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

Re: "Unnatural" don't exist.

Post by iirtriiiokn » Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:03 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:
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?
I guess the definition only covers creatures on earth. I think there would need to be a separate word for extra terrestrials.

I guess the definition only applies to things humans create consciously, not things our bodies automatically produce.

About the deer thing, the deer would still be considered natural because it wasn't made by a human, seeing a human made object wouldn't affect it's naturalness. Something made by a machine that was created by a human would be considered unnatural, as the thing made by the machine would in essence be made by the human, but the machine is basically just a tool used to make it.

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 » Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:51 pm

iirtriiiokn wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:03 am
I guess the definition only covers creatures on earth. I think there would need to be a separate word for extra terrestrials.
Are the aliens natural or unnatural, then? Or are they neither?
What if they come to Earth, then are they covered?

What if it turns out that life on Earth originated from space (e.g. cosmic bacteria or something)?
Then is nothing natural or unnatural?
iirtriiiokn wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:03 am
I guess the definition only applies to things humans create consciously, not things our bodies automatically produce.
What's the distinction there?
Do we not choose consciously when and where to poop?
What about spitting?

So if we dig a hole and bury our poop (like most cats) that's unnatural?
If we pick up a stick and turn it into a tool by using it to get insects (like many other primates and birds) then that stick is unnatural now?
iirtriiiokn wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:03 am
About the deer thing, the deer would still be considered natural because it wasn't made by a human, seeing a human made object wouldn't affect it's naturalness.
Nothing is really made by humans, we only modify things. Every tool and machine was just existing matter we changed the shape of. And even atoms we "make" came from existing energy and other matter.
So, everything is natural because we can't (like gods) create something from nothing?
iirtriiiokn wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:03 am
And when we use Something made by a machine that was created by a human would be considered unnatural, as the thing made by the machine would in essence be made by the human, but the machine is basically just a tool used to make it.
But the machine wasn't made by the human, was it? We just changed the shape of the material to make it do something different.
How does the same not apply to a frightened deer we have scared and changed her behavior? The shape of the neuron connections is now changed.

User avatar
respuestasveganas
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:28 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Contact:

Post by respuestasveganas » Tue Nov 20, 2018 7:06 pm

iirtriiiokn wrote:
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.
Speciesist definition.

User avatar
respuestasveganas
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:28 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Contact:

Post by respuestasveganas » Tue Nov 20, 2018 7:17 pm

Some people separate nature and the natural that it produces, from humans and the "unnatural" or "artificial" that they produce. This idea has a religious origin, according to which the human conscience is not a natural phenomenon that emerges from matter (of a brain), as it also happens with animals of other species, but they say that human consciousness is not natural or that it is "supernatural," and therefore they say that the things it produces are not natural. The reality is that consciousness is a natural phenomenon, that is, human beings are natural beings like any other being, they are a product of nature, they are part of nature, they are not separated from it; this idea is called "naturalism." Consciousness is a natural phenomenon that emerges from matter (of a brain) and produces a kind of natural things called "artificial". The usual mistake is to use the word "artificial" as a synonym for "unnatural". Everything that exists is nature and natural, the "unnatural" does not exist. We should not speak in terms of the "natural" and the "unnatural", but in terms of the "ethically correct" and "ethically incorrect" from the origin of duty (interests) and the universalization of duty through the use of logic: A priori, interests should not be frustrated.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Red and 3 guests