What is a ' nature? '

[Linusthe2nd]

Tell us how you understand this term. And what does it apply to?

How have you used this term?

Can you give some examples of how you have used it?

When did you become aware of its various meanings?

Does it have a primary meaning that you think is especially apt?

Linus2nd

 

[Hans_W]

I see it as the physical world around us.

In scientific terms it is space-time, plus all the mass/energy we can see and detect, at least in principle. It excludes anything supernatural, which by definition is outside of nature.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I see it as the physical world around us.

In scientific terms it is space-time, plus all the mass/energy we can see and detect, at least in principle. It excludes anything supernatural, which by definition is outside of nature.

I see that you identify as a philosopher as well. Does your philosophy say anything about nature?

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

When we say of a being that it is acting according to its nature, we mean that it is acting according to the laws that govern it.

A rock only acts naturally when it is acted upon. A human acts both by being acted upon and as a result of interior reactions or decisions. A bird acts according to its nature when it builds a nest. Fish act according to their nature when they swim in a school. Humans act according to their nature when they build a school. The needs of different creatures determine their different natures.

Natures are not to be confused with desires. It is a part of our nature that we desire, but not all desires are natural. We need to eat so we desire to eat, but we can desire to eat too much, which is against our nature, since our nature is to eat what we need, not as much as we desire. There are many other ways to pervert our nature and that has been endemic since Adam and Eve, who thought they needed to be as great as God.

These laws of nature that govern us, where do they come from? How are they assigned?

God knows!

 

[Hans_W]

I see that you identify as a philosopher as well. Does your philosophy say anything about nature?

Linus2nd

If I put my philosopher hat on, it gets more complicated.

What if our universe is not the only one? If there are other universes, they could be governed by different laws, have different kind of matter and energy. These universes would be causally isolated from ours and there would be no way of observing and investigating them. They would probably not count as part of nature. But that’s a very esoteric idea.

More down to earth is the notion of abstract object, geometric triangles, circles etc. You won’t find those in nature. And numbers, of course. Are they part of nature, or are they supernatural?

The most important example/problem is the mind. The brain is something physical, but consciousness is clearly not physical. For a reductive naturalist the mind doesn’t pose an in-principle problem. The mind will supervene the physical processes of the brain. Things become more difficult for the non-reductive materialist. There are proposals to treat the mind as a totally different of entity. So we have matter, energy and minds. Philosophy of the mind is a very tricky topic. I found it the most challenging one in my undergraduate years.

 

[Nixbits]

To me ‘nature’ has a couple of meanings.

1. The phenomena of the physical world, more often applied to the Earth, e.g. “They are probably the longest, loudest and slowest songs in nature.” This meaning is often used as a means of distinction from things that are produced or affected by humankind, although I can see that this distinction can be controversial. By extension this meaning can also be applicable to the rest of the universe, e.g. “The formation of planetary moons is seen throughout nature.” This meaning was certainly known by me before the age of five.
2. The inherent properties of a thing, e.g. “It’s the dog’s nature to bark at unexpected noises.” This meaning was probably known to me by the age of eight.

Neither meaning is more or less apt than the other.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is a great discussion of human nature in Mortimer Adler’s Ten Philosophical Mistakes. He goes into why so many moderns think there is no such thing as human nature. Of course to argue there is no human nature is to argue there is no natural law, which is precisely what the hedonists want us to believe.

Anything goes!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If I put my philosopher hat on, it gets more complicated.

What if our universe is not the only one? If there are other universes, they could be governed by different laws, have different kind of matter and energy. These universes would be causally isolated from ours and there would be no way of observing and investigating them. They would probably not count as part of nature. But that’s a very esoteric idea.

Very!

More down to earth is the notion of abstract object, geometric triangles, circles etc. You won’t find those in nature. And numbers, of course. Are they part of nature, or are they supernatural?

Yes, universals, which A & T call beings of the mind. But they are instantiated in individual substances of a specific genus/species nature.

The most important example/problem is the mind. The brain is something physical, but consciousness is clearly not physical. For a reductive naturalist the mind doesn’t pose an in-principle problem. The mind will supervene the physical processes of the brain. Things become more difficult for the non-reductive materialist. There are proposals to treat the mind as a totally different of entity. So we have matter, energy and minds. Philosophy of the mind is a very tricky topic. I found it the most challenging one in my undergraduate years.

Here is an interesting article called " Acept on Imitations " by Edward Feser on his latest blog It deals with artifical intelligence and other things.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

To me ‘nature’ has a couple of meanings.

1. The phenomena of the physical world, more often applied to the Earth, e.g. “They are probably the longest, loudest and slowest songs in nature.” This meaning is often used as a means of distinction from things that are produced or affected by humankind, although I can see that this distinction can be controversial. By extension this meaning can also be applicable to the rest of the universe, e.g. “The formation of planetary moons is seen throughout nature.” This meaning was certainly known by me before the age of five.
2. The inherent properties of a thing, e.g. “It’s the dog’s nature to bark at unexpected noises.” This meaning was probably known to me by the age of eight.

Neither meaning is more or less apt than the other.

Yes, # 2 is what I’m looking for. You get a gold star!

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is a great discussion of human nature in Mortimer Adler’s Ten Philosophical Mistakes. He goes into why so many moderns think there is no such thing as human nature. Of course to argue there is no human nature is to argue there is no natural law, which is precisely what the hedonists want us to believe.

Anything goes!

Be careful with Adler, he went through several evolutions. Toward the end of his life he was baptized into the Church and for most of his life he was regarded as a Neo-Thomist. So you have to be selective in your reading of his works. Wikipedia has a nice article on his life and works.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Be careful with Adler,
Linus2nd

What I like about Adler is that he so often cuts to the chase and explains things other philosophers don’t even get around to explaining. He may not have been a very original philosopher, but he has had a great and positive influence on those starting out their studies in philosophy.

Recently I was re-reading that chapter on human nature and am still impressed by his identification of what separates us from all the other beast of the earth … our potential to be original, inventive, and creative in ways that other creatures cannot because they are so hard wired to follow the instincts programmed in them by their genes.