as we let us dwell on the term: nature

i am totally exasperatingly sick and tired of people using the word "nature" as thier justification point upon which the resonance of their discussion(s) and all its dire importance leans upon. [e.g. "it exists in nature, so it is ok", "well, that is a natural part of life" , etc etc].

people use this word so easily, in very heavy debates. they pull this card out of their hand as if it changes the arguement aura so much, yet, the word is fundamentally useless. any dictionary term of nature: The material world and its phenomena. ....does not provide any viable logic whatsoever. what is funny about this is that the word will be used to describe reasoning or a justification for the point they are trying to address, yet the accepted definition of nature in most dictionary literature and consetual understanding between debaters is that, it is a sort of phenomena (abracadabra, magick, hokus pokus).

i find it both hilarious and frustrating. i do not commit this act of hokey-doke-fool-the-blindery, and wish others would stop. i wish for a debate on what nature really is. i wish this because in my work as an aspiring eternal earthling i wish to better defend my means with the understanding of this end.

my knowledge witholds that "nature" is a sort of resonating flow of cencensus consciousness within both psyche of the material world and of the material itself. the word that comes to my mind is "coagula". also it seems that most of what is understood as "nature" really revolves around -balance-.

batter up

I agree "nature" is a greatly overused word often wrongly used to justify or disprove ideas.

You need only accuse the mindless culprits of the naturalistic fallacy.

Hi shedon

The 'hard' definition of the word Nature is that it is semantically equivalent to the universe. Most people don't actually use it in this fashion though - there is typically a dichotomy struck between 'Man' and 'Nature' as if they existed as two different systems.

Philosophically, I think this can be likely traced to the influence of the Book of Genesis in the Torah/Koran/Bible, as well as other creation stories, which typically have 'Man' being created in a different fashion, different day, etc. from the rest of 'Nature'. So this is a deep-rooted cutural myth that needs to be overcome when talking to most people. The typical person of Western origin will usually not even try to justify their usage and will become frustrated if you challenge it because it is such a primary part of our thinking. Think about how children in Western societies are taught to view Nature.

In addition, while I agree with much of what the 'Greens' are trying to do with government, they have also caused deep philosophical problems for Western society by exacerbating this artificially created split between 'Man' and 'Nature'. The view of technology as inherently evil is a dangerous and ultimately self loathing stance, as humans are in every way creatures of their technology, and human technology is an extension of natural processes. One of the key goals of transhumanist philosophy should be to make clear that the way to deal with potential problems such as global warming, environmental disruption, etc. is not to turn away from technology, but to embrace it so that it can be used to find solutions to these problems. Rejecting technology is not a solution.

Best,
Peter

The view of technology as inherently evil is a dangerous and ultimately self loathing stance

i agree.

as humans are in every way creatures of their technology

from which angle do you speak of? that we function within the technology we create? the way i am seeing it is: isn't the whole reason behind this forum that of we are searching to be "at one" with this "nature" we are trying to define in this thread? i did not come out of a machine invented by man. i came out of my mothers vagina, (well first i came out of my dad's penis, then there was this big race, of which i was one of millions, i won the race, hehe. anyways, the rest i cannot remember). mankind, as far as i know, did not create the penis or the vagina.

and human technology is an extension of natural processes.

agreed, as far as using the term nature loosely, but that is what i am trying to stay away from. i am distinguished that the term should be eradicated. it is a veil within the dictionary and protects lie from the truth seeking eye.

One of the key goals of transhumanist philosophy should be to make clear that the way to deal with potential problems such as global warming, environmental disruption, etc. is not to turn away from technology, but to embrace it so that it can be used to find solutions to these problems.

i agree

Rejecting technology is not a solution.

i would normally say that, "rejecting nature is the problem" but i will not commit the crime presented as the subject of this thread. i will supply it as it is.

there was a system existant before we were born. the system birthed our lives. i think it would be wise not to oppose this system, to disregard some (if not most) of our selfish visions, and first make a union with that that has conceived us. then and only then, when there is a mutual understanding between man and his environment, is when i think it would be a fair and responsible time to move forth with this "technology". analogy: i do not think it is wise to destroy a vehicle given to me, and then finding i need one, attempt to build a new one.

the ability to not understand this "nature" is not "natures" fault. this lack of communication is all of man's. it is my personal practice to seek to understand the present, rather than move to another medium. this practice has granted me many a success.

rejecting nature is the problem

Everything after that makes no sense unless you give us YOUR definition of "nature".

Everything after that makes no sense unless you give us YOUR definition of "nature".

ok then show me how. please show me how...

there was a system existant before we were born. the system birthed our lives.

....does not make sense.