David Shemano wrote: > This "nature/non-nature" idea pops up repeatedly on this list (and a lot of > other places as well). The distinction is obviously important to how > Leftists think. So, please tell me, when it comes to the behavior and > conduct of human beings, how do you distinguish nature from non-nature? <
raghu is right: it's the right-wingers who use the concept of "natural" so much -- usually without defining their terms. How many times have we heard that something is impossible and/or evil because "it goes against human nature"? what in heck is "human nature," anyway? it seems that different conservatives use different conceptions of human nature: a money libertarian sees us as "naturally" greedy, while a traditionalist sees us as "naturally" obeying our social superiors, heeding traditions (even though these change a lot over time), and/or fitting idealized images of family, sex, etc. that never existed on earth. Anyway, the real world the people live in is a product of both non-human natural forces and human-created (non-natural or artificial) forces. I'd define non-human natural forces as unchanging over time and between spaces, though the expression of these forces in practice can and does vary a lot. This would include the laws of physics (ignoring other parts of the multiverse, of course). To define "human nature," you might point to universal characteristics (or those with very few exceptions) such as having two legs at birth, having a mind, etc. Those who emphasize the role of human nature often focus on DNA. But one thing we should learn from biology is that individuals and their DNA vary a lot. Having a mind does not imply having any specific ideology, moral code, taste in single-malt scotch, or whatever. Further, DNA only _limits_ human possibilities rather than being determinant. But even then, human creations (technology, institutions) allow people to exceed their nature-given limits. Awhile back, I was able to fly to New York even though my DNA says I can't. There are also institutions that can allow us to transcend the limits indicated by DNA. For example, without NASA or some similar organization, Neil Armstrong could not have checked the moon to see whether or not it was made of green cheese. (the answer is classified.) I think it's wrong to reduce human forces to non-human natural forces, so that the distinction between natural and artificial breaks down. Human creations have built on non-human nature, sure, but both technology and institutions have taken on lives of their own (as it were), as parts of path-dependent and interacting processes. Of course, the mutually-interacting development of technology and society can come in contradiction with non-human nature's laws, as when free-market capitalism drives us into global warming. -- Jim Devine / "In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite." -- Paul Dirac _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
