"Unnatural" don't exist.

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
respuestasveganas
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:28 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Contact:

"Unnatural" don't exist.

Post by respuestasveganas » Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:37 pm

Hi.

All is nature and natural, "unnatural" don't exist.
Only exist two correct options:
- Natural artificial.
- Natural non artificial.

"Unnatural" is a religious idea.

Regards,
David.

Jamie in Chile
Full Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Jamie in Chile » Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:40 pm

I think natural is an overrated concept when meant as a positive thing. And I think whether something is natural or unnatural is not that important in many cases.

iirtriiiokn
Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:51 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by iirtriiiokn » Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:58 am

natural
/ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
1.
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

By this definition, unnatural does exist.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8942
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:27 am

iirtriiiokn wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:58 am
natural
/ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
1.
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

By this definition, unnatural does exist.
Are humans natural or unnatural? Does our existence not derive from nature?

iirtriiiokn
Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:51 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by iirtriiiokn » Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:44 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:27 am
iirtriiiokn wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:58 am
natural
/ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
1.
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

By this definition, unnatural does exist.
Are humans natural or unnatural? Does our existence not derive from nature?
I guess humans would be natural, but things we make aren't.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8942
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:55 am

iirtriiiokn wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:44 pm
I guess humans would be natural, but things we make aren't.
Would that apply to other species building things too? Like a beaver dam?
If not, why not?

iirtriiiokn
Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:51 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by iirtriiiokn » Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:58 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:55 am
iirtriiiokn wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:44 pm
I guess humans would be natural, but things we make aren't.
Would that apply to other species building things too? Like a beaver dam?
If not, why not?
Nah because the definition is human specific.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8942
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:29 am

iirtriiiokn wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:58 am
Nah because the definition is human specific.
So, in all the universe only human actions are unnatural?
Beings from another world arriving here in space ships far advanced of any technology we could ever dream of would be as natural as a beaver dam, which is as natural as any rock.

But a human makes a poo in the woods... and that steamy morsel is 100% unnatural?

PhilRisk
Newbie
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:08 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by PhilRisk » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:57 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:29 am
But a human makes a poo in the woods... and that steamy morsel is 100% unnatural?
I think the concept of "unnatural" is somewhat more subtle, than the definition by human origin. Poo is natural, because it is natural to poo (other animals do it as well), but a clock (as a prototypical example) is unnatural. It is ordinary language, it will be hard to give an exact definition, but the application of the term mainly works. There could be complicated cases, like eating vegetables (which are heavily bred), but this does not have to undermine the meaning of the term.
Another question is, whether the normative weight it often implies is justified.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8942
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:31 pm

PhilRisk wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:57 am
Poo is natural, because it is natural to poo (other animals do it as well), but a clock (as a prototypical example) is unnatural.
Would clocks then be natural if another creature in the universe builds clocks?
Shouldn't we assume they are, given the improbability of there not being other such beings in all of the universe?

What is a clock, anyway? Is a sun-dial natural? Is a stick in the ground which casts a shadow natural?

Are the consequences of an unnatural thing unnatural? How infectious is this whole unnatural thing?

If a deer walking in the woods sees a stick a human has put into the ground and sees the shadow, and that influences the deer's behavior subtly and is imprinted in the deer's memory, is that now an unnatural deer? And are all of that deer's progeny unnatural and does everything the deer interact with become unnatural?

If it's infectious then surely nothing is natural.

But if it is not, then if a human builds a machine that manufactures clocks, then aren't all of those clocks that come out of the machine (the materials being affected by the unnatural thing but not being infected by it and turned unnatural) then just natural?
PhilRisk wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:57 am
It is ordinary language, it will be hard to give an exact definition, but the application of the term mainly works.
Things that mainly work or that people think they understand (like god) are not necessarily coherent concepts that can be applied in philosophy.
The important question is whether the notion is coherent at all, or whether it explodes due to internal inconsistencies.
PhilRisk wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:57 am
There could be complicated cases, like eating vegetables (which are heavily bred), but this does not have to undermine the meaning of the term.
If this is absolutely incoherent and it can neither delineate natural from unnatural nor establish a means to rank things in order of a spectrum of naturalness, nor even clearly establish that any one thing is more or less natural or unnatural... that does undermine the meaning of the term, at least in any context where it needs to be applied rigorously.
PhilRisk wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:57 am
Another question is, whether the normative weight it often implies is justified.
To even ask that question we'd need a working definition of natural that doesn't contradict itself at every turn.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests