Nature, in its core function, is the cause and effect relationship offered to things with "ascertainable objectivity", happening without cause. From this we can easily conclude that the state of the nature of something that something being an object with “thing-hood”, as humorously described in class is its beginning purpose and generality.
There are a few debatable definitions of nature, which at first glance are very similar. On hand, we have nature that is described as "the first, inchoate, thing belonging to it". To put in simply an object's nature is its core material for example, the nature of my Odd Future Fitted tee-shirt is Cotton. As well we have nature described as quote on quote "the shape or look". This statement points to nature as the stereo-type or look of an object, for example, my MacBook does not have the nature of a MacBook unless it assumes the look of a generic looking MacBook. When looking at these definitions it is hard to find a large degree of difference as the "stereo-typical" MacBook is not only composed of parts generally used to construct a MacBook, but also its acceptance and appearance as a MacBook.
For clarification we can use Aristotle's example of a doctor healing himself. A artisan of medicine does not have the nature of a Healer, as that would imply that he attained this skill naturally, which is not true. For something to have nature said nature must come into being without cause. Therefor it is safe to assume that the Healer, whom is an artisan of medicine, is a Healer, but has the nature of a normal very day human. When speaking of "nature" Aristotle means the natures of particular things and would perhaps be better translated "a nature a things".
What causes differences amongst Laptops and people, even between two Healers? This can be answered by looking at chance. By chance variations are...