The Biotic Community Do Not Construct Paradigms Essay

* The Origin of Man * The Nature of Man * The Dominion of Man * The Environment of Man

At some point in time we have all wondered what it means to human, and what we are supposed to do with our lives. Throughout the centuries, there have been gradual changes in what it means to be human. Through Pico della Mirandola we will how man became the measure and took the place of God, through Charles Darwin we will see how nature and science began to take the place of man, and through the art of Friedrich we can visually see all of these changes.

Traditionaly, the state of nature argument functions as a heuristic device. Simply put, it is a teaching tool used to characterize the initial situation of humankind’s coming together into social organization —this situation may be more or less antagonistic, or more or less harmonious depending on what the particular theorist understands as “human nature” in the absence of rules of jjustice. 6 Those individuals who are traditionaly

Prior to diving into the many new insights that can be comprehended while viewing history through a natural lense, it is important to define nature in this context. While man is technically a creation of nature, and therefore nature himself, he shall be excluded from this brief definition of what composes nature. Here, nature will be considered everything living or otherwise on this earth that is not a creation or product of humanity. All other creatures and parts of the environment are to be considered nature.

There is creation show in breeding and blossom, yet fire and weeds that constitution destruction and disparity. In essence both sides constitution the force that is nature. This thinking parallels, Foucault thinking that both the oppressed and governing bodies’ together constitute concept that is power. However the balance that found in nature isn’t found in the world of humanity. Consider the Science of Sexuality, in which sex has become a threat and leads to falsehoods that deprive the desire of the act. If humanity to were able to match the balance of power, as shown through nature, the discourses that pleague socity would

Paul Taylor approaches “respect for nature” as a moral attitude, meaning that if an individual is unable to comprehend the “meaning and conditions of applicability” of the attitude, they are also unable to have the attitude as a part of their “moral outlook” (Taylor 103). “Respect for nature” is defined by two essential concepts, the good of a being, and the concept of inherent worth.

Nature /The natural world and its disruption when the bounds of morality are broken. For example:

Since the beginning of time, mankind has depended on nature for survival. Although, throughout the years society has learned to manipulate nature for their own selfish advantages. In the passage written by Richard Louv, he utilizes rhetorical questions, repetition, and a tone of nostalgia to stress that sad truth about the separation of mankind and nature.

Humans have often struggled to define their relationship with nature throughout history. In the early periods of their existence, humans were ruled by the brutality of untamed nature. They utilized nature to an extent of survival, but had not yet developed a system to thrive within it. As humans advanced, both mentally and technologically, their aptitude and desire to exploit nature increased dramatically. These two polar relationships between humans and nature are mirrored in William Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Aimé Césaire’s A Tempest. In The Tempest, Shakespeare fixates on Caliban’s attachment to nature and Prospero’s exploitation of it, while in A Tempest, Césaire employs nature as the dividing force between Caliban and Prospero. These two separate themes both represent the consequences that occurred throughout history as a result of two ideologies about nature colliding during colonization.

At this moment, the human civilization is falling apart. The shield that guards the safety of men is broken by wars and conflicts. The hearts of people are injured severely by hatred, inequality, and discrimination. Countries lump into anarchy as laws and orders fall apart. And day by day, promises have been broken so frequently that it becomes a norm, and the meanings of words fall into ashes as people progress on deception. The world is gradually transforming itself into a pure arena, where people disguise as hounds and serpents simultaneously. However, amidst this chaos, there stands supreme thing keeping the pieces of mankind’s civilization together—the Law of Nature.

The gasping creatures cautiously circle each other, searching for any weakness, hoping that their next blow will end this eternal battle for power. Their identities indistinguishable, both dripping with the excess of their efforts, fatally wounded from years of endless onslaughts, this is the tireless struggle between man and nature. For centuries, man and nature have come to a point where only one could survive, causing the two to become opposing forces and fight till the death. This idea of dominance between the two leading forces of earth inspires many works of literature and art such as Dr. Franklin’s Island, The Iliad, The Horse Tamers, and current events of attacks as well. Everything has been fought for in this world, from bustling cities to abundant forest, the world a battlefield of clashing ideas and opposing forces, forcing all to be a part of this great battle. The theme of man and nature clashing on the battlefield of life, constantly struggling for supreme dominance is most prominent in the novel “Dr. Franklin’s Island,” the epic poem “The Iliad,” the famous sculptures “The Horse Tamers,” and the current event involving a small child of Ottawa, Canada attacked by a pit-bull.

Similar to Cronon’s Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, Evernden discusses the concept of nature in today’s society and the impacts of mixing meanings of the term nature. Evernden begins by elaborating on the term nature and using the concept of nature to support contrasting ideas. The author continues by philosophically analyzing two questions about nature: What does the word nature mean? What is nature? Evernden then discusses several definitions and understandings of the term nature. A few of the definitions of nature mentioned are as follows: nature meaning kind; nature as a danger; nature as an assertion of relationships. He relates these concepts to the term phusis, and then goes into detail about the Greek origins

The third component, however, is somewhat difficult to grasp and harder for some to accept; but it is also the most crucial when adopting the attitude of respect. If one fails to accept Taylor’s third element then one cannot adopt the attitude of respect. This is where Taylor is mistaken. Taylor fails, or at least neglects, to consider the importance of his third element. Instead, he places most of the emphasis on moving to deny human superiority and then concludes that by doing so only then can one respect nature. Yet, in order to allow Taylor’s fourth element, one must first concede that all Teleological Centers of Life have equal inherent worth. Therefore, when one accepts and believes the third component of the biocentric outlook only then can they adopt the attitude of respect. Subsequently, I plan to show that the third element and not the fourth is fundamental in adopting the attitude of respect.

Another adjustment to the microscope, and we can examine Leopold's biocentric opinion of how environmental ethics should be governed. His approach enlarges the moral category to include soils, waters, plants and animals and claims our obligation is to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. Philosophers Devall and Sessions further define the biocentric view with the concept of deep ecology. Devall and Sessions argue that "the well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes." (503)

Nature is merely our instrument of conquering one another. By manipulating what already exists, we create everything from nuclear warheads to high speed internet. The continuous competition between men feeds off of our technological advancement—none of which would be possible without the resources Nature provides for us. And rather than being grateful for the unequivicable power so generously offered us by our environment, we instead mock its existence. We distract from the cunningness and cruelty of our efforts toward mankind by relabeling our target ‘Nature’ rather than ‘each other’. By convincing ourselves we are somehow beginning to have Nature within our control and understanding, we forget that Nature is really only the means, not the end of our conquest. We will not be satisfied until we have defeated ourselves. As Lewis puts it, “Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won… But who, precisely, will have won it?” (The Abolition of Man, 421)