It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Being a good or bad person is not natural

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by openlocks

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by openlocks
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Now, mr. philosopher, that is just not good philosophy!


You've just totally destroyed all qualitative perimeters of the word "natural". It now means nothing... or everything.

I think we need a re-establishing of the definition now!


What do you suggest?


How about just staying true to the standard definition?

nat·u·ral   [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] adjective
1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.

ar·ti·fi·cial   [ahr-tuh-fish-uhl] adjective
1. made by human skill; produced by humans ( opposed to natural): artificial flowers.



humans cannot do anything "artificial",,, because humans are nature..,,. what isnt nature?




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
3. When one matures consciously they attain a broad enough perspective to realize that in the grand scheme of things, we are all less than nothing. We live on a speck of dust floating through space. What we want is irrelevant. Therefore the only logical thing to be concerned about is what I want. Your constructs of good and evil are just a coping mechanism to help your mind avoid the fact that your existence is meaningless.

But I give you a star for good intentions. Welcome to ATS.
edit on 7-9-2012 by watchitburn because: Because I choose to.


Beliefs such as yours help me understand why there are selfish people in this world, and how they rationalize it to themselves. The materialistic, scientific message about humans and our world is pretty much exactly what you believe, so they did a good job in programming you.


I can help you escape that Matrix but you have to want to.




edit on 8-9-2012 by PrimitiveWorld because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 




humans cannot do anything "artificial",,, because humans are nature..,,. what isnt nature?


So again, what you are also doing is destroying the word "natural". Why do that? Sure, everything is part of the ontology of nature, but to say everything is natural really just makes a mess of our language. Is pouring 10 Billion barrels of toxic chemicals and oil into the ocean natural? Is using pesticides and chemicals on plants, which in turn burns the soil to the point it cannot be used for 100's of years now, natural? Is a three headed frog, found in a river next to a chemical plant, natural?

What you are doing is making a mess of science and philosophy, and ultimately human language.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 


I think people confuse the definition. Natural means anything that OCCURS in nature - computers, cars, technology does not "occur in nature" those things are built.

But now that leaves and interesting thought - if natural is what occurs in nature instead of what is built (artificial), are den natural or artificial? Are bird nests natural or artificial?

An interesting thought...
edit on 8-9-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 


"Is pouring 10 Billion barrels of toxic chemicals and oil into the ocean natural? "

it certainly doesnt need to occur,,, but since it does,, it is a natural occurrence,.,.

i see and understand what you are talking about.,,. but i also see and understand what im talking about.,,.

sometimes we have to peer beyond human definitions and laws of language to see the truth...

and that goes back to the topic of the OP,, and how this detour occurred,.,.

is the idea of good and bad natural? or artificial?

if good and bad does not exist.,,. then only nature exists.,.,,., and the pouring of oil into the ocean would just be another natural occurrence,,, like all other occurrences.,,.

since humans exist and do "unnatural" things,. does that mean everything that humans come in contact with. ( plants and animals that have been domesticated) are tainted with artificiality,, since they did not occur naturally?
is the domestic cat artificial? it certainly would not be what it is without humans building its schedule and behavior patterns.,,.

are you natural? if so how can something natural do artificial things? intelligence possessed by humans is not natural.,,. do you have artificial intelligence ?

edit on 8-9-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 




But now that leaves and interesting thought - if natural is what occurs in nature instead of what is built (artificial), are den natural or artificial? Are bird nests natural or artificial? An interesting thought..


That is an interesting thought. I suppose, though, that one might say that from our perspective a bird nest is natural because it is not humanly contrived. Though, this does again raise the issue of humans being part of nature themselves. This can get really messy, really easily, which is why this term is generally used in analogous means, and not in such concrete terms as many are taking it. I think the standard definition of both "natural" and "artificial" works fine, unless you want to pull the words apart and make them work perfectly. But then again, we could do that with any word or concept. What, are we supposed to just stop using language because it isn't perfect?


Peace
edit on 8-9-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


All really good and valid points. Again, I must recommend this term be used with wisdom and in a relative sense. There are ecosystems (natural orders and relationships of many forms of organisms within a common environment), and these ecosystems have a balance to them. To disrupt that balance, consciously, seems what we could call unnatural. By our mere presence within the ecosystem we influence that balance in a positive or negative way, but I would consider that to be an unconscious level of existence. Things are just happening. But to consciously seek to alter or influence the ecosystem, through abstract reasoning or thought, seems to introduce an element of artificiality to the scenario because it assumes we have perfect working knowledge of our environment. In other words, things are no longer being done out of necessity as it is determined by evolutionary development, but rather out of desire as it is determined through an incomplete set of contrived knowledge.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join