Are humans part of nature?

"For nature, like intelligence, acts for a purpose, and this purpose is for it an end. Such an end the soul is in animals, and this in the order_of nature, for all the natural bodies are instruments of soul: and this is as true of the bodies of plants as of those of animals,"


De Anima, Aristotle. 415b6.
That's a quasi scientific description, it doesn't connect human concerns and values to the natural order, and Aristotle was a biologist as much as anything else. His view of nature was scientific and clinical. Hardly surprising, since his father was a medical doctor.

The Taoist conception of space, time, attachment, and the seamless interdependence of the natural cosmic order would have been totally alien to Aristotle.

Anyone thinking about how to reimagine human connection to the matrix of the cosmic natural order is thinking more like a Taoist. Not a Greek philosopher of ancient Athens.
 
That's a quasi scientific description, it doesn't connect human concerns and values to the natural order, and Aristotle was a biologist as much as anything else. His view of nature was scientific and clinical. Hardly surprising, since his father was a medical doctor.

The Taoist conception of space, time, attachment, and the seamless interdependence of the natural cosmic order would have been totally alien to Aristotle.

Anyone thinking about how to reimagine human connection to the matrix of the cosmic natural order is thinking more like a Taoist. Not a Greek philosopher of ancient Athens.
So the word "physics" is for Aristotle, "phusis." Phusis means growth or production. Nature is productive.
 
So the word "physics" is for Aristotle, "phusis." Phusis means growth or production. Nature is productive.
Aristotle goes to lengths to distinguish us from the natural order, because we uniquely have reason and logic. His Nicomahean Ethics are chock full of goals to achieve, practices to be cultivated.

Classical Taoists see goals, achievements, and other cultural artifacts as human edifices that place us in the foreground, create artificial realities, and act to divorce us from negative space and the natural background matrix.

Anyone who looks at and understands Taoist-inspired Chinese art instantly grasps that the Taoist connection of human experience with the reality of the natural order is exactly the kind of thing your article seems to be talking about.
 
Aristotle goes to lengths to distinguish us from the natural order, because we uniquely have reason and logic. His Nicomahean Ethics are chock full of goals to achieve, practices to be cultivated.

Classical Taoists see goals, achievements, and other cultural artifacts as human edifices that place us in the foreground, create artificial realities, and act to divorce us from negative space and the natural background matrix.

Anyone who looks at and understands Taoist-inspired Chinese art instantly grasps that the Taoist connection of human experience with the reality of the natural order is exactly the kind of thing your article seems to be talking about.
Nature does not tell humans how to act. Some animals eat their children and humans decide not to do it.
 
Aristotle goes to lengths to distinguish us from the natural order, because we uniquely have reason and logic. His Nicomahean Ethics are chock full of goals to achieve, practices to be cultivated.

Classical Taoists see goals, achievements, and other cultural artifacts as human edifices that place us in the foreground, create artificial realities, and act to divorce us from negative space and the natural background matrix.

Anyone who looks at and understands Taoist-inspired Chinese art instantly grasps that the Taoist connection of human experience with the reality of the natural order is exactly the kind of thing your article seems to be talking about.
"Thus if a house had been a thing made by nature, it would have been made in the same way as it is now by art; and if things made by nature were made not only by nature but also by art, they would come to be in the same way as by nature. The one, then, is for the sake of the other; and generally art in some cases completes what nature cannot bring to a finish, and in others imitates nature (Physics. 199a9).


Art imitates nature because nature is a mechanism of production.
 
"Thus if a house had been a thing made by nature, it would have been made in the same way as it is now by art; and if things made by nature were made not only by nature but also by art, they would come to be in the same way as by nature. The one, then, is for the sake of the other; and generally art in some cases completes what nature cannot bring to a finish, and in others imitates nature (Physics. 199a9).


Art imitates nature because nature is a mechanism of production.
That's a cherry pick from a philosophical discussion of material, formal, efficient, and final causes. Doing word searches and cherry picks on snippets of what is attributed to Aristotle is totally absent context and purpose.

This cherry pick is not a deeply insightful reflection on the the the seamless matrix of experience and the natural order.

It's self evident and goes without saying that anyone who really wants to reimagine the human relationship to the natural order is looking to Taoism, the transcendentalism of Henry David Thoreau, or the environmentalism of John Muir, and not to Aristotle, Voltaire, or Nietzsche.
 
The purpose of formal education is to help one be a better communicator who can play nice with others. Education does not prevent one from having a god complex or losing touch with reality.

Formal education is no more valuable than what one can achieve with sufficient discipline. I feel sorry for folks who are so threatened by other people's education as Cypress is over mine. It honestly does not really give me an edge (except insofar as Cypress is clearly a kind. of "lazy thinker" who is more interested in people thinking he's smart than actually being smart.)

Education is a wonderful thing. But the "formal aspects" do require some discipline that some folks simply don't have. That does NOT mean that they aren't potentially intelligent enough to learn.

But it does require some degree of discipline.
 
Formal education is no more valuable than what one can achieve with sufficient discipline. I feel sorry for folks who are so threatened by other people's education as Cypress is over mine. It honestly does not really give me an edge (except insofar as Cypress is clearly a kind. of "lazy thinker" who is more interested in people thinking he's smart than actually being smart.)

Education is a wonderful thing. But the "formal aspects" do require some discipline that some folks simply don't have. That does NOT mean that they aren't potentially intelligent enough to learn.

But it does require some degree of discipline.
Getting tired of this. You used to stalk me and make vile personal attacks calling me a liar. Shape up and quit this shit that you are more moral than everyone.
 
Maybe your shouldn't have lied

I guess the big question then is: why do YOU lie so often? You constantly mischaracterize my posts and lie about my position even when you are corrected on it you lie about it.

You have no ethics.

Just another bunch of things you've read about without actually understanding.
 
My thread.

No it is not. You may put the OP out but it isn't your thread, little one.

Start your own if you don't want to read my posts.

Your posts are usually worthless. But sometimes you stumble onto a few points worth discussing. Kind of like the anosmic pig and the truffle.

And I notice you never start your own threads. Why is that? Makes you a parasite.

LOL. You are weird. This isn't your sandbox, little one. Learn to live with others. It will help you in the long run.
 
Back
Top