How impressive.
Plato and Aristotle agreed that everything a human could do was made possible by what nature permitted. But that also severed a connection with uninterrupted nature.
Has there been an update on the gap?
1 Like
I think you’re hitting on an important distinction between categories we use because they reflect some deeper structural feature of the world, and categories we use because they are relevant to our interests. Natural feels like it should be the former, but I think it’s plain it is the later. And there is a kind of presumption that every category is, and should be, the former.
Really the word embeds a very anthropocentric view of the universe. There is us, and stuff we made, and there is everything else. And, this is fair, and reflects our interests as human beings. But it is not a candidate for a concept that “carves at the joints of the world”
1 Like
That’s an interesting point, about a whole source. It does make me question though, why something is unnatural if the source isn’t whole or as found in nature.
For example, nature doesn’t make a single plant over and over. Nature doesn’t use a whole source to make something new, yet we consider that still part of nature.
I have although I’m not sure what exactly you are getting at without guessing. I will say that I think some of the most interesting ideas live out on the edges rather than the middle. And in a sense, questioning the middle has led me to some surprising thoughts and realizations.
Because the synthesis is different when we do it in the lab, compared to when we take it the way they are from its habitat. The resulting chemical composition is the same, but the sources are different.
Nature uses the same process over and over.
So the Bell curve shows the distribution of a variable, e.g. height and the curve has a bulge in the middle and 2 tapering tails on either side. These are variations in a variable/parameter that are due to randomness. 95% of a population will lie in the middle bulge while 2.5% for each tail, for a grand total of 100% of the population.
There does seem to be a moral aspect to it. The idea that the unnatural is not as good as the natural version of something. I’m not saying that is wrong necessarily but is it always true? For example, we can use herbs to treat pain or illness. But there’s a reason we make medicines and use those instead; they often work better.
I don’t disagree that there is a purpose to having this definition of natural in language. I also think this can limit us in how we understand ourselves and the world. We immediately give a distinction that the nuclear power plant is bad and unnatural, but nature can be quite dangerous also. A volcano can destroy habitats, lifeforms, and pollute the air as well.
Even if the unnatural cud exist we exist and originate from nature it wud be incomprehensible and unknowable to us it wud be futile to even think about the unnatural
It is still very useful and practical to have the concept “unnatural” to differentiate what is unnatural from natural in epistemic sense.
If you see a flying pig, then it would be good to be able to describe it as “unnatural” scene or story, rather than saying everything is natural.
Knowledge means ability to be able to differentiate ¬A from A via perception and understanding.
Will you please explain why you find it very useful to have a concept of “unnatural”?
Saying and claiming that you find it very useful and practical to have the concept of “unnatural” to differentiate what is “unnatural” from natural means, to you, that there are some things that are “unnatural”. So, will you please tell us exactly which things you believe are “unnatural”?
If you saw a flying pig why would you have to call that natural or unnatural? Why can’t you just tell the Truth of what you saw, or believed you saw only instead?
Why do you believe that you will see some thing/s that you believe will be “unnatural”?
I would argue that this merely relocates the same problem onto a different term. Is anything ‘supernatural?’ Personally, I think not.
As I said in a follow-up post, neither “unnatural” nor “supernatural” are conducive to easy discourse. Nor are they my terms. I mention the supernatural not to persuade but to illuminate alternatives.
Now it should be remarked that belief in the supernatural correlates with certain psychological profiles that tend to be less reliable in tracking certain truths. But consider that there are a number of respectable intellectuals who have defined the supernatural consistently and use it in their work without a second thought.
They would presumably be experts of the supernatural and should be in a position to know what the supernatural is supposed to be. Their very existence gives us a reason to reflect on the veracity of a concept that makes their career possible even if we find it preposterous; to deny this is to invite a special kind of naive cynicism that doesn’t trust the uniformity of testimony or appreciate the depth of the mysterious.
Assuming there is still some mystery left in this relatively arid state of modernity we find ourselves in, of course.
1 Like
I don’t have to believe anything. But I can describe something as “unnatural”, because it is not natural.
Yes, I do think that is natural and probably a necessary part of navigating life. But is something that seems unnatural or strange truly unnatural or is it just a feeling based on assumptions or inherited beliefs?
I think that believing we our separate from nature is an inherited belief. And inherited beliefs should be questioned whether we decide they are ultimately right or not.
How could one define ‘the supernatural’ consistently besides defining ‘the supernatural’ as something that could not possibly exist?
What do you even mean by ‘experts of the supernatural’ exactly?
How are the words ‘the supernatural’ here being defined?
Thanks. Highly processed foods are known to be unhealthy. But I think that has less to do with the fact that they are processed and more to do with how they are processed. Right now, someone is trying to make money. To do so, they might process the food in unhealthy ways to make it more palatable. Some foods are currently processed in way to add nutrients or remove allergens already. What if we took it a step further and processed foods to be ultra healthy?
Like ‘what’, exactly?
Of course, you or anyone else could just say, “I saw something “unnatural” because it is not natural”.
But, as most people can see, ‘this’ is just pure nonsense.
If, as you claim, you can describe something as “unnatural”, then please inform us of what you perceive to be as “unnatural”, exactly.
Processed is another vague term, like natural. Is an apple picked from a tree processed? What about chopped? Blended? Cooked? Mixed with cinnamon? Dipped in honey?
What about preserving it in pure ascorbic acid? What about just using lemon juice?