So to attempt to say that there is no difference between man and nature, or that human acts are simply natural acts, is really an attempt to dodge or hide from the reality of the human condition. — Wayfarer
Mans NEED to make nature CONFORM (is funny) to HIS needs....So needy! Is that just making nature aware of mans NEEDS? Ha! To those thinking nature may conform or does, I ask: what about evolution? does conforming in this context consider that, how the environment, our reality, life, is linked to life sustaining? Is that really any ones WANT or NEED though? I guess I just answered myself. That is a deeper want or need, that nature is not conforming to but ALIGNING with perhaps? Yeah I dont see how evolution can be considered conforming to our wants or needs....So maybe it is not ours but A want or A need? Hm....I am intrigued.With man's insatiable need to make nature conform to his needs and even wants, what are your opinions about our current relationship with nature? Is it becoming better or worse? — Shawn
Freaks of nature! :joke:The truth is not knowing, but being. And what is being without knowing? Human [as] Nature. — ENOAH
We cannot not be part of nature. However, we have qualities that, to our knowledge, no other part of nature has. I don't think it's out of line to judge us. Especially since some of those qualities are what gives us the concept of judgement. We, alone, can judge. — Patterner
Humans cannot make objective judgments, and subjective judgements are meaninglesss — RussellA
That's what I was getting at when I said that the tendency to idolise nature and the environment in modern culture really amounts to a kind of faux religiosity. — Wayfarer
For example if someone's society judges them to not be fit to participate in that society and subsequently banishes or imprisons that person, I'd expect that person to find society's judgement to be meaningful. — wonderer1
Subjective judgement might be redundant. What is an objective judgement?Humans make subjective not objective judgements. — RussellA
Humans are natural. Humans judge good and evil. Therefore, nature judges good and evil. The fact that not every cc in the universe judges good and evil doesn't mean nature doesn't judge good and evil. Just as, while every cc in the universe is not involved with fusion reaction, stars are.In nature there are no judgements. — RussellA
It can be for a specific action in a specific setting.A judgement is not about a certainty. — RussellA
Humans have subjective judgement. Which, again, is the only kind there is. And humans are a part of nature. Subjective judgement is a part of nature.Humans are a part of nature, and as nature has no objective judgement neither do humans. — RussellA
You understand exactly.Humans are a part of nature and not separate to it. Particular features of human existence, such as self-awareness, ability to judge, being intellectual rather than instinctive and having a morality may be explained as natural expressions of nature. Nature is using the agency of the human to express these particular features, rather than being expressed by a human existing separately to a world in which they have evolved. — RussellA
Very well put.That humans are self-aware is not evidence that humans are separate to nature. If humans are a part of nature rather than separate to it, then it may be argued that it is the case that nature is self-aware through the agency of the human. Human self-awareness is the mechanism by which nature is self-aware. — RussellA
Nothing can conceivably be evidence that humans are separate to nature. The fish is part of the aquarium. The snail is part of the aquarium. The gravel is part of the aquarium. The water is part of the aquarium. Humans are part of nature.That humans are self-aware is not evidence that humans are separate to nature.
That humans are self-aware is not evidence that humans are separate to nature.
That humans have free-will is not evidence that humans are separate to nature. — RussellA
Well, like I said, I think I've earned the right to have my own, unorthodox, and unique interpretation of the allegory of the cave. — Arcane Sandwich
Well, like I said, I think I've earned the right to have my own, unorthodox, and unique interpretation of the allegory of the cave. — Arcane Sandwich
My video of it: — PoeticUniverse
Underlining declarations doesn’t make them valid arguments. — Wayfarer
If you have ever tried reading a large blob of text, then you know how hard it can be. However, it becomes easier to read when broken into headings and subheadings.
Academic writings like essays have a standard of writing that must be upheld. While not every essay requires headings and subheadings, they are important for organizing your writing.
