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

I agree with you that they are different, except that you are ignoring the possibility of a hybrid, or a qualified "nature-ism."

To assume for illustration only that we accept the biblical story as helpful and refer to your re-reference to the myth of Eden, the so called fall represents the way/thing which takes humankind away from nature (compare to the cave). This movement to knowledge, is not a movement to an equal reality as the one God made, but an error. Hence, the "fall'. The choice made by Adam/Eve does not effectively eliminate or change so called God's creation. But rather, it is an error launching uniquely humans into a fall from their "God given" natures: nature. Their nature remains the same, Nature. Reality does not change, rather, human constructions of knowledge to displace life are just not reality, or, are 'false.'

Again, I don't purport to judge them ethically or functionally; but as far as ultimate Truth or Reality, we are nature. And as Nature, there is no judgement. It just is. And our make-up and clothes, that is the realm of judgement, where we are both transgressor and judge; and though useful, that realm is ultimately false. Those last words, particularly, (it.e., realm and false) to be understood loosely and broadly.

Now, respectfully, I will anticipate your reply might be directed at some literal interpretation of this suggestion, or a statement as to its failure to comply with a contemporaneous, scholarly, or biblical interpretation, so I reiterate, the myth was used in the same spirit as you used it, in the same spirit as Platos cave, not to be construed strictly, but as a fluid illustration of matters of which expression and discourse already remove said matters from the capacity to accurately pinpoint the truth.

.

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

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.

The relationship, if we ought to call it that [ I lean away from that option ] is not good, bad, better, or worse, because then we would have to compare to WHAT? If we WANT anything out of nature, to be conforming to US is almost like forgetting how life works. Forgetting on purpose is interesting...creating bad thinking patterns though, i wonder... [probably]

How does your life work? We can hope nature aligns with our wants or needs, but to have expectations that get let down over and over because of this repeated behavior is out of error, instead we must accept our actualities and ground self into reality. Life is give and take, nature is not aware of how it (mans wants or needs when given or refused) effects human nature...we are simply the ones bothered, at all different levels, subjective to objective scales.....Nature is not bothered and if it was I wouldnt be asking that here NOW....I'd know. The relationship between nature currently and man is respected, I think. It ought to be, but what do I know I am a woman.....But nature.

It's power is to be respected, beauty awed over, and gifts of life ought to be received with grateful arms wide open....some people don't have arms. Some armless people are happier than fully able people, that is measurable. Or observable at least, in nature in character, the behavior. The sources...judged rightfully. Hope so? How much do you really HOPE?

The truth is not knowing, but being. And what is being without knowing? Human [as] Nature. — ENOAH

Freaks of nature! :joke:

:eyes: :strong: I'm following you a bit here now...My thoughts are being thought about now...Got me thinking! It's interesting to me breaking down these words for their uses, meanings, content, (a min or max value is knowable here, i think) - human nature vs reality vs natural vs nature..."our nature" human nature, earths nature....life is of nature? natural? meaning what? not tainted by any artificial substitutes, unaltered, natural state, meant to be? KNOWING you are BEING that? Yes...Awareness? Levels of it relevance? Experience of it? (accuracy or credibility to be verified as experiences arent always explained as they actually occurred, tolerance is loose here [leave slack room maybe]
ANYWAYS, I am enjoying the discussion. Just wanted to acknowledge you, ENOAH as you often have a unique pov that I find easy to follow and relate to/with. I just thought I'd share a bit, a train couldn't of stopped me.

Nice to cross paths again. It's an interesting topic with a variety of insights.

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 make subjective not objective judgements.
There are no general agreement as to foundational objective judgments. Killing may be wrong, but then again it may be right. Abortion may be wrong, but then again it may be right. It may be asked of what value are subjective judgements, when no one subjective judgment can take precedence over any other subjective judgement. Pro life believe unborn babies have a right to life and Pro choice believe unborn babies may be aborted.

In nature there are no judgements.
Apples are not right and oranges wrong. Trees are not better and mountains worse. Whales are not good and scorpions bad.

Animals do judge.
Across the animal kingdom, infanticide has been observed in totally disparate mammal species, from dolphins to lions to baboons. Since it was first witnessed in the wild, researchers have come up with a variety of explanations as to why males might kill infants of their own species. ( www.smithsonianmag.com). It may well be the case that animals do judge what course of action to take, but not necessarily why a particular course of action is morally right or wrong.

