Nature Is All

Nature Is All

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 there won’t always be some sort of imbalance or injustices that exist, but we should try to give values in hopes that the lowest off in human life or the wilderness should have the same chance to succeed, if not better. When I look at the elements of nature, such as the wilderness separate from man, I’m not saying we should romantically enjoy something such as a hurricane (that destroys and kills) with the enjoyment of waves (that are tame and mild). What I am saying is that both of these parts of nature are of the same construction and all of them should be given the same respect. Many problems exist from the lack of understanding or simply the separation we place between ourselves and the things we don’t understand. In our cultural lives, many come to fear the things they don’t understand and this understanding is needed now more than ever on our earth is consistently growing smaller through the age of information and globalization. This is the same way we may fear the wilderness or the creatures that inhabit it out of the fear of endangering our safety. We assume that the only way to coexist with these things is to dominate them so may subordinate to our control. This control and domination which is usually followed with exploitation results in the loss of natural stability; not in the idea that nature won’t continue autonomously, but in the idea that the human natural order will change the wild natural order. Cronon would say:
“Any way of looking at nature that encourages us to believe we are separate from nature—as wilderness tends to do—is likely to reinforce environmentally irresponsible behavior” (Cronon, 87).

Surely, he is probably right, for if we look at all that is evidence around us in America, we see all these instances of man dominating nature so as to “control” it when in reality we’re only causing more problems than reducing them. However, let me not lose focus to say that any existing remains from human immoral interaction are not nature. For indeed, it will still be the nature of that continuing nature to exist and the fallout from the conditions we left will perpetuate whether humans exist or not. So once, again we must find a way study and respect all aspects of nature equally because they all command the same respect in their existence and no being is more worthy than another.
“Indeed, my principle objection to wilderness is that it may teach us to be dismissive or even contemptuous of such humble places and experiences” (Cronon, 86).

Whether it is the busy city life or the empty forest, these places are all under the care of the human stewardship ethic. And where is the line in sand that is drawn? There must not be dividing lines that stop one part of nature upon the next. Does not the sewage from the city run into the streams of wilderness? So in being aware of these connections and the attempts to live in such an egalitarian way, we must now find a way such that we should live. Many would restrict these doctrines of moral and ethical instruction to the religious and personal realm, but we should all belong to the ethics of respect and tolerance. From these ideas of respect and tolerance, different theories are going to emerge on how we should handle issues of sustainability and stewardship especially in light using resources for economic means. However, so much time is spent arguing against one another to blame direct causes for the reasons of certain natural phenomena. While there may be some universal truth (that we’ll never know) attributed to who the blame should be more directly pointed at, much more should be said in how we interact with one another so we can come up with solutions to problems instead of looking for their roots.
“Instead of arguing with one another about who is most right, radicals must begin to work toward a more comprehensive rather than a confrontational understanding of problems that have multiple, complex, and interconnected causes” (Ellis, 267).

Too much time is spent blaming one another and so much significant scientific thought is wasted when instead they should be looking for collective compromises. Realistically, we have to be aware that not everyone wants the same things in their social and cultural lives. Some people hope to thrive and make a living off of the natural resources found on this earth, while others may disagree and cite this as exploitation. However, I would argue that the action of using the earth in this way is not a sin per say, but to leave it such as to not pay back for the rewards one has been given is. Then, there are some who just strive to live and their purpose in life is survival. Many places on this earth contain poverty and people living in financial distress. These people don’t have the luxury to think about being modest in the actions as they can depend on is what gets them through the day. So where is the resolve to many different aspects of living in a natural world? Where is the bridge to the divide between techne and phusis?
“Conflict, after all, is the crucible of synthesis, and the very disagreements that have split the radical ecology movement into factions have the potential of generating its greatest strength in the future” (Ellis, 268).

Instead of looking at all the different angles from which we all come as a problem, we should see them as more answers that can further create a better central resolve. The same thing applies to political rationalizations. The further groups pull to the left or right can only better create a central median on which the result can best serve the majority of benefactors. In summation, the way nature plays a role in our life is in every such way. Our human interactions and the understandings of our minds are all nature. The furthest reaches of all wildernesses are all nature. The places humans inhabit every day are indeed nature as well, regardless of their construct. Whether humans exist or not, nature is still present and continues on its course. Our goal, however, is sustainability and to keep all things in existence to stay that way. Everything should be given a chance to thrive in flourish because of the respect and care given to them so long as the same respect is paid back. For all the words I can or cannot say, I could never state it better than in William Cronon’s closing paragraph:
“Learning to honor the wild—learning to remember and acknowledge the autonomy of the other—means striving for critical self—consciousness in all of our actions. It means that deep reflection and respect must accompany each act of use, and means too that we must always consider the possibility of non-use. It means looking at the part of nature we intend to turn toward our own ends and asking whether we can use it again and again and again—sustainably without its being diminished in the process. It means never imagining that we can flee into a mythical wilderness to escape history and the obligation to take responsibility for our own actions that history inescapably entails. Most of all, it means practicing remembrance and gratitude, for thanksgiving is the simplest and most basic of ways for us to recollect the nature, the culture, and the history that have come together to make the as we know it. If wilderness can stop being (just) out there and starting being (also) in here, if it can start being as humane as it is natural, then perhaps we can get on with the unending task of struggling to live rightly in the world—not just in the garden, not just in the wilderness, but in the home that encompasses them both” (Cronon, 89-90)