fagin
Philosopher
Human's are natural. We are just better able to manipulate things to our advantage, and sometimes disadvantage.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
I support humanity's efforts to improve on nature. That's why I did not have a baby a year from puberty onwards, watch all but two or three of them die, and then die in childbirth before I was 30.
But, efforts for better/maximum survival can also be a part of nature. How humans are involved in it, independently?
Yes, it is naturality not humanity.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Deliberate efforts are not part of nature, no. Nature does nothing deliberately.
By making choices. Deliberately.
Why can't be property of deliberation be a part on nature? Environment can manifest or modify anything.
fagin
Philosopher
Because most of us are a little bit brighter than slugs.
fagin
Philosopher
For the umpteenth time, nature doesn't think. Nature is not an entity.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
It is now because, as you pointed out, we are part of nature. But it couldn't before conscious entities evolved, because only conscious entities can deliberately choose to do anything.
Not deliberately.
Acquiring deliberation can also be a part of nature and its processes. Why not?
Who know? However it can mediate, naturally.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
It is. We are the part of nature that has acquired deliberation.
Things are over here for it. Natural vs acquired deliberation can now be sense of other topic.
fagin
Philosopher
No.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
Because it is well seen that THAT'S NOT HOW THINGS ARE.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
But religions don't have a natural basis. They have a basis instead in stories people make up. You note that some of the stories in your religion are about nature. That doesn't change the fact that your religion is still made-up stories. It does not have a "natural basis." It is not based on observing and attempting to understand the laws of nature. It is based on making up rules and foisting them on people according to a false claim that those rules came from nature. Ascetism, in fact, is the opposite of what we observe to happen in nature. Therefore it cannot have a natural basis. Ascetism is not the "natural" condition of organisms in nature. It is instead a made-up moral policy.
No, that's just more equivocation. If you "express" natural laws and natural behavior in a way that contradicts the facts, you haven't remained true to nature.
Facts are absolute points
We already do. You simply refuse to accept those facts. Ascetism is not practiced in nature.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
No, it can't. You are trying to mix oil and water. (Sorry for my use of figurative language; declarative statements seem not to get through to you.)
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
You can have it this way, of course, and acknowledge that all we humans do, since we are animals, is "nature," but if you do that you will need something other than your current construct of "nature" to argue against what we do. Sure, because we're animals, our birth control devices, our social constraints, our medical interventions and hospitals and practices are natural in some way. But then so is domestication of animals, factory farming, slaughtering beeves and clubbing baby seals. Not that I'm the first to make this point, but you need to make up your mind. If you include the combination of social and cultural behavior, biological knowledge, and medical expertise that combine to make growing up a female less likely to result in a painful early death in the category of "nature," then the rest of your argument flops.
Above can depend on if we can be able to claim that humans can also do something independent of nature. Nature should not be one sided approach i.e harsh, cruel, violent, war, destructive, non emotional, non-beliefs etc. but should also have opposite side i.e. peace, love, affection, compassionate, creative or emotional, beliefs etc . Animals living in nature, nursing, protecting,loving their children and companions suggest nature is many sided. Religions can derive any part of nature and introduce directly or indirectly, will be called natural. We should look nature from MPOVs not just one POV.
Yes.
We need to better understand it, how evolutionary and inherent (natural)predispositions can affect the perceptions. Not just acquired in short time.
Last edited:
Yes, we/nature introduced these for the purpose of need of changed environment/conditions/nature.
That is a rational approach may not be truthful and also a part of nature happened due to changed conditions. Nature is both/all sided--cruel & compassionate(one poster told rightly). However what odd we opt is our state of deviation to nature's balance and is also processed by nature depending on our state. Just "cause and effect". Creation and destruction both happen in nature to maintain its harmony and balance. In some Karma theory, probably those domesticated and slaughtered animals might had domesticated and slaughtered us in their previous births and we are just reacting to that OTHERWISE they may do it in their and our next births. Odds are adjusted in nature, this is the essence of cause and effect or Karma theory.Newton's 3rd law of motion/action may also suggest same.