Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:28:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2634 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
| |
| |
| |
You seem to be missing the point. Humans are part of nature, are they not?
If you disagree, then please articulate your argument. But if you agree,
then you must cede that anything that humans (who are subsets of the group
Nature) do is natural (i.e., part of nature).
|
This brings up an idea that has been through my head on several occasions -
if you use the definition “part of nature” for natural, then what can be
defined as unnatural? After all, everything on this earth has been created
by nature, either directly or indirectly, hasn’t it? Even the most amazing
chemical concoction has been made, in the end, from natural ingredients and
know-how. Is anything unnatural?
|
|
The term has invested with the connotation that I don’t think it should have,
honestly. In practice, the word tends to mean “altered by human intervention,”
but this definition is valid only if we declare that humans are not part of
nature, or are capable of producing things that are themselves not part of
nature.
Even the word “artificial” has a problematic connotation. It tends to mean “not
produced by/found in nature,” when in fact it means “produced by humans or by
human-created processes.”
| |
Well, everything that exists operates within the laws of nature, that doesn’t
mean it was created through natural processes. The natural ingredients and
know-how that create a chemical concoction are natural, but the concoction
itself isn’t natural, as it doesn’t occur naturally (without human
intervention). But, the concoction itself is subject to nature’s laws.
|
But see, this is the exact point I’m trying to make. To place “human
intervention” outside of the realm of “natural” is to put humans on some kind of
“supernatural” pedestal. This also presupposes that we are qualified to judge
when something has become unnatural.
However, this presents us with an additional interpretation that I didn’t
mention previously:
If we allow that “human intervention” upon a thing enables that thing to be
“unnatural,” then we must accept that all kinds of things humans do are
“unnatural,” so the label is stripped of its negative connotation. For example,
my eyeglasses, this computer, and the Coke I’m drinking are all “unnatural,” yet
these are, for most people, accepted parts of everyday life. So why should
something like homosexuality be decried as being “unnatural,” as if
“unnatural-ness” is an inherently bad condition?
For clarity, I’m not accusing you or Ross of objecting to homosexuality on these
grounds, but it ties into the larger argument that’s been going on.
Here is my opinion, restated:
Nature, by definition, cannot produce or do anything that is unnatural. Humans
are part of nature and are therefore natural. By definition, humans cannot
produce or do anything that is unnatural.
Alternatively, can you propose an argument showing how humans either are
unnatural or can produce/do something that is unnatural?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) I think your definition makes a lot of sense but the problem is that it doesn't give a distinguishing metric. (I've used that to great advantage when arguing against those that argue against "artificial flavours" for example). That said, what (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Well, everything that exists operates within the laws of nature, that doesn't mean it was created through natural processes. The natural ingredients and know-how that create a chemical concoction are natural, but the concoction itself isn't (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
