Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

'Nature', Humankind and the Natural World

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» 'Nature', Humankind and the Natural World

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

THEME: Use, Concepts and Implications of the word 'Natural'

Good Morning,

A while back we had a discussion (perhaps it was a discussion-within-a-discussion) about the concept of "Natural". I poked around for the thread but couldn't find it. In any case, that discussion keeps sticking in my head badly, like a pebble in my shoe that I can't quite get relief from. The conventional image of "Natural" depicts elements untainted/not drastically altered by the hand of man, yet the discussion I recall moved to a very different consensus. Here's what I remember that general consensus being:[INDENT]That all things are natural since: 1) No element was 'created' by human action, only perhaps changed in overall form -and- 2) Human behavior is part of 'nature' and therefore what is done by humans is a part of what is "Natural" too.
[/INDENT]I should like to address this because I believe that it is not only absurd, but counterproductive as well.

IT IS CONCEDED:

Yes, the logic I referenced above (and as I recall it) I recognize as relatively salient; even if it leads to what I see as a false conclusion. Was it a fallacy? I think so.
Yes, humans are a part of "Nature"
Yes, what elements that are a part of nature do can usually be called "Natural" (e.g., What a bear does in the woods).
Correct, we don't "create materials" that weren't already in existence, we simply alter their form at the macro level

TO THE POINT:[INDENT]My Assertion: When we speak about what is "natural", we're not referring to the "naturalness" of its base elements, we're speaking to the extent to which it has been altered from its pre-human-intervention state.

Example: Place a picture of a Tree and another of a Nuclear reactor side-by-side and I'll bet the vast majority of those questioned will pick the Tree when asked, "Which of these is Natural?". Other questions such as "Is your hair color natural?", "Can we get a room with a good Nature-view?" also illustrate the point.
[/INDENT][INDENT]Concept -vs- Definition: Merriam Webster's entry lists 15 major variant definitions to this word. If not by the definition of "untouched by human hands", how otherwise might we discern what's "natural" in the stated context. This is a conceptual definition that's needed for any discussion on the extent to which <X> has been modified by human action
[/INDENT][INDENT]Counterproductivity: If we look at 'damage' wrought by the human animal upon this planet, might it be easy to adhere to the deception that, "Oh, yea that's us; but it's ok because we're 'natural'"?
[/INDENT][INDENT]Dillution of Implication: Instead of saying "No, that's not natural because it's a mess human beings made", would it be ok to say "Of course that dumpsite is natural"; I say of course not. On a very generalized level, we esteem what is natural. I believe where we have radically changed the form of components in anything, such things need to be called "unnatural" since it recognizes our ability to vastly-alter and in so doing injects a measure of responsibility for such conditions.
[/INDENT]So no, I wouldn't characterize downtown Los Angeles, a nuclear dumpsite or that old Ford sitting in Bill's Yard as "Natural". Nor do I think it's responsible to do so. To further illustrate the context I'm trying to show, recall Agent Smith's words (from the Movie The Matrix):
[INDENT]"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a 'plague'..."
[/INDENT]When we observe our impact on this planet I think it important we not delude ourselves into a false sense of comfort by creatively-altering established use and definitions to suit our comfort.

This is an unnatural infestation of a species over-stepping its natural order to the detriment of the terrain, ecology, resources and other forms of life:

http://steveandimo.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/94475-004-d8bd7930.jpg

As I re-read this post, I see that I'm hitting several interrelated concepts at once; I apologize for any confusion and any axe-grinding. Still, I think it relevant to recognize what is unnatural as well as the implications that come with large-scale 'modifications' towards unnatural-ness. How shall we frame our impact?

Thanks

@Khethil,

Nature is best understood as the essence of some thing. The dichotomy of nature and man would be understood as the contrast between some particular thing's essence and how it is altered by man.

This simply portrays the problem that always pops up when one tries to individuate entities.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Hi Everyone!! Smile

It seem to me that nature is a complex condition, just a ones biology is a complex condition, conditions change, and sometime not for the better, but that depends on interpretation, and interpretation in this situtation is based upon self-interest. We are destroying the relations knitting this condition together, which might be defined as natural, but it would be silly to take comfort in that defination, for in that context, our demise would also be natural, even as a self-infected demise.

