Natural philosophy is the practice of engaging the natural world with rational or empirical enquiry. Philosophical naturalism is the view that natural philosophy is the only legitimate practice of philosophy, whereas philosophical theology allows for supernatural beliefs to accompany the practice of natural philosophy.
Much of what is understood to be natural philosophy is not natural philosophy. In particular, I will here argue that much empirical philosophy, even while addressing topics of natural philosophy, falls outside of philosophical naturalism, and, in fact, serves the denaturing of philosophy.
Denaturing is the process by which the properties of something are destroyed, such as through the application of heat or acidity, physically and chemically-speaking. In philosophy, as I am discerning here, denaturalization is the denaturing of the living individual in favor of their nurturing.
While natural philosophy certainly concerns itself with nature— in this context, and with the small-n, implying the physical-material world that can be studied inductively as a flow from past to present—, philosophical naturalism, properly-speaking, concerns itself also with Nature— the basic fact of actual existence—, and includes within this realm another form of small-n nature, one which has to do with the basic fact of the existence of a given thing. In this way, nature, even with a small-n, isn’t really limited to physical reality in the way previously stated, but reflects the idea of Nature on the level of mortal reality. That is, as Nature has to do with the fact of Existence of the Whole, nature has to do with the facts of the existence of the parts. As Nature is to the Whole, nature is to the parts. In this way, Nature or nature, whatever the case, may be considered rather synonymous with essence (or Essence), the innate and defining core of what it is to be something.
True natural philosophy concerns itself with the nature of things. This traditionally includes the nature of minerals, plants, animals, and human beings, which constituted the entirety of mortal beings as known to the minds of classical philosophers. The nature of a mineral differs from that of a plant, an animal, and a human being, and the nature of different minerals differ also from one another. This contrast in their essences is, after all, what makes them different to begin with. Similarly, each plant and animal species has its own nature. And while classical philosophers might not have always agreed that each individual plant and animal has its own unique nature, it became increasingly clear that human beings each have their own unique nature, variously called spirit, soul, personality, character, disposition, trade, or etc., leading eventually to the modern embrace of individuality, an embrace that was no completely foreign to the classical or medieval mind but which had not matured into the form we know now as individualism.
The nature of a plant is to utilize water, air, and minerals to grow toward the sunlight. This is not something that plants are commandeered or influenced to do from the outside, but something that springs from out of their own compulsion. It is this fact of their having this innate compulsion, which can never be bestowed from the outside, that gives them their essence as plants. While a paper rose may have the form of a plant, and even may be made from plant material, a paper rose is a mockery of the real thing owing to its lack of an innate compulsion to continue its plight to reach the Sun. The paper rose, that is, has been denatured, the nature of its plant life having been removed from it, leaving only the pretension or memory of a plant. Similarly, taxidermied animals, even if given robotical motion and made into automatons, lose their essence, and are denatured, even while their physical form and their material body are still present (minus some offgasing and such).
The human being, too, has a nature. Yes, including their physical self. But is this really the nature of interest? The nature I speak of here has more to do with the essence. Some of this nature is similar to or overlaps with that of the plants and animals, and so can be considered an extension of the more fundamental nature of living things generally-speaking—such as the pursuit of continuance—, but humans also have their own innate natures, which...
--------------------------------------------------------
Open Invitation to Comment
Feel free to respectfully comment, whether in favor or against. But be prepared to defend your view!
Read More!
You can find more like this on my real blog, Ambiarchy Blog, where I cover topics such as:
- Pantheism: The Belief that Nature is God
- Mutualism: The Belief in Anarchy and Cooperation
- Antapodism: The Belief in Friendship Between Humanity and Nature
... as well as other topics related to natural philosophy, natural theology, science, and history, including but not limited to:
- Witnessing Shell Theory: An Alternative Natural Cosmology
- Henogenic Volution Out-of-Everywhere: An Alternative Approach to Evolution
- Ambiarchy: An Alternative to Neo-Anarchism
Comments
Displaying 0 of 0 comments ( View all | Add Comment )