In this essay, I will come to grasp the conception of nature in broad scope to show the impact on the dimensions of cultural life. Its impact needs to be approach through pluralistic ideals as nature in itself is an all inclusive term. While some would argue the specificity of certain natural phenomena as the only “nature”. I will say that nature is indeed everything that exists outside the existence of the mind and how the mind perceives things. This ideal will pragmatically show that by embracing the vast scope of nature, we should learn to treat nature with the same scope as we so hope to treat our lives, our bodies and the human race, for these are nature as well. I will come to show ideas presented by philosophical thinkers that represent the ways in which nature is manifested and how we should view and treat the world in light of that.
Starting from the historical recordings of philosophical thought we can trace all the back to where early philosophers were lead by necessity to understand their position in the elements and how they related as rational beings. “If philosophical vision were to remain reflective even in this regard, then the solitary philosopher would be brought back to a vision of self as situated amidst the elements, as engaged by force of necessity in comportment to the elements” (Sallis, 149).
This feeling to be compelled by necessity can be understood in a human’s process of daily reflection especially when confronted with elements of magnificent proportion to our senses. The conclusion we may come to are indeed, different from one mind to the next, but this is both the beauty in individuality and what also creates divisiveness to aid in what can be accomplished. This is just to show that when placed alone, which is not alone at all, we very often come to grand ideas of nature and how it should be treated when instead nature should be seen in every corner from the minutest detail to the most awe inspiring display.
Once led by necessity, the first idea we must collectively hold a value judgment in all that is “natural”. We should look to see socially and culturally, all is natural within the realm of human life so we may not let out priorities of moral significance take precedent over all others. This may seem like a major copout in terms of natural categorization; to call all that exists within the world “natural”. While it may be simpler, it does not lessen the value placed on the reasons need for creating subsets or anything else useful in scientific specificities. I would, however, concede that it may impossible for the human ego to allow for an egalitarian mode of thinking for all things natural, but I won’t attempt to understand that disposition. Instead, I return to the idea that for an ethical approach to the natural realm we need to give all things equal value an understanding. “Instead we need to embrace the full continuum of a natural landscape that is also cultural, in which the city the suburb, the pastoral, and the wild each has its proper place, which we permit ourselves to celebrate without needlessly denigrating the others” (Cronon, 89).
William Cronon understands this problem well. The way some people give more significance to certain physical landscapes such as the way mountains or streams are romanticized such that other natural occurrences are placed behind them in the order of importance. In much of the same way, some cultures and cultural values are given much more significance. Through purely empirical means, we can know that this is true, much in the way that the white “race” has been given much more value and dominance throughout history. If we could see our ethical duties from the position that we should give equal value and opportunity to all regardless of its beauty, its class, color or creed then or judgments would better suited to help the larger scheme of natural life.
In this assumption, I wouldn’t dare to say that...