@boagie,

Nice thread starter Khethil, Thanks.

The Nature of Humanity:

I think for mankind to be naturally balanced with nature, to be natural, to be nature is simply a matter of equality and self control. Equal in the fact that the health of this planet is the health of ourselves. That if it dies, we die. As we abuse nature, we only abuse ourselves. As we kill it, we are killed. That as we burn it up, we burn up too. The Earth has got a fever, a sickness of inequity, and the cause is mankind. Equality or Oneness, mankind or the Earth, A blade of grass or the Sun, are All equal or One. The day we teach that simple truth of equality to our children, for we are what we are taught, is the day we'll set the universe, nature, ourselves truly or naturally and most heathly free.

And as for Self control: With 7 billion of us we are surely out of control. How many people can the Earth handle, before natures' equilibrium is tipped into the danger zone? 1 Billion? Is there enough food today to feed the people already here? Is there enough clean water, does water have the natural time it takes to clean itself? And what about the destruction of our rain forests, shouldn't we only use the natural resources at a natural recovery rate, in balance and no more? And the air, what terribleness have we done to it, to ourselves?

Mankind has a long way to go to be natural, to be nature, to be One, and lesson in equality will take us there. If we don't help, If we don't equate, she'll recover one day without us; nature has a self healing power that Way.

Equality is truly the nature of All,

=
MJA

@MJA,

MJA,

Your post would fit nicely into the new topic I have posted, the coevolution of spiritual ideas, perhaps you would consider contributing there, Excellent points even if you do not express them else where.

@boagie,

Great post, Khethil,
Damn, my friend what an outstanding post. I am doing back flips here. You nailed it. There is only "natural". Un-natural cannot and will not survive. Period.

I believe there is a precise natural order and we are a part of that order. I also think we were granted a modicum of leeway as we determine how so very important our aligning with that natural order is. To note any 'significant difference' in our "lifetime" is unlikely if you are not paying attention. But "un-natural" has a way of piling up forming a universal debris pile that over time will disturb that natural order. Nature will not allow it and get rid of it. For instance: Internal combustion, friction of any kind, having 1o kids, traveling at 100 miles an hour, having a 10 room home when you only need 5, mass production at the expense of manpower, processed foods vs. natural foods, smog vs. clean air etc., etc., etc..

"Everything" we do MUST compliment that natural order. Why don't we do that? You, to a degree nailed it when you said, "..we are natural, therefore everything we do is natural". From that egotistical assumption, we can do anything we want and ignore it's unnatural implications. After all, we are going to be dead in a few years anyway. What the hell. Our lofty, autonomous free will gone haywire.

Now let's get metaphysical for a moment and discuss serendipity vs. forced thought. For absolute simplicity, forced thought is that thought that efforts to find a way to put a square peg into a round hole. Let me give you a clear cut example of what I mean.

Take polio for instance. Polio is a disease that stems from ingesting fecal matter as a result unclean living conditions. The serendipitous thing to do would have been to launch a global effort to clean up living conditions. Unfortunately our insane economic structure wouldn't allow that and we had to resort to "forced thinking" and it worked. We developed a cure for polio. Had we quarantined those unfortunate victims, cleaned up those deplorable living conditions and then polio would have been "naturally" eradicated and we would not have had to alter our immune system that now enables us to live in crap. Now, who the hell cares. Of course now polio has had a resurgence, it's call aids.

The life we learn with enables us to conform to a life we can live with. It's all built into the program. If we don't learn from the mistakes of our life we will not be allowed to live that life. I think we will be amazed at how serendipitous those answers will come once we begin to adapt to that natural order. I promise you, it will not adapt to us. And that natural order is God. Man, I know you didn't want to hear that. Ha. But like I have said and why we are friends, you are closer to that God than you can imagine. Smile

William

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

Nice thread starter Khethil, Thanks.