Humans make subjective judgements.
An individual may say that "killing is wrong", thereby making a moral judgement, but this is a subjective rather than objective judgement. The subjective judgement is particular to one individual, at one particular moment in time and in one particular context. Different people make different judgements about the same issue. For example, regarding abortion, some are Pro life and some are Pro choice. Some believe that unborn babies have a right to life, and some advocate for abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. There is no one objective judgement towards abortion. Judgements towards abortion are subjective to each individual.

A judgement is not about a certainty.
A Judge may judge someone guilty given the evidence, but they don't know for certain that the person is guilty. It may be that the weight of evidence infers that they are guilty. A judgment infers an uncertainty. I may judge that killing is wrong. However there may be some circumstances, such as a war for survival, when I judge that killing may be right.

No subjective judgement can take precedence.
Any subjective judgment is an acceptance that it may be wrong. As subjective judgments may be different in a different individual, time and context, no subjective moral judgement can take preference over any other subjective moral judgment. Therefore, no moral judgement should be taken as having precedence over any other moral judgement. No moral judgement may take precedence over its antithesis. The moral judgement that killing is wrong may not take precedence over its antithesis that killing is right .

If no subjective judgement can take precedence, then any subjective judgement is meaningless.
However, if no moral judgement can distinguish between its thesis and antithesis, then moral judgements lose validity and become meaningless. In nature there are no objective judgements, and in humans subjective judgements are meaningless. Nature cannot judge. Humans can judge, but they cannot objectively judge, only subjectively judge. As no subjective judgment can take precedence over its antithesis, any subjective judgement becomes meaningless.

Humans are a part of nature, and as nature has no objective judgement neither do humans.
Even if the individual has free will, this has been determined by nature, of which the human is a part. Any judgment the individual makes is an expression of nature. As nature is neither right nor wrong, any human expression of judgment cannot be right or wrong. The individual may judge killing wrong, but this is a subjective not objective judgement. A subjective judgement is an illusion of an objective judgement.

Humans cannot make objective judgments, and subjective judgements are meaninglesss
Nature doesn't make objective judgements of right or wrong, true or false or better or worse. As the human individual is a part of nature, an expression of nature, neither can the human individual make objective judgments. However, a human individual can make a subjective judgement, but as no one subjective judgement can take precedence over any other subjective judgement, subjective judgments become meaningless.

Humans cannot make objective judgments, and subjective judgements are meaninglesss — RussellA

It seems to me that subjective human judgements can be quite meaningful to humans. 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.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "meaningless" in the quote above.

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

Humans are a part of nature and not separate to it
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.

Knowledge is different to good and evil
There is knowledge, the Moon is about 384,000 km away from Earth, and there is good and evil, kindness is good and killing is evil. But these are different things, in that we have knowledge about things that exist in the world, but good and evil only exist in the mind.

Human self-awareness is not evidence that humans are separate to nature
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. In the same sense, the hammer is the tool by which I hammer in a nail. It is not the hammer that is hammering in the nail.

Human judgement is not evidence that humans are separate to nature
It is true that humans are capable of judgement and are intellectual rather than instinctive, but this would be the case regardless of whether we had free will, where we can decide to act in a certain way, or were determined by forces over which we had no control. For the Determinist, all behaviour has a cause, meaning that even though we make judgements these have been determined. For the believer in Free-will, we have some choice in how we behave. That humans are determined is evidence that humans are not separate to nature, as it is nature which makes the determination. That humans have free-will is not evidence that humans are separate to nature. As with self-awareness, nature has free-will through the agency of the human. Human free will is the mechanism by which nature has free will.

Human subjective morality may be an illusion
Humans are aware of morality and have ethical dilemmas, but such concepts of good and evil, better or worse, right or wrong don't objectively exist in the world but only subjectively in the mind. However, as you wrote about the tendency to idolise nature and the environment as a kind of faux religiosity, it may well be the case that our concepts of good and evil are no more than a faux morality, no more than an illusion having no substance. The problem with a morality that is subjective is that it must forever remain particular to the individual, particular to a particular time and particular to a particular context. One person knows that Pro Life is good and Pro choice evil, another person knows that Pro Life is evil and Pro choice is good. The moral approach to slavery today is very different to that of the Romans two thousand years ago. Whilst killing may be evil, in different circumstances, during a war for survival, killing may be good.

