Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

Everything follows "nature's rules" all the time. The "rules" are physical laws, i.e. the way things are, not moral imperatives.

Ok, we may say: Basic nature's rules always remain the same but used/applied differently in different conditions. Ok?

 

[MikeG]

No, Kumar. No.

Go and do the reading I suggested. You answers won't appear so ignorant when you know a little bit more about the subject.

 

[bruto]

Still not getting it, I think, or if so not expressing it.

There is only one nature. We, as people, can (and most of us would say we should) apply moral, ethical, and practical rules to what we do, and to engage with nature in ways that include our own ideas on what is right and proper and good for the planet and kind to the creatures we respect, but this is our human choice. That has included, for many millennia, the domestication of animals and plants, and the modification of the environment. We have altered the world but we have not altered the laws of nature. Much of the sin we have committed against nature is that of hubris, and the assumption that we, and our religions and our tottering ethical artifices, were better, kinder, more divine or more efficient, than the rampant, rollicking messiness of the universe into which we evolved. Making up new ideas about what is and is not nature, pretending that ideas and systems and moral choices are natural is doing it again.

There are many good moral arguments for changing the way we as human beings relate to the rest of the planet and to the nature that exists around us, but nature will continue to be what it is, not what we wish it to be. Respect for nature itself is respect, among other things, for its amoral operation.

In the mean time, one of the things we must come to terms with is the fact that much of the world, much of what we think of casually as nature, is not what was there before we came along. We have, like it or not, altered the world, and we cannot alter it back. If we as a species went extinct tomorrow, the world would readjust, but it would never be the same world we came into, and its way of readjusting would not be by any rules we came up with. We have extinguished species and we have created others, and our job now is to try to make this new structure sustainable. We cannot now return to a state of nature without massive damage to the things that now exist, including ourselves, and without massive famine and extinction. We must now and forever make an ontological distinction between nature and the environment that exists.

 

[Dancing David]

Genetic material or somewhat seed level should have been definitely there. That should be true religion applicable universally not specifically.

If you wish to communicate with other people, then do not use common words and apply your own idiosyncratic usage.

You are abusing the word 'religion', you should find another term rather than impose your own specific meaning that just confuses the situation and makes communication difficult.

I am sure with even a modicum of effort you could find the phrase that matches your meaning instead of abusing language

 

[Dancing David]

But, it is at least compatible with one quite ancient religion(as per quote given previously). About other religions, I do not know. If this definition is correct then it can be taken that nature and universal/true religion are/should be hard wired.

Special pleading does not excuse your willingness to abuse language

 

[Dancing David]

Ínvented by people does not mean, that can't have natural basis. If one invent a different fruit tree in jungle, it does not mean fruit tree is man made.

Religion is not a fruit

 

[GuitKitty]

Still not getting it, I think, or if so not expressing it.

There is only one nature. We, as people, can (and most of us would say we should) apply moral, ethical, and practical rules to what we do, and to engage with nature in ways that include our own ideas on what is right and proper and good for the planet and kind to the creatures we respect, but this is our human choice. That has included, for many millennia, the domestication of animals and plants, and the modification of the environment. We have altered the world but we have not altered the laws of nature. Much of the sin we have committed against nature is that of hubris, and the assumption that we, and our religions and our tottering ethical artifices, were better, kinder, more divine or more efficient, than the rampant, rollicking messiness of the universe into which we evolved. Making up new ideas about what is and is not nature, pretending that ideas and systems and moral choices are natural is doing it again.

There are many good moral arguments for changing the way we as human beings relate to the rest of the planet and to the nature that exists around us, but nature will continue to be what it is, not what we wish it to be. Respect for nature itself is respect, among other things, for its amoral operation.

In the mean time, one of the things we must come to terms with is the fact that much of the world, much of what we think of casually as nature, is not what was there before we came along. We have, like it or not, altered the world, and we cannot alter it back. If we as a species went extinct tomorrow, the world would readjust, but it would never be the same world we came into, and its way of readjusting would not be by any rules we came up with. We have extinguished species and we have created others, and our job now is to try to make this new structure sustainable. We cannot now return to a state of nature without massive damage to the things that now exist, including ourselves, and without massive famine and extinction. We must now and forever make an ontological distinction between nature and the environment that exists.

Nominated. Well said, bruto.

 

[Dancing David]

Because, we do not talk in harmony but talk in ego.

This is the nature of language Kumar.

It is a learned set of symbols, it does not exist outside of the humans using it.
Each human learns how to use language, we learn from our personal, social and cultural exposures.

It is an idiomatic self-referencing set of symbols used between communicants with reference to external referents. However each communicant only has their personal map for what the symbols mean.

Which is where the use of definitions is important. And then the use of common agreement between communicants as to 'meaning' of teh symbols.