The Nature of Humanity:

I think for mankind to be naturally balanced with nature, to be natural, to be nature is simply a matter of equality and self control. Equal in the fact that the health of this planet is the health of ourselves. That if it dies, we die. As we abuse nature, we only abuse ourselves. As we kill it, we are killed. That as we burn it up, we burn up too. The Earth has got a fever, a sickness of inequity, and the cause is mankind. Equality or Oneness, mankind or the Earth, A blade of grass or the Sun, are All equal or One. The day we teach that simple truth of equality to our children, for we are what we are taught, is the day we'll set the universe, nature, ourselves truly or naturally and most heathly free.

And as for Self control: With 7 billion of us we are surely out of control. How many people can the Earth handle, before natures' equilibrium is tipped into the danger zone? 1 Billion? Is there enough food today to feed the people already here? Is there enough clean water, does water have the natural time it takes to clean itself? And what about the destruction of our rain forests, shouldn't we only use the natural resources at a natural recovery rate, in balance and no more? And the air, what terribleness have we done to it, to ourselves?

Mankind has a long way to go to be natural, to be nature, to be One, and lesson in equality will take us there. If we don't help, If we don't equate, she'll recover one day without us; nature has a self healing power that Way.

Equality is truly the nature of All,

=
MJA

But what is natural balance, and what it is to abuse nature? The world has always been changing along with the lifeforms on it, and the lifeforms have been interfering with the whole in manners they could not control and are often bad for thenselves. The same thing is happening with us as the effects of our actions alter the planet, but I do not believe its possible to avoid changing the planet at all, we can only neutralize or adapt to the changes. What I meant is not that we cannot stop polluting, but that we will always be "disturbing the balance" in some way and having to fix it or adapt to the new conditions.

@manored,

Yo!!

Humanity to date has not entertain the notion of self-control, taking control of its own destiny, indeed it is seen as taboo to a great portion of the population. Reduce population, harness the resources of industry to create self-sufficient communities, restore nature to its proper place as that which nutures us all. We could all take a page out of the wisdom of native populations who mourn the loss of that which was sacred to them. We cannot turn back time, but we can create, in order to rid ones self of a vile condition, one must create a new condition to replace it. We know how to do it, it is just finding the will to do so.

@boagie,

[INDENT]"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a 'plague'..."

What a stupidly ridiculous claim! There is NOT ONE SINGLE MAMMAL THAT WILLIFULLY ENGAGES IN ENVIRNOMENTAL EQUILIBRIUM. Animals are constantly overproducing and consequently degrading their supportive habitat to the point of starvation, which then at that point the constraints of the NATURAL WORLD imposes equilibrium(the above matrix claim puts the cart in front of the horse). While the process of removing living creatures from the environment thru starvation seems brutal to watch from our human perspective, the derived emotional feelings are truly only confined to the cranium of the human being, and the inherent indifference of the Natural World simply does not recognize the self-interest of individual characters within its realm........just creating and expending.......just as it should be, given the understanding of our BRILLANT NATURAL
WORLD.

As an outdoorsman, I once viewed a pack of coyotes work in concert to separate a 4-week old fawn(deer) from its mother(doe). The pack stretched out the fawn from its four legs, while other members of the pack preceded to consume the the fawn while it was briefly alive and screaming. As upsetting as the scene appeared, to this day I still remember looking around my environment during the event, the wind was still blowing, the sun was still shining, and the creek was still flowing, and at that moment I realized that the Natural World could care less about my subjective and emotionally charged interpretations or predictions of my environment and what I just experienced only existed within my consciousness, and did not transend or influence the axioms of the Natural World one iota.

[/INDENT]

@Ruthless Logic,

Hi Ruthless! Smile

I could not agree more, I have seen examples of the utter indifference of nature myself. It is just that man dispite his self proclaimed superiority cannot control himself, and shall be controled by the same natural principles as the rest of the animal kingdom. The nightmare which is impending apparently is unavoidable, mans superior consciousness does not stack up to much if he has no more control over himself than the rest of the animal world. Life lives upon life, as the snake consuming its own tail. Nature red in tooth and claw. It is good to hear from you again Ruthless logic!!