Subjective morality has no objective foundation
If any moral position may be countered by an opposing moral position, if killing may be evil but may also be good, if Pro choice is evil but also may be good, then the concept of a subjective morality becomes meaningless. There is no objective reality against which to know whether any particular moral position is right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse.

Humans are the mechanism by which nature operates
That humans are self-aware, capable of judgement, are intellectual rather than instinctual and aware of morality is not evidence that humans are separate to nature. All these may be explained as the mechanisms by which nature expresses itself, which is though the agency of the human.

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

The imprisoned person may feel angry, but this would be an emotion, not a subjective judgement by the prisoner.

Being imprisoned would be an objective fact for the imprisoned person, not a subjective judgment of the prisoner.

If every judgement I make, "killing is wrong", can be countered by its opposite, "killing is right", what value do my judgments have?

Humans make subjective not objective judgements. — RussellA

Subjective judgement might be redundant. What is an objective judgement?

In nature there are no 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.

A judgement is not about a certainty. — RussellA

It can be for a specific action in a specific setting.


Certainly, what we judge to be good and evil can be different in different circumstances. It's subjective. The fact that killing a human in Scenario A is judged to be good, but killing a human in Scenario B is judged to be evil, does not not mean it is not good in A.

Humans are a part of nature, and as nature has no objective judgement neither do humans. — 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 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

You understand exactly.

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

Very well put.

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

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.

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:



Magic Shadow-Show

For in and out, above, about, below,
‘Tis nothing but a Magic Shadow-show,
Play’d in a Box whose Candle is the Sun,
Round which we Phantom Figures come and go.
- Omar

Like shadows cast on Plato’s ancient wall,
We dance to music we cannot recall,
While truth itself stays hidden from our sight,
Behind the curtain of perception’s hall.

The mind that thinks it grasps reality
Holds only shapes of possibility,
As children clutch at shadows on the grass,
Not knowing what above them they might see.

What lies behind the screen of time and space?
What hidden light projects each human face?
We see the dance but not the dancer’s form,
The effect but not the cause of nature’s grace.

The universe spins like a cosmic wheel,
Where what we touch is not the thing that’s real;
The chair, the stone, the star above our heads—
All shadows of a truth we cannot feel.

Yet in this play of light and shifting shade,
Some wisdom still may guide the choices made:
Though all be seeming, seeming still contains
The truth for which our seeking hearts have prayed.

For if we’re shadows, still we cast our own,
And in our dancing make our presence known;
Though substance slip beyond our mortal grasp,
Our phantom steps leave footprints in the stone.

The Box of space-time holds our brief display,
While stars and atoms through their patterns sway;
Perhaps the greatest truth is simply this:
To dance our shadow-dance with grace today.

And though we cannot pierce the veil of things,
Nor see what moves the puppet master’s strings,
Still in the beauty of the shadow-show
Some echo of the eternal mystery rings.

We are phenomena’s projected face,
Well-painted from noumena’s unseen base;
It’s as a lamp lights up a paper shade,
We figures revolving around in space.

Our being blocks the view of the Ultimate,
Nor to gaze at it can we our selves acquit.
Ev’n the wise can’t step beyond their nature—
All mothers’ sons stand helpless before it.

This wheel of heaven, which makes us all afraid, 
I liken to a lamp’s revolving shade, 
The sun the candlestick, the earth the shade, 
And men the trembling forms thereon portrayed.

We are magic lanterns shining here; 
Our spirits are the lights in there.
From what bright star came the gleam in your eyes? 
From what distant sun came your smile, light-wise?

Come, light your lantern and mine with good cheer;
We’re magic lamps; our spirits dance in here.
Our beginnings and ends are of nowhere,
So, let’s radiate, since for now we’re here!

Which of the following is more worthwhile:
The rainbow or the gold under its smile?
Well, the rainbow is here and now; the pot
May not turn out to be worth the miles.

Our minds and senses interpret and dispense
The base reality into the colors and sensations
Of the phenomenal world from the noumenal;
We may become either rainbows or ugly stains!

Mind, like Shelley’s prism of many-colored glass,
Strains the white radiance of Eternity
Into our being—until death tramples us—
And then back we must go—to stardust.

