Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:12 pm

<< Week of December 07, 2016 >>
Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday
7 Day Month

8 Day Month

9 Day Month

10 Day Month

11 Day Month

12 Day Month

13 Day Month





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 
What is Nature? 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5056
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1666
Thanked: 1649 times in 1250 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post What is Nature?
This thread picks up on the discussion under Your Inner Fish Chapter One, Finding Your Inner Fish

DWill wrote:
Quote:
DWill, what you say about stoicism reflects common usage, but I was talking about the philosophy: as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism puts it, "The core doctrine of Stoicism concerns cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that virtue is to maintain a will that is in accord with nature." This stoic theme of coordination of will and nature is deeply evolutionary in character.

I would just say that the "natures" in the quoted part and your comment are different. I distinguish, as I think is common, between "the nature of things" and nature in the natural science sense, which is what evolution concerns. I also think the important feature of Stoicism is exactly the attitude toward circumstance that it teaches us to have. I see nothing less important about philosophy in the popular sense. I should have made it clear that "unlawful" means not following natural law. Although evolution does proceed mechanically by lawful processes, some believe that it is led by a force or impetus that is not lawful in that sense, but creative.
DWill


Science has a unitary understanding of nature, so the relation between 'the nature of things' and 'physical nature' must resolve to an underlying unity. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus expressed this underlying unity in his famous statement 'ethos anthropoi daimon', translated as 'the ethos of humanity is spirituality', or 'character is fate'. The link to nature, in Greek physis, is that the character which emerges from attunement to ethos is entirely natural, and indicates the path on which the person will live. Hence in stoic thinking, nature is one, and freedom consists in living in accord with the underlying unity of the universe.

Aristotle formulated the logical principle of non-contradiction, that a statement cannot be true and false. This implies a self-consistent universe, in which concepts such as nature have a single underlying meaning. Martin Heidegger picked up on this theme, analysing the Greek ideas physis (nature) and aletheia (truth = unhiddenness), to show, in his terms, that ontology is the original ethics. By this I take him to mean that evolutionary nature, in the natural science sense, is the same thing as 'the nature of things' in human life. Otherwise we face the logical problem presented by Stephen Jay Gould in his concept of 'separate magisteria', the idea that science and religion belong to intrinsically separate realms and cannot be reconciled.



Thu May 29, 2008 11:48 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Master Debater


Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23
Location: Baltimore, MD
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: What is Nature?
Robert Tulip wrote:
Martin Heidegger picked up on this theme, analysing the Greek ideas physis (nature) and aletheia (truth = unhiddenness), to show, in his terms, that ontology is the original ethics. By this I take him to mean that evolutionary nature, in the natural science sense, is the same thing as 'the nature of things' in human life.


Having just finished a seminar on Martin Heidegger (and written my final seminar paper on aletheia), I'm really curious about where you're getting your support for this conclusion. I've found that Heidegger is almost never interpreted in the same way by any two people, but your conclusion seems anti-Heideggerian to me, not an extension of him.


_________________
indigo~


Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:35 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5056
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1666
Thanked: 1649 times in 1250 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post 
Hi Indigo. The claim 'ontology is the original ethics' comes from Heidegger's 1946 Letter on Humanism. The ideas of physis and aletheia are discussed, together with logos, the third person of the existential trinity, in the Introduction to Metaphysics. IM discusses physis as 'that which emerges and endures', in terms of Parmenides' observation that there is only one reality. In his trinitarian atheism, Heidegger identifies the meaning of being as found in the unity of physis, logos and aletheia - nature, language and truth, or emergence, connection and openness. In Being and Time, his main work, Heidegger contrasts the scientific and humanistic perspectives (present at hand and ready to hand), as different ways we engage with nature, but these different ways of engagement point back to a primordial existential unity. My point is that for Heidegger, authentic human nature is grounded in physical reality, so the suggestion that 'the nature of things' in human life requires a separate concept of nature from evolution seems inauthentic. You are right that Heidegger has been interpreted differently, notably in the relativist post-modern views of Rorty and Derrida. I disagree with them.



Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:00 pm
Profile Email WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5600
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1409
Thanked: 1427 times in 1116 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: What is Nature?
Quote:
Science has a unitary understanding of nature, so the relation between 'the nature of things' and 'physical nature' must resolve to an underlying unity.

You can't mean the modern sciences of biology, zoology, etc., can you Robert? This is not a scientific topic but a philosophical one. If scientists use the word "nature" as a shorthand or informally, they surely do not mean to also cover those particular characteristics of a single species that we summarize under the term culture. The dispute here is not with the assertion of an underlying unity; that may be established in some way, at some point. But this involves a synthesis that is still a gleam in the eye of some scientist-philosophers.
DWill



Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:22 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5056
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1666
Thanked: 1649 times in 1250 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post 
As I read scientist-philosophers such as Dawkins and Gould, and I think Shubin, they argue that the self-consistent universe described by natural science also encompasses human culture, and therefore that laws of the evolution of life apply to human culture. For example, Shubin cites as a law that every organism has parental stock. This may seem a no-brainer, but on it zoology has built a remarkable picture of the evolution of life.