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic wrote:

[INDENT]

What a stupidly ridiculous claim! There is NOT ONE SINGLE MAMMAL THAT WILLIFULLY ENGAGES IN ENVIRNOMENTAL EQUILIBRIUM. Animals are constantly overproducing and consequently degrading their supportive habitat to the point of starvation, which then at that point the constraints of the NATURAL WORLD imposes equilibrium(the above matrix claim puts the cart in front of the horse). While the process of removing living creatures from the environment thru starvation seems brutal to watch from our human perspective, the derived emotional feelings are truly only confined to the cranium of the human being, and the inherent indifference of the Natural World simply does not recognize the self-interest of individual characters within its realm........just creating and expending.......just as it should be, given the understanding of our BRILLANT NATURAL
WORLD.

There's a big difference. We know better. To rape our environment, gut our fellow man using the excuse we just don't know any better after all we are just animals is, in all due respect is pretty lame in this day and age. But I will admit, it does allow me to readjust my thinking as to what constitutes "evil". The animal has no concept of evil, obviously there are some humans who are of the same nature.
William
[/INDENT]

@William,

William,

I think you are missing the point, we as a species are not demonstrating that we do know better, and as such we are going to be subject to the wrath of nature in the forms of starvation, and wars over natural resources all because we fail to live rational lives, meaning self-control. Nature controls the populations of the animal world, man is one more animal that nature will deal with in the same manner as the rest of the animal kingdom. It does not speak highly of man's collective consciousness.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

William,

I think you are missing the point, we as a species are not demonstrating that we do know better, and as such we are going to be subject to the wrath of nature in the forms of starvation, and wars over natural resources all because we fail to live rational lives, meaning self-control. Nature controls the populations of the animal world, man is one more animal that nature will deal with in the same manner as the rest of the animal kingdom. It does not speak highly of the consciousness of man.

Thank you boagie, perhaps I did misinterpret it a bit. I just hate to see the attitude that indicates we are helpless and can't do anything about it, especially in those areas in which we can. People aren't starving to death because it is the nature of things; they are starving because we let them starve. Why do we let them starve is because our "status quo" sees no value to them. I don't think nature has anything to do with it. I read somewhere and I don't remember where and I hope it is unfounded, that amidst many ideas of those who seem to think they know what is best for the world there is a notion to just let those who are starving, starve. In doing so we will have enough resources for the "upper crust". What really runs shivers up and down my spine is I can conceive some actually believing that is a "solution". Everything we do in this world is based on profits. If it is not profitable, screw it. I have no idea of what the "limit" is for people on this planet. I have never seen a "maximum capacity sign" anywhere. I could be wrong but I don't think we are even close to it.

The more we become "technologically adept" the more people become "less profitable". Granted these people exist in our poorer countries, but one day, the way we are going, they could live just down the street. Which brings to mind a scene from the movie TITANIC. In which Billy Zane responded to the statement, "..half of the people on this ship are going to drown", in which he added, "not the better half". Now in the animal kingdom, that could be construed to mean "not the fittest half". What kind of world could be conceive if one was thrashing around in the frozen water of existence and someone throws them a ball and chain rather than a life preserver. There is so much more we could do if we were not strangled by our insane economic structure and those who flourish and have control of that structure.

I have often wondered in the grand scheme of things if Earth were just a testing ground to see who truly merited existence and who didn't. It that were the case and if I was one of those "mortal gods" comfortably ensconced on their golden thrones basking in their opulence as his fellow man starves to death, I would be shaking in my boots about now. Now that's just my mind wandering as it often does as I try to make sense of things. That, in and of itself, is a major undertaking. I can't help it, I was born to do that.
William

@William,

William,

I think the general consensus now is that population is at a critical point,
we are out stipping our resource base. The environment is being devastated as a result, extinction levels a very high, the relations knitting the environment together are breaking down. One cute example is the fear that the honey bee will become extinct, as there is now talk of something called hive collapse, with this, the world's ability to produce food would be cut by an estimated one third of production. Globle warming as climate change will further devastate the ability to produce food, the world is running out of fossil fuels, the future looks bleak to say the least. I have only touch on a few examples, the planet is in great jeopardy, and the population is growing in geometric proportions. Mind kind is not acting collectively to save itself. Population growth is the most obvious threat, and man kind is not addressing the issue. That is why I stated in a previous post that man kind will be delt with as the rest of the animal kingdom is, through starvation, disease and war man kind might very well not survive. It appears to be, our worst nightmare.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

I think the general consensus now is that population is at a critical point...