It doesn’t present an argument or arguments, but a series of declarations. — Wayfarer
The basis of ethics is neither subjective nor objective, but transcendental. That is what Wittgenstein means when he says ‘ethics is transcendent’ (TLP 6.41) - objective propositions are what ethics are transcendent in respect to. Conscience is traditionally that faculty which is guided by or drawn towards a transcendent source of ethics, something lacking in animals for whom such matters do not arise. — Wayfarer
Humans are natural. Humans judge good and evil. Therefore, nature judges good and evil. — Patterner
↪Wayfarer
You're right about everything. — Patterner
I believe this is the accurate option.P1 Assume that within nature there is no objective judgment of good and evil
P2 Humans are part of nature
P3 Each individual's judgment as to what is good or evil is particular to them and is subjective
C1 As between different individuals there may be a range of judgments as to what is good or evil, it is not possible to determine an objective judgment of what is good or evil.
C2 Within nature, whilst there may be a range of judgments as to what is good or evil, there can be no objective judgment of what is good or evil. — RussellA
I agree. I never said there is an objective judgement of what is good and evil. In fact, I suggested there is no such thing as objective judgement. Judgement is subjective.In conclusion, within nature there may be an objective judgement of what is good or evil, but humans are not aware of it. The fact that humans are part of nature and make subjective judgments as to what is good or evil does not mean that within nature there is an objective judgment of what is good or evil. — RussellA
Well, I didn't mean everything everything. I meant the things he had said in his last couple posts. Factually accurate, but I think a different interpretation applies.↪Wayfarer
You're right about everything.
— Patterner
Well, if that's the case, then why are people so dismissive towards his idealism? — Arcane Sandwich
My proto-consciousness views are also generally dismissed, so I don't put much stock in someone's ideas being dismissed. — Patterner
In TLP 6.421, does Wittgenstein write "Ethics is transcendent" or "Ethics is transcendental"?
What does Wittgenstein mean by "Ethics is transcendental"? (TLP 6.421)
Why are ethics transcendental rather than subjective or objective?
Why is conscience drawn to a transcendent source of ethics? — RussellA
6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value—and if there were, it would be of no value.
If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental.
What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental.
It must lie outside the world.
6.42 Hence also there can be no ethical propositions.
Propositions cannot express anything higher.
6.421 It is clear that ethics cannot be expressed.
Ethics is transcendental.
(Ethics and æsthetics are one.)
P1 Assume that within nature there is an objective judgment of good or evil.
P2 Humans are part of nature.
P3 Each individual's judgment as to what is good or evil is particular to them and is subjective.
C1 As within nature there is an objective judgement of good and evil, yet only subjective judgments of what is good or evil within individual humans, humans are not aware of the objective judgment of good and evil. — RussellA
Evidently Wayfarer has found some sort of objective truth in the world as well as inside of his own brain. — Arcane Sandwich
I question that the only criterion of truth is what can be considered 'objective'. I've written an off-site essay on that question, Scientific Objectivity and Philosophical Detachment, which is very hard to summarise down to a forum post. But suffice to say that it sees philosophical detachment as superior to scientific objectivity, because it doesn't pre-suppose the division between knower and known that characterises modern thought. The culmination of philosophical detachment is seeing beyond the ego-logical perspective, an insight outside the domain of self-and-other, subject and object, as understood in the various schools of the perennial philosophies. — Wayfarer
suffice to say that it sees philosophical detachment as superior to scientific objectivity, because it doesn't pre-suppose the division between knower and known that characterises modern thought. — Wayfarer
Even if philosophical detachment doesn’t presuppose the division, does it arrive at it through some form of logical inference? — Mww
I hold to the third perspective on nature, namely that nature is really the unfolding of the universe according to the laws of physics in time and therefore it is obviously perceived as true because it is true insofar as the idea of truth is simply a human construct describing what "is". — philosch
obviously humankind is at least in part natural — philosch
Therefore I'm left concluding humankind cannot do anything that is un-natural. — philosch
Unless of course the OP wishes to define the boundaries of nature — philosch
I conclude that nature is perceived as true because nature "is" true by definition. — philosch
Nature is perceived as true because nature is true, period. — Arcane Sandwich
I'm afraid the attitude that you're describing is very close to that of a psychopathology. There's no reason for any action, other than what makes sense to me. Nature may have reasons, but there's no way you or I can know what they are. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.