2 thoughts on “Philosophy of Nature Think Pieces”

  1. Comments

    1.The Renaissance View of Nature

    I wonder whether in the light of modern biological knowledge the mind/ matter argument is now defunct. The mind is an emergent property of the “peculiar pattern or structure of material elements” as proposed by Spinoza. This is demonstrated by the fact that we can remove or stimulate that matter (e.g. electrically or chemically) to control the functions of the mind. What effect does this knowledge have on other aspects of dualism I wonder?

    2. Shallow and Deep Ecology
    There are some significant problems with the tenets of the deep ecology platform arising out of observations of nature.
    In relation to biospherical egalitarianism and anti class posture I would observe that domination happens in the natural order: in the absence of humans dominance still occurs for instance lions and polar bears dominate their territory, ants fight huge territorial wars, and there are pecking orders in many other animal groups. There are nonhumans species which exploit their environments such as ants in the “devils garden” (only limited in not wreaking huge environmental devastation by virtue of their size). I would therefore agree with you that the concepts of biospherical egalitarianism is utopian.
    The other issue which you identify is in relation to anthropocentrism. It would be arguable that it is only anthropocentrism will save us: if we see ourselves solely as part of a the animal kingdom we might well simply carry on as we are. We are biologically conditioned as animals to make ourselves as secure and comfortable as we can. Lions who over hunt their territory, only starvation and a drop in the lion population leading to a rise in the species it predates would restore the balance, whereas humans can if they so choose make decisions to intentionally act to restore the balance.

    For devils gardens see https://www.nature.com/articles/news050921-6

    3. The Is/Ought Dichotomy
    The most convincing argument is that Darwinian natural selection has bred into us pro-social values. Our moral values are therefore down to biological/ genetic preconditioning. Evidence that moral behaviour is a biological value is evidenced by 20th and 21st century studies that have shown that primates and other mammals display what can be identified as moral behaviours.

    For moral behaviours in animals see:
    https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10892-018-9275-3

    4. The Wilderness Idea
    Rolston’s distinctions between human culture and wild nature are over inflated. Crows have been shown to be able to display social learning and have been able to pass this knowledge down to a new generation. This can’t be genetic transmission.
    Humans are not the only ones to adapt their environment to suit their needs – beavers adapt their environment by building dams and termite mound’s are considerable environmental adaptation.
    In relation to the argument that animals find freedom within the ecosystem whereas humans find it without, I would suggest that this is most likely connected with the Maslovian hierarchy of needs. Might not animals also want to escape the confines of the ecosystem if they felt it was safe to do so. Humans are the only animals that are secure in a world in which they can satisfy all primary needs and where they can exist in safety.

    For the crow study see https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150826113817.htm

    • Thank you Melanie, you not only gave some really good feedback, but you have challenged and extended my learning. I found the links you have added really helpful; your arguments are strong and well-evidenced. I will think more on what you commented on and look into possible counter-arguments based on my readings. Very challenging stuff! Gio

Leave a Reply