Quite true.

By way of clarification to other points made here I'd like to add this:

One cannot say that, like other species on our planet, humans should just "do what we will" and that, like other species, "all things will even out". The reason for this is because of the wide, planetary scale of these our effects.[INDENT]Because of our intelligence, ingenuity and the nature of our effects, we have the ability to destroy and consume on a massive scale; and indeed that's just what we've done. While a rabbit population may eat itself into starvation on in a particular place; have their numbers thinned, then repeat the cycle-to-balance, this is done on a much smaller scale. They don't pollute entire ecosystems with acids, carcinogens and nerve agents, they don't decimate whole regions of their forests nor can they suck down millions of years of fossil buildup in just a few centuries. You won't see a possum burying a time-bomb filled with thousands of tons of radioactive waste, or are you likely to come across a pack of Joeys strip-mining, dumping chemicals or driving a supertanker filled with crude oil into a rock. Need there be given more examples?
[/INDENT]When we speak of balance; we're not talking in absolutes but in a 'proportionate' means. It's like keeping your checkbook balanced: That what is created is expended at a relatively consistent rate. If its not, and you're spending more than you get, sooner or later you'll run out. Were it just our species doing this to itself that might be called 'just'; but it's not. We're doing it on a planetary scale through our insatiable need for "stuff"; for buildings, concrete, automobiles, plastics, petroleum, fast-and-fat food, and toys, toys, toys - All done at the expense of our world on an unimaginable scale. If you don't care about the planet's ability to sustain life, then none of this is of real concern.

Could we scale back to reach a balance? I don't know; I doubt it. But I do know that what's taking place cannot be called 'natural'; to say so, I believe, is irresponsible, counter intuitive and (by the way) incorrect. Should we not feel the impact of our effects? If there's the slightest chance for correction, mitigation or potential for our future survival could we perhaps use this higher intelligence to scale back?

Yes we should feel bad; yes we should take a look at the effects of our actions. If not the role of the philosopher, to whom might the duty of issuing such warnings fall?

... I'll shut up now. Surprised

Thanks

@Khethil,

Khethil,

Excellent post, however the point being made is that to date we as a species have not used that superior intellect/consciousness in the form of self-control, that much is evident.True it is a globle problem but our species range knows no limits on this planet. The further point is that like the rest of the animal kingdow nature will supply the answer to our geometrical grow. It is the impending nightmare. That collective intellect man is so proud of has not to date made a significant effort at self-control. Can things be turned around, perhaps if it is not already to late. We do know how to do it, all it takes is the collective will of the species to respond to the crisis. We were on an unsubstainable journey, the fall of the economy is perhaps a lull in the storm providing a little time for intropection, we cannot return to the same productivity, it is a death sentence for humanity, one nature herself will exact. In addition I never stated that mankind or his activities was unnatural, and so to will mankinds demise be of a natural nature.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Khethil,

Excellent post, however the point being made is that to date we as a species have not used that superior intellect/consciousness in the form of self-control, that much is evident.True it is a globle problem but our species range knows no limits on this planet. The further point is that like the rest of the animal kingdow nature will supply the answer to our geometrical grow. It is the impending nightmare. That collective intellect man is so proud of has not to date made a significant effort at self-control. Can things be turned around, perhaps if it is not already to late. We do know how to do it, all it takes is the collective will of the species to respond to the crisis. We were on an unsubstainable journey, the fall of the economy is perhaps a lull in the storm providing a little time for intropection, we cannot return to the same productivity, it is a death sentence for humanity, one nature herself will exact. In addition I never stated that mankind or his activities was unnatural, and so to will mankinds demise be of a natural nature.

Aye, concur on all points

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

William,

I think the general consensus now is that population is at a critical point,
we are out stipping our resource base. The environment is being devastated as a result, extinction levels a very high, the relations knitting the environment together are breaking down. One cute example is the fear that the honey bee will become extinct, as there is now talk of something called hive collapse, with this, the world's ability to produce food would be cut by an estimated one third of production. Globle warming as climate change will further devastate the ability to produce food, the world is running out of fossil fuels, the future looks bleak to say the least. I have only touch on a few examples, the planet is in great jeopardy, and the population is growing in geometric proportions. Mind kind is not acting collectively to save itself. Population growth is the most obvious threat, and man kind is not addressing the issue. That is why I stated in a previous post that man kind will be delt with as the rest of the animal kingdom is, through starvation, disease and war man kind might very well not survive. It appears to be, our worst nightmare.

