preview

Shlegel's View Of Nature In The Giver

Good Essays

Schlegel’s position of how people regard the environment is that, first of all human beings will do whatever they want, whenever they want while they remain as “Gray, motionless figures” (Schlegel, 1977, 1). However, Schlegel goes on to say that all that he sees around him is light and color which could mean that when he looks around and sees nature, he sees beauty, wonder, joy, color, happiness, etc. He continues to talk about how nature is always beautiful even if the world isn’t in the best state. Schlegel makes many poetic references to how beautiful nature truly is he goes on to say things like: “A fresh, warm breath of life and love fanned me, rustling and stirring in all the branches of the verdant grove. I gazed and enjoyed it all, …show more content…

For instance, Jonas’s view of nature as being dominated by technology is something that I 100% agree with I do believe that nature should be preserved and that technology is destroying nature as a whole. It should also be taken into consideration that technology is needed for many different things in the world. Jonas’s viewpoint of saying that nature needs to be untouched by man is something that I do disagree with. However, I don’t disagree with his viewpoint because it is wrong necessarily I disagree with it because I know that as a race we need to continue to make advancements in inventions in order to survive. I believe that there are some sides of Jonas’s Ethical position, but there are some responses to his position that are also ethical like survival, as I have mentioned before. Schlegel talks more about nature in the aesthetic fashion and I think that some of the points from his position are relevant in that without nature we wouldn’t be able to live the lives we live. His aesthetic position is implying that we should leave nature alone so it can continue to brighten up our days and continue to allow us to live happy, healthy lives. I also disagree with Hegel’s “Scientific” view of nature since he talks about the animal organism as a simple being when in all reality the animal organism while we may think we can understand all of it is something that is still unknown and mysterious. He also describes the idea of the living organism as “the manifested unity of the concept with its reality” (Hegel, 1990, 5) while I can understand the scientific point he is trying to make here I still disagree with it. His overall descriptions of Geological Nature, Vegetable Nature, and The Animal Organism are all very detailed and make sense they still have things that can be disagreed upon. Such as when he speaks

Get Access