 

[Dancing David]

Whatever may be the term, but it can also somewhat indicate grattitude and nobility in animals---naturally or acquired. Why can't they take to their owners or nursers alike their close relatives/companions?

You are over generalizing a definition to mean more than it means, you need to discuss which groups and individuals are displaying altruism and not seemingly assume it is a universal trait

 

[Dancing David]

Why all that can't happen to bring all things and being in perfect harmony or to nature's balance by might is right leading to survival of fittest resulting live and let live?

Carnivores eat other animals when in harmony, the cholera bacteria when in harmony with itself kills many human beings, trees and other plants will overcrowd and compete for resources in harmony with themselves, vines in harmony will overgrow and kill other plants, parasitic wasps will lay their eggs in hosts and then the larvae kill the host.

All in harmony

 

[Dancing David]

It is the nature's way to maintain its balance. We can say, those preferring basic nature's rules, also support and practice such thing which happen naturally in basic nature(one, you described above) and other who prefer current nature, support and practice differently in modern way.

Which is countered by the facts that in nature, and in natural areas there will be over growth in populations, that outstrip their available resources and then suffer consequent death of large numbers of individuals in a population.

harmony is an appearance, not a reality.

 

[Mojo]

Ok, we may say: Basic nature's rules always remain the same but used/applied differently in different conditions. Ok?

You may well say that: you often say things that are nonsense.

You do not have any choice about how "natures rules" are applied: they apply in the same way everywhere, all the time.

 

[Dancing David]

Ok, we may say: Basic nature's rules always remain the same but used/applied differently in different conditions. Ok?

Nope everything follows natures rules all the time

 

[Kumar]

No, Kumar. No.

Go and do the reading I suggested. You answers won't appear so ignorant when you know a little bit more about the subject.

That ancient Vedic understanding on YUGA can justify my feeling about Live & let live, might is right lead to survival of fittest on nature's progression.

 

[Kumar]

Still not getting it, I think, or if so not expressing it.

There is only one nature. We, as people, can (and most of us would say we should) apply moral, ethical, and practical rules to what we do, and to engage with nature in ways that include our own ideas on what is right and proper and good for the planet and kind to the creatures we respect, but this is our human choice. That has included, for many millennia, the domestication of animals and plants, and the modification of the environment. We have altered the world but we have not altered the laws of nature. Much of the sin we have committed against nature is that of hubris, and the assumption that we, and our religions and our tottering ethical artifices, were better, kinder, more divine or more efficient, than the rampant, rollicking messiness of the universe into which we evolved. Making up new ideas about what is and is not nature, pretending that ideas and systems and moral choices are natural is doing it again.

There are many good moral arguments for changing the way we as human beings relate to the rest of the planet and to the nature that exists around us, but nature will continue to be what it is, not what we wish it to be. Respect for nature itself is respect, among other things, for its amoral operation.

In the mean time, one of the things we must come to terms with is the fact that much of the world, much of what we think of casually as nature, is not what was there before we came along. We have, like it or not, altered the world, and we cannot alter it back. If we as a species went extinct tomorrow, the world would readjust, but it would never be the same world we came into, and its way of readjusting would not be by any rules we came up with. We have extinguished species and we have created others, and our job now is to try to make this new structure sustainable. We cannot now return to a state of nature without massive damage to the things that now exist, including ourselves, and without massive famine and extinction. We must now and forever make an ontological distinction between nature and the environment that exists.

Yes, it happens like you mentioned above. However, it does suggest variation on progression of time does happen. But main question in it: who is responsible to it--basic nature or independently without nature WE?

If WE, how can we? Whether Free-will without nature is also gifted to us or we are just tools of basic nature? Unless we get answer of these questions, we can not understand anything?

 

[Kumar]

Special pleading does not excuse your willingness to abuse language

Then we have to first decide who is the supreme authority whose telling can be universally accepted in a&f. If we can't then all or anyone can be possible.

 

[Kumar]

Religion is not a fruit

Yes but it can/should be a fruit tree.

 

[Kumar]

You may well say that: you often say things that are nonsense.

You do not have any choice about how "natures rules" are applied: they apply in the same way everywhere, all the time.

Do you mean they are A&F?

 

[Kumar]

Nope everything follows natures rules all the time

If, nature: inherent sense, natural: inherent sense or right or wrong, then due to change in inheritance it should also change.?

 

[Kumar]

If you wish to communicate with other people, then do not use common words and apply your own idiosyncratic usage.

You are abusing the word 'religion', you should find another term rather than impose your own specific meaning that just confuses the situation and makes communication difficult.

I am sure with even a modicum of effort you could find the phrase that matches your meaning instead of abusing language

Just try to understand it by this example:

"King is dead long live the KING". Specific religion as an entity is different and religion as a concept is different alike Kings in this example.