When I came to these forums, it was not to exchange philosophical ideas. It was to reach the young, exceptional mind and plant as much of the truth as I could knowing it would be rejected at the onset, but have enough common sense validity to it in hopes those who did initially reject it might tuck it away for a rainy day. Why I know it is the truth is by the nature in which it was made known to me. That, in and of itself, is extremely difficult to explain and communicate. I have spent thousands of hours trying to figure out just how to do that in such a way that would prevent me from coming off sounding totally bonkers. Ha. To some degree I think I have been reasonably successful.

The universe is intelligent. It does communicate. Understanding the nature of that is far beyond our understanding as of course it would be considering the extremely brief time we have been here. To me, the best way to describe it is there is a resonance and a frequency to it that when there is no noise, it hummmmms. Noise being that which is antagonistic to the resonance and frequency making communication virtually impossible or at the very best extremely difficult.

Because we are a "product" of that universe (god) we have the ability to tap into that resonance and frequency. It is really that simple. It just takes a while considering the overwhelming sensation of life itself. The Earth is a package deal. Before we got here is was humming. Upon our arrival that which would physically disturb that humming was "naturally eliminated". Which means we were destined to be. Our being was inevitable and will always be. If it weren't, we simply wouldn't be. Again, it's that simple.

In my lifetime, I have tapped into that resonance and that communication. Please don't ask me how it happened, it just did. I promise you it was not a matter of choice. I had no choice in the matter. There is no noise in my mind. It is as thought the universe is using me to communicate based on the knowledge "it" led me to over the course of my life. As I have said we are all divine, it just that it seems I am more in tune with that divinity than most. If you think it is hard for you to believe that, imagine yourself making such a statement. It is not easy to do, I assure you.

Now having said all that, getting back to your statement and our worst nightmare. If there is any validity to what I am saying then my being here and stating what I am stating is an indication it is not "too late" to turn it all around. If it were, then, of course I would not be here. Anyone who wishes to argue anything I have to say, I encourage it. God do I ever. But what it is also saying is we could be close to that point of no return. Now what that means, I don't know and furthermore I don't want to know. But I am afraid some will know exactly what that means if there is any universal truth to anything that I have said over the few months I have spent with you.

Philosophy, as far a I can gather is the effort we apply to make the universe fit into our square hole. We are searching for a way to make it fit our limited understanding and the reality we have created. That's why I do not participate in those discussions. There are no answers for it can't be. We must "fit in" with the universe, not the other way around. That just will not happen. And our effort to do that is the reason we are in the shape we are in. (See List)

God didn't create us in his image, we created him in our image. That's the first time I have ever said that. Wow! I never know what I am going to say. Ha. If I do say so myself, that was profound. I'll have to remember that. Please forgive me, for there are those times when I get to pat myself on the back. Haha.

Reeling back in now. All is not lost. Yet anyway. Let's all hope that one day soon we will come to our senses. Now that is fodder for an entirely different thread. We have no idea of what the senses are capable of including the one we don't consider a sense: The Mind. The most important sense of all.
William

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Khethil,:)That collective intellect man is so proud of has not to date made a significant effort at self-control.

Boagie, in all due respect, there has never been a "collective intellect". That is the problem. We are all going in different directions to satisfy our own selfish purposes. Furthermore there never will be as long as one mind endeavors to "control" another. The mind must be free. But the free mind is a threat to power. Power's only desire is to control and man was not created to be controlled. Cooperation is using that collective mind to solve our problems. As long as our house is divided the way it is it will surely fall. There is no doubt about that whatsoever.
William

@William,

William:)

You are more pessimistic then I. First you state there is no collective consciousness, and then you say it is bound to fail, which is it, if it does not exist it can have no intensions. You may be right about its non-existence, but you cannot have it both ways.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» 'Nature', Humankind and the Natural World

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

'Nature', Humankind and the Natural World

Quick Links

My Account

able2know