Of course people are free to behave in ways not strongly determined by science, but this does not mean our behaviour is not caused, or that we inhabit a 'nature' that is somehow separate from material nature. This issue is at the root of the dispute between science and religion, in that religion claims access to a miraculous 'special revelation' whereby human life is somehow separated from the context of natural science, while science says that consistency means all culture obeys the laws of science. So I do think scientists claim that when they categorise nature, human culture has its place within the overall scheme, described by taxonomy, phylogeny and more specific empirical methods. As I see it, recognising this natural context of culture is a key to overcoming the alienation of humanity from nature, and also of understanding such mythic narratives as the fall from grace.

I don't think the unity of nature is just a gleam. At the religious level it goes back to the old Hindu idea that all is one. For science it reflects the assumption that the laws of physics apply consistently, and the goal of a theory of everything, integrating the four forces of physics in the Standard Model - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model .

Shubin is showing us the unity of nature in the most beautiful way we can imagine - that all our innards are largely shared with the tree of life. DNA on earth has a unity which science is now unpacking in all its marvelous elegance. It would be completely inelegant to say there is an aspect of life, namely culture, which is not part of the tree of life.

DWill, you seem to be implying that culture is a superstructure without causal basis in nature. Karl Marx had interesting views on this. I agree with this base-superstructure distinction to some extent, except that nature provides our bearings, speaking of collective humanity rather than at the individual level. When we are attuned to nature, we can steer a course through its hazards, but when we lose contact with nature we are like a ship drifting onto rocks.

The core message which I take from Your Inner Fish is that we can learn from the history of life about the real challenges of evolution, and help humanity to understand its real place within the river of time, learning from our origins in the distant past to help understand our present situation and choose our possible future destinations.



Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:57 pm
Profile Email WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5600
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1409
Thanked: 1427 times in 1116 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Robert Tulip wrote:
As I read scientist-philosophers such as Dawkins and Gould, and I think Shubin, they argue that the self-consistent universe described by natural science also encompasses human culture, and therefore that laws of the evolution of life apply to human culture. For example, Shubin cites as a law that every organism has parental stock. This may seem a no-brainer, but on it zoology has built a remarkable picture of the evolution of life.


Robert, we're probably just going to have to settle on areas of disagreement. I know of no scientifc laws whereby the changes in culture, economics, politics, and so on are explained much less predicted. Shubin's law pertains to biology, and as a careful scientist he wouldn't make claims he hasn't been able to test.

Quote:
Of course people are free to behave in ways not strongly determined by science, but this does not mean our behaviour is not caused, or that we inhabit a 'nature' that is somehow separate from material nature.

Yes, this freedom to act nondeterministically (emergently, in the moment) is what makes cultural "evolution" a tenuous scientific project. The matters of whether our behavior is caused somehow, and how far we are out of the reach of nature, are just academic next to this.
Quote:
while science says that consistency means all culture obeys the laws of science.

This is exactly what I very strongly doubt: that science has established this or even anywhere makes this claim. You talk about "implications" of science, but these are at some remove from the science itself, and are your own.
Quote:
For science it reflects the assumption that the laws of physics apply consistently, and the goal of a theory of everything, integrating the four forces of physics in the Standard Model

But this theory of everything or string theory is not an assumption; it is the very thing that still needs to be proved. And there is considerable doubt that everything in the universe can be reduced to particles in motion, which would defeat the theory of everything.
Quote:
Shubin is showing us the unity of nature in the most beautiful way we can imagine - that all our innards are largely shared with the tree of life. DNA on earth has a unity which science is now unpacking in all its marvelous elegance. It would be completely inelegant to say there is an aspect of life, namely culture, which is not part of the tree of life.

This is of course well said, Robert, but what does elegance have to do with it? It's really about nitty-gritty things such as organisms having sex and producing offspring that have to compete for limited food. That's all it's really about on Shubin's level. Cultural forms do not have sex and compete for food or survival (I already know that you will say they do the latter, but it's not the same)
Quote:
DWill, you seem to be implying that culture is a superstructure without causal basis in nature.

The causal basis that I care about is the causal basis in humans. Humans have been able to construct a culture in the first place by being able to operate at a greater remove from nature.
Quote:
The core message which I take from Your Inner Fish is that we can learn from the history of life about the real challenges of evolution, and help humanity to understand its real place within the river of time, learning from our origins in the distant past to help understand our present situation and choose our possible future destinations

Have you read the last chapter of the Inner Ape book? De Waal makes some interesting observations on the prospects of future evolution of our species. He says that the natural pressures that drive evolution are mostly removed in our case.

DWill



Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:21 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Commander

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2898
Location: Round Hill, VA
Thanks: 457
Thanked: 366 times in 277 posts
Gender: Female
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Beautifully said, Will.


_________________
In love we are made visible
As in a magic bath
are unpeeled
to the sharp pit
so long concealed
--May Swenson


Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:40 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5056
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1666
Thanked: 1649 times in 1250 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post 
DWill wrote:
I know of no scientific laws whereby the changes in culture, economics, politics, and so on are explained much less predicted.
A good example was the conquest of the USA by Europe. Native Americans saw the superior technology and predicted their land would be stolen. This is indicative of the operation of evolution in culture and politics



Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:41 am
Profile Email WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 

Announcements 

• What fiction book should we start January 1, 2017?
Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:57 pm



Site Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2016. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank