RE: What is a "nature"[?]
SUBTOPIC: Where is Dr (Noam) Chomsky?
※→ et al,

This is really a question for which we could benefit from the expertise Dr Chomsky.

As for me, I find that it is better to use a defined term (definition) than to compose a definition (what is) from scratch. This is much more difficult as a question (the interrogative) than it appears to be at the first notion. I am often entangled in the genus or the spectrum (either I make the definition too narrow or too broad). Or, I find that I get involved in a circular logic argument.

Here, from the way the question is framed, I make the assumption that it is interested in asking for the characteristics and attributes of the item under examination (IUT). → The nature of something is the framework or fundamentals of its reflexes, reactions, or responses expected when exposed to a given condition. And there you have it. By me explaining what the IUT is, I become entangled and caught in an argument that contains a circular trap. And → you walk away with no net gain of information.

I have an advanced degree (academic achievement) and many times find myself at a disadvantage when asked simple questions very much like this. Often the "nature" of a ghostly apparition, soul, or supernatural entity can only be explained by the frequencies of energies it reflects or absorbs. Tell that to an undergrad and see the reaction you get.

Anyway, I should quite wasting your bandwidth and just say, the "nature" of any physical object rest in the absorption pattern.

Respectfully,
R

Ah but a thing's patterns is not rejected in nominalism. Computers don't seem to have a nature but they have similar patterns of construction so they share the same name. Trying to argue that two trees share something in common and meaning more to this than that they have near identical components seems to me to be the corruption of Plato, as Nietsche too would agree with

RE: What is a "nature"[?]
SUBTOPIC:
※→ Gregory; et al,

(COMMENT)

Ah but a thing's patterns is not rejected in nominalism

For machines. and other mechanisms,→ to Acceptance, the Intentional Disregard, or Rejection for the problem or dilemma are three alternatives. The computer or other forms of automation (what you call "things) DO NOT make a choice. The response by any computer or other forms of automation is compliance-oriented. Faced with a problem or dilemma, the device under examination (DUE) will respond according to its programmed instructions. The program which drives the response comes (ultimately) from the human source. The response represents the ability of the program developer to have addressed the alternatives in responding to the problem or dilemma. To the DUE problem or dilemma does not recognize the operation as either a problem or dilemma. To the DUE it is merely a set of conditions to establish a path that corresponds to that which the DUE must deal with. How well the DUE responds to the contains is based on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the program developer. The DUE will reflect whatever the program developer directs.

(COMMENT)

Trying to argue that two trees share something in common and meaning more to this than that they have near identical components seems to me to be the corruption of Plato,

All trees, just like humans, have DNA. {SOURCE LINK} There are pretty obvious differences between plants and animals, but – at the chemical level – the cells of all plants and all animals contain DNA in the same shape – the famous “double helix” that looks like a twisted ladder. (Posted by Editors of EarthSky October 13, 2008}

I am not sure what Plato might have meant. But I am sure that Plato was on the right track.

Respectfully,
R

Does nature here mean essence/quiddity or something else?

The nature/essence/quiddity of nature/essence/quiddity, is there such a thing?

If one is uncertain about nature as the OP suggests, how can we answer the 2^nd order question: what is nature (basically what is the nature of nature?)?

To know the nature of nature, we must already know what nature is but to know what nature is we must already know what the nature of nature is. Chicken-and-egg problem if you ask me!

what is the nature of nature? — Agent Smith

Metaphysics (re: physis = nature), no?

Metaphysics (re: physis = nature), no? — 180 Proof

Methinks the OP is asking a different question.

Perhaps. However, I was replying to your "nature of nature" comment.

Perhaps. However, I was replying to your "nature of nature" comment. — 180 Proof

I see. Oh, so the nature of nature as in an idea about how stuff works?

No. It's an idea of "why" stuff is stuff.

No. It's an idea of "why" stuff is stuff. — 180 Proof

Oh, sorry I misunderstood. So, why, pray tell, is a cat a cat?

Ask an Aristotlean / Thomist. (I'm not either.)

Ask an Aristotlean / Thomist. (I'm not either.) — 180 Proof

But you use the word "cat". When do you use it?

Usually when it suits me. Check the language game I'm playing when I use "cat".

Usually when it suits me. Check the language game I'm playing when I use "cat" — 180 Proof

:ok:

Nature itself may or may not have a quiddity, nature, or essence (I think those are the same thing). "Realists" usually, contra nominalists, say that like objects in nature share something between them. And they share this not in the sense of having something in common, but actually being immersed in the same nature. Aristotle is a realist, for example, and says *humanity* is an essence we all "partake" in. This seems to me to be unprovable but we have to be careful with language here. We share humanity not by each being immersed in a universal "humanity" but by the fact that we are so similar that we can call each other by the same name ("human").

Defining what a human is can be difficult for sure, or rather, how to name them. Evolution and all that

Perhaps Kant's noumena-phenomena distinction will prove useful here. Essence/nature dwells on the "surface" rather than in the "depths". The abyss is lifeless for all intents and purposes - sterile like the cold vacuum of outerspace!

That's good. Kant definitely wasn't Platonic. The true "realists" seem to be those who take the world as it is and doesn't bother with what is "behind it" (as if essence can permeate beyond what we sense). There is much medieval baggage in how we talk though

That's good. Kant definitely wasn't Platonic. The true "realists" seem to be those who take the world as it is and doesn't bother with what is "behind it" (as if essence can permeate beyond what we sense). There is much medieval baggage in how we talk though — Gregory

WYSIWYG!

"There's gotta be more" attitude/mindset $\to$ dukkha (dissatisfaction).