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

Looks awful.

Underlining declarations doesn’t make them valid arguments.

Stay True.

Underlining declarations doesn’t make them valid arguments. — Wayfarer

Of course not. That is why the underlined declaration is immediately followed by my argument, hopefully valid.

But I hope that underlining the declarations makes it easier for the busy Forum reader, who is often contributing to several threads at the same time, to more easily follow the structure of my reply.

Headings are sometimes advised. For example, in the article Should you Include Headings and Subheadings in an Essay?

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 was more the declarative nature of the text. It doesn’t present an argument or arguments, but a series of declarations.

As I said previously, if everything humans are and do are all simply ‘expressions of nature’ then the term ‘natural’ really has no meaning, because it refers to anything whatever. In reality the distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ is perfectly intelligible and has been spelled out, and the idea that humans live in a ‘state of nature’ fanciful. The human sense of otherness or alienation from nature is a fundamental fact of the human condition. As I said before, were you cast into a perfectly natural environment with none of the artifices and resources of urban life, I dare say you would find it very difficult to survive.

Then you make sweeping statements to the effect that, because moral statements can’t be objectively justified, then they’re really a matter for every individual subject. ‘No moral judgement takes precedence over any other’. This is a complete capitulation to relativism, ‘whatever works for you’, depending on circumstances and your particular predilections, I presume.

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.

So, in short, and without wishing to be unfriendly, I disagree with practically everything about that post.

It doesn’t present an argument or arguments, but a series of declarations. — Wayfarer

:smile: Plenty to take on board and food for thought. There is plenty to say, but limiting myself to Wittgenstein.

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

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)
When Wittgenstein says "transcendental", does he in fact mean "transcendent"?
How does "transcendent" differ to "transcendental"?
Why are ethics transcendental rather than subjective or objective?
Why is conscience drawn to a transcendent source of ethics?
Does Wittgenstein think that ethics can be put into propositions?
How do we know that the transcendent source of ethics is objective?
How do you know that animals have no conscience?

You're right about everything. But I think it all needs to be viewed and/or labeled differently. Humans evolved in the universe, through the laws of physics. That makes us natural beings. How could anything that came about through the natural processes of the universe not be natural?

The fact that we manufacture things that the laws of physics would never manufacture without us doesn't mean we, or our consciousness, or teleology, isn't natural. It means the laws off physics aren't the be-all and end-all of what is natural.

It's possible that consciousness like ours already exists elsewhere inn the universe. It's possible it will pop up more asked now throughout there universe. And all the conscious beings will manufacture more and more things that would not exist if the laws of physics were the only thing at play. Will we say the universe is no longer natural when >50% of the universe is either conscious or things manufacturers by conscious beings?

Humans are natural. Humans judge good and evil. Therefore, nature judges good and evil. — Patterner

P1 Humans are part of nature
P2 An individual human can make a judgment as to what is good or evil
P3 There is no consistent judgment across all individuals as to what is good or evil, and it may be that different individuals judgments are in opposition to each other.
C1 Each individual's judgment as to what is good or evil is particular to them and is subjective.

P1 Within nature, either i) there is an objective judgment of good or evil or ii) there is no objective judgment of good or evil

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.

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.

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.

↪Wayfarer

You're right about everything. — Patterner

Well, if that's the case, then why are people so dismissive towards his idealism? I say that as a materialist. Evidently Wayfarer has found some sort of objective truth in the world as well as inside of his own brain. It's called self-consciousness. Or self-awareness. Or perhaps mindfulness. Or perhaps his own subjective experience of himself and of the circumstances that surround him.

I think he's right about all of that, if such were the case. And perhaps it is. Who am I to tell him that his conclusions about his own experiences are somehow not part of the world if they emerge from his specific brain-world correlation? I don't have that kind of authority. No one does.

Sorry to interrupt.

Carry on.

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 believe this is the accurate option.

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

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.

↪Wayfarer

You're right about everything.
— Patterner

Well, if that's the case, then why are people so dismissive towards his idealism? — Arcane Sandwich

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.

My proto-consciousness views are also generally dismissed, so I don't put much stock in someone's ideas being dismissed.

My proto-consciousness views are also generally dismissed, so I don't put much stock in someone's ideas being dismissed. — Patterner

That's a fair thing to say.

