system, you might say, we are as a cancer to that system.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

BaCaRdi,

I agree nature is indifferent, well not quite, indifference is a human quality, inferring awareness of, yet disinterest in. Nature is simply unaware of you and your need to survive. How does this understanding alone inform us of how to live with nature. If we can live with nature in a way which support the vitality of the conditon of nature, then we are onto something. Basically our present approach is mindless, distructive and as we are finding out, deadly. Personally I cannot think of a better defination than to say nature is a complex condition, or nature is a complex system. If we are causing disfunction of the system, you might say, we are as a cancer to that system.

Right. Let's do away with antibiotics, computers, and surgery, and live in the state of nature. As Hobbes described it, brutish, ugly, and short.
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Right. Let's do away with antibiotics, computers, and surgery, and live in the state of nature. As Hobbes described it, brutish, ugly, and short.

I don't think that this is what boagie was suggesting.

I think we could, however, do away with a few such practices as strip-mining, mass deforestation, slash and burn agriculture . . . maybe a few more controls on emissions would be nice as well. And no, I'm not talking about the much debated concept of Global Warming, but the more general concept of not having to suck brown air into our lungs.

[BaCaRdi]

Well since the universe and we are a giant form of information recycling..Maybe we should do just that and recycle..

Nature in indifferent;

Well my definition of such is if we don't, we will be part of history, in time

As a famous comedian once said;

Mother earth would shake us off like a bad set of fleas....

RIP George Carlin...

-Marc

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

I don't think that this is what boagie was suggesting.

I think we could, however, do away with a few such practices as strip-mining, mass deforestation, slash and burn agriculture . . . maybe a few more controls on emissions would be nice as well. And no, I'm not talking about the much debated concept of Global Warming, but the more general concept of not having to suck brown air into our lungs.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

I don't think that this is what boagie was suggesting.

Well, he does write, " If we are causing disfunction of the system, you might say, we are as a cancer to that system." I don't know what he means by that, and neither, I think , do you. But sometimes people who do not think carefully (or really at all) don't recognize all the implications of what they say. They consider only one side of the story and entirely neglect the other side of the story. Many diseases of thought, like diseases of the body, are caused by a one-sided diet.

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Well, he does write, " If we are causing disfunction of the system, you might say, we are as a cancer to that system." I don't know what he means by that, and neither, I think , do you. But sometimes people who do not think carefully (or really at all) don't recognize all the implications of what they say. They consider only one side of the story and entirely neglect the other side of the story. Many diseases of thought, like diseases of the body, are caused by a one-sided diet.

Well, perhaps boagie will pop in and explain what he means. I assumed that he meant that man's propensity for unregulated, unchecked growth was very similar to the mechanics of a cancer cell with often similar consequences to the system it inhabits.

Perhaps I'm mistaken (my apologies if I am) but I detect a tone in your post that indicates that you may think I might be one of those wild-eyed nature-boys spouting baseless environmentalist dogma and rhetoric, and waving my tattered copy of Edward Abbey's The Monkey Wrench Gang over my head like a Pentecostal supplicant while marching about in a cloud of patchouli oil in my hemp sandals and Inconvenient Truth t-shirt.

Sadly, that would be an incorrect assumption.

While it's true that I believe that we should strive to be more environmentally responsible, and I enjoy the writings of such authors as Muir, Whitman, Thoreau, Emerson, et al, I have as yet to succumb to the cult of radical environmentalism, which is brilliantly described here: MichaelCrichton.com | Environmentalism as Religion. Rest in Peace, Michael.

I believe there are elements of truth in both camps regarding how we should, or should not, treat the environment in which we live. There is also a level of arrogance, distrust, and hypocrisy that comes with the taking of an extremist viewpoint on both sides, which, of course, is what makes it very difficult for either side to accomplish anything positive.

That being said, your comment that "diseases of thought, like diseases of the body, are caused by a one-sided diet" is absolutely accurate. I agree entirely. What you are talking about (at least what I have inferred) is that balance and harmony are essential for health. I would simply like to see this same level of balance applied to environmental concerns, as a healthy environment is as essential for a healthy body and mind as is the food we eat and the information we process.

Regards,
Tock

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

... indicates that you may think I might be one of those wild-eyed nature-boys spouting baseless environmentalist dogma and rhetoric, and waving my tattered copy of Edward Abbey's The Monkey Wrench Gang over my head like a Pentecostal supplicant while marching about in a cloud of patchouli oil in my hemp sandals and Inconvenient Truth t-shirt...

Haha.... What a great visual.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

Well, perhaps boagie will pop in and explain what he means. I assumed that he meant that man's propensity for unregulated, unchecked growth was very similar to the mechanics of a cancer cell with often similar consequences to the system it inhabits.

Perhaps I'm mistaken (my apologies if I am) but I detect a tone in your post that indicates that you may think I might be one of those wild-eyed nature-boys spouting baseless environmentalist dogma and rhetoric, and waving my tattered copy of Edward Abbey's The Monkey Wrench Gang over my head like a Pentecostal supplicant while marching about in a cloud of patchouli oil in my hemp sandals and Inconvenient Truth t-shirt.

Sadly, that would be an incorrect assumption.

While it's true that I believe that we should strive to be more environmentally responsible, and I enjoy the writings of such authors as Muir, Whitman, Thoreau, Emerson, et al, I have as yet to succumb to the cult of radical environmentalism, which is brilliantly described here: MichaelCrichton.com | Environmentalism as Religion. Rest in Peace, Michael.

I believe there are elements of truth in both camps regarding how we should, or should not, treat the environment in which we live. There is also a level of arrogance, distrust, and hypocrisy that comes with the taking of an extremist viewpoint on both sides, which, of course, is what makes it very difficult for either side to accomplish anything positive.

That being said, your comment that "diseases of thought, like diseases of the body, are caused by a one-sided diet" is absolutely accurate. I agree entirely. What you are talking about (at least what I have inferred) is that balance and harmony are essential for health. I would simply like to see this same level of balance applied to environmental concerns, as a healthy environment is as essential for a healthy body and mind as is the food we eat and the information we process.

Regards,
Tock

No one with any sense is against clean air and clean water, but also, no one with any sense thinks that there are not other important goods as well. I mean employment, prosperity, comfort, and civilization, and that sometimes conflict arises, and intelligent compromises have to be fashioned. Extremism on both sides is the result of fanaticism and stupidity.

It is nonsense to believe that what is natural is, therefore good, and what is man-made is bad. Poison ivy is natural and bad. Antibiotic are man-made and good. There is no substitute for thought and intelligence.

[BrightNoon]

Like just about everything in philosophy, this little problem of ours comes down to definition. A word is a symbol that can be assigned to anything with equal representative power: arbitrary. When I refer to 'nature', I mean the world, all, everything that exists. Therefore, we and our civilization are part of nature. Of course, I understand the tendency to seperate our works from the rest of nature, but I just don't divide it that way. To me, anything which is not natural is 'supernatural', which has no meaning.