“Now to some it seems that nature or the thinghood of things
by nature is the first thing present in each which is unarranged as far as it
itself is concerned; thus the nature of a bed would be wood and a statue,
bronze. And Antiphon says that sign of this is that if someone were to bury a
bed, and what rotted had the power to put up a sprout, it would not become a
bed but wood, since what belongs to it by accident is the arrangement according
to convention and art, while the thinghood of it is that which remains continuously
even while it’s undergoing these things. ” (Aristotle 50).
I believe
that this passage from Aristotle’s Physics
demonstrates well the beliefs of both Aristotle and his peers on the
concept of nature. In this particular passage, Aristotle is responding to
other’s belief that nature comprises of all things that come about naturally and without influence from other forces,
such as humans, other than nature itself. Early in the chapter Aristotle does state
that nature consists of animals, plants, and elements that are all their own
source of motion or rest as well as growth. For him, nature is what makes up
everything, the material, and the process that those things go through.
Some would argue that those things “touched” or manipulated should not
considered natural, as they are manmade and not created solely by natural
forces. Aristotle would say that even those manipulated things are also natural
since the material itself, what makes that thing what it is, remains even when
it is manipulated. While this concept might be confusing, Aristotle explains it
well when he talks about the example of a bed in this passage. While the bed
itself was not created by nature, the bed is still made up of wood and other
“natural” materials; therefore, it would be wrong to consider items such as
beds as being unnatural or artificial. I also think that Aristotle would argue
that nature is a constantly evolving and changing and that it is only natural
for materials to change, even if something else is the one manipulating the
material. Meaning that man’s manipulation of its surroundings is a natural
phenomenon. Yet I still think that it is
understandable that others see man-made things as artificial as those things,
like beds and statues, were not its initial form or created by natural forces. Do
you agree with Aristotle’s definition of nature? Comparing his view to other
works we have read this semester, why exactly do we see things we manipulate as
unnatural?
I agree that Aristotle does not separate "natural" things from "manmade" things the same way that we often do. In our reading for Monday, he seems to say that "art" (anything brought about by a conscious humanity, interestingly) and things that are brought about in nature are both inspired by some purpose. He basically says that, although art requires human action to be made, art is inspired by the same forces which inspire plants to "make their leaves for the sake of their fruit" (67). He kind of still leaves room for defining some thing as "unnatural"--maybe that unnatural things are those which fail to accomplish their nature or form because of some sort of interference. He says "monsters are failures of that for the sake of which they are" (67). But he also says that since "missing the mark" is something done in art, it can also happen in nature. Maybe I am just bringing up more questions than answers to yours, but I am not quite sure if he thinks these "interferences" are natural or not. But if he WOULD say that interferences are unnatural, maybe that is why we see a lot of our manmade actions as unnatural--not because they are inherrantly BAD but because they somehow INTERFERE with the purpose of nature...or the purpose of nature relative to humans...or maybe even OUR purpose AS humans since we are contributing to our future destruction (a fact that seems like an ULTIMATE unnaturality).
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that it depends on the way that a "natural" thing is manipulated. For example grinding up peanuts to make peanut butter is still "natural" even though it is technically man made. If things can be added or mixed together to create something completely new then it is man made but it can still have a natural aspect to it. We as humans have a right to make things unnatural to help benefit us, we are part of nature just like everything else in this world. The only thing is we as humans do have a tendency to manufacture or create in excess when it is not truly necessary, this is when it becomes harmful to our environment.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to how natural Aristotle would actually consider peanut butter. Furthermore, I'd like to try to figure out what Aristotle would say the nature of peanut butter is. I'm somewhat conflicted as to whether Aristotle would consider peanut butter natural. Peanut butter technically doesn't have the nature of its being contained within itself. Compare peanut butter to a tree vs. a bed. A tree has its the source of its motion contained within itself. A bed, though, does not. A peanut would definitely be considered natural. Peanut butter is another form of the peanut and it's still only made of peanuts. But it's different from peanut butter in its ability to sustain itself and in its end nature. Unless you consider the telos of a peanut to be peanut butter. But since peanuts have multiple potential purposes I don't think it would be accurate to consider that its telos. Especially since the whole, full, self-sustaining, flourishing version of a peanut would be it at its time of ripeness on the peanut plant. So I really don't know about the naturalness of the peanut. I think I am still kind of confused natures versus natural. I'm pretty sure that it can be said that peanut butter is definitely not a natural whole.
ReplyDeleteWe have to be careful to not let other interpretations and uses of 'nature' in language or the concept of it influence us here. Aristotle would most likely see peanut butter as something that is "from nature" or "by nature", but even these can be causally traced back. I think Aristotle is definitely one of the better views of nature we have examined because of his emphasis on nature as change/motion, a process. I find the part which Rachel picked out, "monsters are failures of that for the sake of which they are" (67, to be rather odd and especially confusing since Aristotle seems to value the causal origin more than the result.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding Aristotle’s position on the unnatural by that which is touched or manipulated is a contextual definition. The author noted Aristotle’s understanding of nature to be something that is “evolving.” I would agree and go even further in saying that humanity’s perception of what we determine to be manipulated and unnatural is also evolving. In the early 1700s the accepted scientific theories regarding organic matter and their natural qualities were summarized in the theory of vitalism and the theory of flogisto. The theory of vitalism determined that living organisms constituted organic matter that was natural and therefore what was created by man was unnatural. The theory of flogisto determined that the vitalism or life-force of a natural substance was lost when it combusted. It was believed that organic compounds and materials could only be created by biological entities and could not be recreated synthetically in a lab. These theories were dismantled when the first carbon based synthetic compound (urea) was created. The accepted views of nature having a vital life force were undermined by a modern perception of humanity’s ability to control and manipulate nature. While I believe that there continues to remain some truths regarding Aristotle’s perception of nature and human intervention, these lines have become increasingly blurred with modern science and technology. Aristotle used the example of the bed to illustrate that man cannot create natural things in their most fundamental essence in the absence of nature (e.g. like a bed without wood or a statue without bronze). However, these conceptions of man’s influence on nature have changed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aristotle's view on nature. It is a very pragmatic way to think about nature, rather than a spiritual or aesthetic definition like we read in Mcphee. Although it is a bit different then how we might define nature, his definition influences the way many western societies approach nature. It helps justify using and manipulating nature because to Aristotle nature has its own end. This end is often the purpose we humans give to it. Nature is necessary, so we must manipulate to our own advantage.
ReplyDelete