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

In context, the passage in question is this:

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.)

'If there is value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental'. Why is it accidental? Because it is contingent. It happens to be the case. Whereas ethics is a matter of necessity. Ethical maxims express what one ought to do or must do. They are maxims, irrespective of happening or being-so. Ethics is not an object of knowledge in the way physical facts are, but rather, it is something presupposed in our engagement with the world—it is "beyond" the realm of empirical description. Wittgenstein’s use of 'transcendental' is Kantian in this sense.

The final remark—“Ethics and aesthetics are one”— suggests that both ethics and aesthetics concern a way of seeing the world rather than a set of factual claims about it. They both belong to the domain of the transcendental, shaping our perspective but not adding to the sum total of facts. Ethics is not another fact within the world but something beyond 'happening and being-so' —hence why it cannot be stated propositionally. Instead, it is something lived, shown, or experienced.

As to why animals do not have a conscience - I don't want to express it as if it were a lack or a fault. But animals can't envisage that things could be other than what they are. The capacity to grasp what could be, might be, or should be, is what distinguishes humans from other species. It is also the source of our sense of separateness from nature.

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

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.

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.

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

Very interesting.

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?

Even if philosophical detachment doesn’t presuppose the division, does it arrive at it through some form of logical inference? — Mww

The point of departure for me was doing a web search on the phrase 'the union of knower and known'. If you click that link, just scroll down the page and see what is returned. All of the results are from perennialist philosophers, but it requires a very long view to discern the dialectics.

The key idea is 'participatory knowing' or 'participatory realism'. That is a form of knowing in which the knower (subject, agent, actor) is completely at one with the object (act, peformance or doing). The dancer becomes the dance, so to speak. The general drift of the idea is that this was characteristic of pre-modern thought, and with the advent of modernity and individualism, knowledge becomes instead propositional and procedural (hence the 'cartesian anxiety'). The separation of knower and known was hardwired into Galilean science, with the division of primary and secondary qualities, subject and object. It's a big topic, well outside scope of this thread.

Cool. Thanks.

I can dig the union (unity, if I may be so bold) of knower and known, but I’d like to see intellectual space allotted for procedure.

It's a work-in-progress. But I will call out a major source for what I've been researching the last year or so, namely, the first 15 or so lectures in John Vervaeke's Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. Also this page on the four types of knowing.

After reading through several responses and the OP I've noticed that the definition of nature the OP is questioning about, needs to be clarified to respond properly.

1. If nature is the natural world outside of anything that humans make then one might expect certain kinds of answers to the "true" question.
2. If some things that people do are natural and others are not then again you might expect various answers on the "why" is nature perceived as true question.
3. If Nature encompasses the Universe, the laws of physics, biology and chemistry, then mankind and all it does is clearly bounded by nature, you will get a single answer.

Also the idea of true in this context seems to be really referring to authenticity. What is "true"? Is what is true what is real and not a deception? Is what is true what is authentic vs in-authentic?

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". I must hold the third perspective because the first is not defensible, obviously humankind is at least in part natural, and the second perspective is arbitrary because the demarcation between what people do that is considered natural vs un-natural is arbitrary. Therefore I'm left concluding humankind cannot do anything that is un-natural.

Unless of course the OP wishes to define the boundaries of nature they wish to measure human perception against differently then I conclude that nature is perceived as true because nature "is" true by definition.

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

I agree. ☘️☯⛧★☀️☠️

obviously humankind is at least in part natural — philosch

Yes.

Therefore I'm left concluding humankind cannot do anything that is un-natural. — philosch

They can do something that is artificial, cultural. They can create artifacts. Cultural objects, so to speak.

Unless of course the OP wishes to define the boundaries of nature — philosch

The boundaries of nature...
... what would they even be?
Artifice, perhaps.
Divinity, perhaps.
Mathematics, perhaps.
Hmmm...
... I don't like the word "perhaps". Too formal. A better term is "maybe".

I conclude that nature is perceived as true because nature "is" true by definition. — philosch

Hmmm...
... no, I think I disagree, with that statement. Here's how I would phrase it:

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

Stealing doesn't make sense to me, therefore I avoid stealing. I wouldn't conclude that my avoiding stealing because of my subjective belief that stealing is wrong should therefore be studied as a mental illness. :smile: