What's nature?, And also, what counts as something being natrual and unnatrual?

What does 'nature' refer to in its broadest meaning. It is an essay I have done recently, but before anything I thought it might be a good idea to find out what you think nature is. As well as what counts something being natrual and unnatrual.

Question is too broad as it stands: some context would be helpful

Well, that's it really. What is nature in it's broadest definition and what are the words 'natrual' and unnatrul' in there broadest definition. We call things by these concepts, but what is the universal aspect(s) which connect, for example: 'Life' being a natrual phenomina and the 'universe' being a natrual phenomina. And what makes a 'unnatrual' phenomina?'

OED gives:

Nature: I. 1. The essential qualities of a thing; the inherent and inseparable combination of properties essentially pertaining to anything and giving it its fundamental character. 2. The inherent and innate disposition or character of a person (or animal). b. the general inherent character or disposition of mankind. More fully human n. 3. An individual character, disposition, etc, considered as a kind of entity in itself; hence, a person or thing of a particular quality or character. b. Artillery. A class or size of guns or shot

II. 1. The vital or physical powers of man; the strength or substance of a thing. 2.a. Semen. b. The menses. 3. The female pudendum, esp that of a mare

III. 1. The inherent dominating power or impulse(in men or animals) by which action or character is determined, directed, or controlled (sometimes personified) b. Natural feeling or affection. Now dial 2. The inherent power or force by which the physical and mental activities of man are sustained (Sometimes personified) b. The vital functions as requiring to be supported by nourishment, etc

IV. 1. The creative and regulative physical power which is conceived of as operating in the physical world and as the immediate cause of all its phenomena. b. Personified as a female being. (Usu with capital). c. Contrasted with medical skill or treatment in the cure of wounds or disease. d. Contrasted with art. Also naturalness. 2. The material world, or its collective objects or phenomena. the features and products of the earth itself, as contrasted with those of human civilisation

What would you like to discuss ?

If this is true, it seems that everything is natrual and nothing is unnatrual as everything seems to have essential qualities that make it "it".


This can't be considered the broadest definition as other things beside this can be considered natrual. For example, an earthquake or a rock can count as natrual phenomina


Again, this does not seems to be the broadest definition of nature because of the examples above. Also: It only applys to the non-physical world. Not the physical one.

II.
1. The vital or physical powers of man; the strength or substance of a thing.
2.a. Semen. b. The menses.
3. The female pudendum, esp that of a mare

These definitions are two narrow again to count as the broadest definition of nature, by only refering to fundemental phenomina in life and life processes.

III.
1. The inherent dominating power or impulse(in men or animals) by which action or character is determined, directed, or controlled (sometimes personified) b. Natural feeling or affection. Now dial
2. The inherent power or force by which the physical and mental activities of man are sustained (Sometimes personified) b. The vital functions as requiring to be supported by nourishment, etc

Ditto



If this was true, then nature would only relate to the physical world and not the non-physical world. Wouldn't it?


Does not include the mental or non-physical realm which seem to be stated as 'nature' in the very first definition.

Hence, to me it seems. The first definition of nature seems to be the closest to an fundemental characterisic of what makes nature "nature" as this definition seems to co-oporate with all the others. But if so, what makes something 'unnatrual' as it seems that everything is 'natrual' if I am not mistaken (which I probably am, again...)

It was rushed anyway, as I didn't have much time to finish so might not be good.

of natu

I think the point is that the word does not have one meaning, ex nihilo. We use it in different ways. We all do this quite "naturally" in our native language, and we are not necessarily aware that we do. It is very evident to those who make their living translating between languages, though: it is one of the reasons that is a difficult job

In several threads now we have had the same problem, I think. Most of the big words have multiple meanings and shades of meaning, and when we slide between them in making an argument it leads to confusion. Often "philosophers" are criticised for paying attention to this, and you hear frustrated cries of "it is just semantics". That is not a fair charge, because although we sometimes do not need to define term etc it is very obvious that there are times when we absolutely must.

Every one of the definitions in the OED is a real definition of the word "nature" as it is used in ordinary language. None of them is more correct than another: it really does depend on what you are talking about. From my point of view, the first definition is not "broader" than the others: it is different. It is summed up in one of my favourite fables: the Scorpion and the Frog. That useage really has nothing to do with the "Nature" celebrated by the Romantic poets, for example. It is not the same thing referred to in the line "To enjoy cool nature in a country seat": it is hardly related to it. Neither have much relation to the "nature" referred to in the song "Green Grow the Rashes, O" where we get " Auld Nature swears the lovely dears/ her noblest work she classes, O/ Her 'prentice hand she tried on man/ and then she made the lassies, O"

Do you see what I mean?

Edited by FionaK - 2/1/2012, 11:40

Yes, I do. I understand it has mutiple meanins for diffrent contexts. Though just because the definition is in the OED does not mean it is a real definition. I believe that is an authoritive fallacy. Just because a person of authoriety says it is so, does not mean it is true. Kim-jong-il said he was born under a double rainbow, but sorces say otherwise that he was born in siberia. But this is avoiding the question a bit.

Words change from their original meaning, yes. But can we say there is a universal aspect which unites all the words? The meaning may stray in time, but there is still some connection to what must have been the original word or definition of it. A reason why I want to find this out is because of the 'natrual good, unnatrual bad' fallacy. What counts as natrual in the first place here? For me, the universal seems to be that if something is natrual it is 'normal' in its universal context while 'unnatrual' not normal. So if we refer to something being unnatrual we refer to it 'not being normal, or not meant to happan'. That is the way I see it anyway. I suppouse what I am trying to argue here is 'is there a universal property which connects these concepts'. They may change in time, true. But I still see there being something that connects all definitions of natrual and unnatrual with each other.

First I want to challenge this. "Appeal to authority" is a fallacy, but it is not in place every time "an authority" is cited. It is really important to get a hold of this, because misunderstanding of that fallacy leads to cheap shots, and it actually hampers our understanding. I do not cite OED because it is an authority, in the sense that Kim-jong-il is "an authority": I cite it because the people who write it have real expertise and, moreover, they back up what they say with evidence. That is perfectly legitimate. To dismiss the opinion of someone who has studied a subject for years, and knows a great deal more than you do, is folly. It is not true that your opinion is as valuable as theirs, unless you have also studied as they have. Appeal to authority is a fallacywhen the person or body appealed to does not have the knowledge and expertise to support their position as an expert. That is not the case here. The example of Kim-jong-il is in fact yet another example of words with more than one meaning, and that is what we seem to be talking about a lot. I really urge you to read around fallacy a bit more because what you seem to be doing is calling things fallacy when they are no such thing.


Why do you think that? Bearing in mind that many words are derived from other languages, and are adopted in a particular context, often widely spaced in time and with a particular stipulative definition spelled out, for example when the words is a "jargon" word, I see no reason at all to suppose that there was an "original" meaning, and that subsequent definitions are "strays". They will be that sometimes: but not always. Translation is difficult when we are trying to be accurate: but what do you suppose an ancient greek would have taken from the word "television"? It is derived from his language and the component parts would be meaningful: I really doubt he would envisage a modern flat screen TV, though.


It is true that some people equate "natural" with "good" and "unnatural" with "bad". I don't think that is a fallacy because I see nothing inherently illogical in it. And that is the feature which defines a fallacy, IMO. It is rather an opinion: which is not the same thing at all.

But even for most of those who hold that view, it is context bound. There are very few who say that penicillin is natural; and there are very few who say it is bad. When people make big statements like that it is therefore very important to explore the boundaries of what they are saying: it is seldom so sweeping as first appears. They might be a member of a religious cult which truly does not believe we should use medicine: and in that case they would say that it is "bad" and that it is "unnatural". Such people are very unusual, and therefore, on your definition, they are themselves "unnatural". But that example of itself undermines your proposition, I think. There is nothing "normal" about penicillin, if by "normal" you mean "usual": we do not "usually" take penicillin. We take it when we have particular illnesses: and illness is not "normal"in that it is not our "usual" state. But it is "normal" if you take normal to mean something which affects everyone some time. It is "natural" and it is "bad" for most folk. And that also shows the problem with "bad": because bad also has different meanings. In the sense it is applied to illness it is not morally loaded, though in its other sense it is

Point taken, I will read up more on these things.


I'm not trying to suggest there is a 'original' meaning here, mearly a univesal aspect of the word that connects them. Though I beleive there is an original meaning to words, but either stray from their original contexts or are mistaken and their context change. I believe that there is a umiversal aspect of all the definition of the words 'nature', 'natrual' and 'unnatrual' as they can all seem to have simmilarities between them. They all seem to refer to something being usual or unusual, but the contexts in which they are used differs. That is why I believe that.


Why don't you see anything inherently illogical about it?


If so, I think they have made a logical error. And need to expand on what they mean by their defintion of 'natrual' and 'unnatrual' and why it is bad. This can lead to confusion on the subject of which they use it.


I would argue yes and no. Both parties are natrual and unnatrual according to their givin context. It seems what is natrual comes down to subjective opinion. As there does not seem to be a strict definition of it.


It is not a complete definition though of nature, it is just a universal of the word. The word is flexible as has been demonstrated already. Just like the terms good and bad are. There is no real factual evidance we can define something as truely good or bad. Nature, natrual and unnatrual are the same. The two words however do have universals, one of a positive appliance and anouther of a negative.

So all natrual things refer to something being usual, unnatrual unusual. Good as a positive, and bad as a negitive. These words paticularly seem to me to have universal aspects of them which currently have not been changed to provide a definition that is completely 100% diffrent to the original universal context of the word. Even with words which are translated across languages we can seem to relate most of them to each other through universals. Otherwise, we would mistake them for being two entirely diffrent words with no connection and just an odd occurance. There (mostly) do seem to be similarities between words translated across difrent languages. 'Pious' for example was latin for duty, but we know see this in a more religious light. If someone is called pious now it means they are religious, and so it could be argued have a duty. There does seem to be a connection between these two words, a common universal. I think this also applies to many other words but over time the original meaning might be lost. However, the original universal for 'nature' is still there and I believe there is a link with the original universal and all the definitions we have now.

We will just have to disagree, I think. I do not think there is any "universal" tying together the different ways we use "nature" and I think I have said all I can say about that. You seem to have a fixed view that "natural" means usual: so I presume that you consider that cars are "natural" in America and "unnatural" in sub-saharan Africa or somewhere?

Depending on the context, yes. Let us agree to disagree then.