What is Nature?

Post Reply New Topic

The way we talk about it, nature seems like an anthropomorphic entity.
Brought right down to it, nature is just physics.
But it also means different things in different contexts.

In a "what's around us" sense, it's biology, geology and weather.
But some include stars, galaxies and all other matter.

When you hear or read "nature" in a discussion, what forms in your mind?
Perhaps it's childhood conditioning, but when I hear "nature," I see a deer standing amongst the trees.
Of course, it's not the only image, but you get the idea.

"Nature," to me, is the natural world--that which was promulgated, primarily, through non-human actions. A forest is "nature"; a skyscraper is not.

Sometimes, there is much human influence within "natural" settings; other times, the nonhumans are the boss.

The natural world is a bunch of bull. We did not create something out of nothing, it exist before but just in a different form. Thus, what makes something that we created and some other part of nature creates? Nature has become some kind of crazy religious cult that I wish not be apart of.

I usually use this definition of nature: " basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it."

I used to feel that way, and I also felt that humans were a kind of natural virus inflicted on the earth.

But now I see humans as a potentially beneficial organism for the earth but only when living in balance with it.

But now, I SEE culture as a natural extension of nature and humankind too, not much different in basic effect than a beaver dam but extremely abstract and complex PER total MODERN EXTENSION OF HUMAN cultural nature.

And also, ONE sees the patterns of nature throughout all of human produced byproducts of culture.

But unfortunately, it's way OUT of WACK IN A STATE OF CULTURAL VIRUS, as things stand now, killing and endangering many other species for no reason but CULTURAL VIRUS selfishness, and the rest of the environment too, progressively, as cultural VIRUS complexity globally increases.

Perhaps with greatER interconnectivity of minds, THROUGH THE IT GLOBAL REVOLUTION, as humans are much stronger working together than alone and OR against each other, answers will come, and balance once again will be restored.

If not, 'THE DARK FORCE' WINS, AND that's that, I GUESS, unfortunately or NOT.

BUT OF course that's just on this planet, as the verb of MOTHER NATURE TRUE HAS PLENTY OF ROOM TO ROAM WILD AND FREE, ABOVE AND BEYOND, this silly little blue and green planet, and the SO-CALLED smarty pants folks who live on it FOR NOW.

Nature to me is everything, including us and everything we've done, as we are also a natural expression of it.

I think Karl Sagen said it best "We are star stuff"

Unfortunately we have the same destructive tendencies as the rest of it.

Mother Nature is everything that was, that is and what will be. And it is the very reason we are here. The universe has shaped our very existence, thinking, our alchemy, technology, engineering, traditions, calender, our believes, our bone structure and organs.
What makes us different from the other animals: why is it that we have been given the ability to understand the concepts of death and that we can challenge our very existence. And when I look at nature I see it in its complexity and everything works like a perfectly tuned clock, everything serves something else for a purpose, for life. Everything from animals to the living plants to the bacteria and micro organisms all play a part for survival. And nature is intended to survive, so if nature created us as intended why would it create us to lead a path that would lead to our own demise?

If technology is derived from nature then surly nature is already technology in a biological form, which could also suggest that we have already built the universe before. Maybe A.I and robotics is really the next step in the evolutionary chain as nature intended.

Good question.

Oak leaves, the woods, the Grand Canyon, stormy weather, ...
Thats kinda what comes to mind when I hear the word "nature".

It was the last week of the semester and our anthropology professor announced that in the exam that we would have to write an essay in class on a certain question. He said he hadnt divised the question yet, but gave an example of what kinda thing it would be.

Then the big day came. He announced that he had "put a lot of thought into the question. And here it is... I want you all to define: what is "culture", and what is "nature"?"

So I picked up my pen I thought "goody. Now I can expound upon my own notion- that 'culture' and 'nature' are not opposed- like everyone seems to think, and that human 'culture' is really a subdivision of nature."

But then I hit a snag. I could define "culture" but I couldnt define "nature"-EXCEPT-by saying that it is "everything not man made". But then if I said THAT-then I couldnt claim that "human culture is a subset of nature". So with the clock ticking I had no choice but to scrap the "subset of nature" theme- and just go with what I considered the wrong conventional idea that nature and culture are mutually exclusive-just to crank the essay out. I went with "nature is everything not man made"- but besides having that trait (not being man made)- I was hard pressed to say what "nature" is. So after floundering around I handed in my essay with less than pride at the mess I had ended up with.

In the next class the professor said "all of you were good a defining 'what is culture', but you ALL had trouble with 'what is nature?'".

So apparently I wasnt the only one struggling with defining "what is nature?". And my final grade for the class did not seemed to suffer from my pathetic essay. My competition was just as stymied as I was.

Around campus I later heard that that particular professor used that same damned question for the final exam EVERY semester. It was like his running practical joke.

Years later I still can't give you a good answer to the question. But maybe that experience just traumatized me from ever thinking about it again! Lol!

Human cultures are influenced by Nature--whether paradoxically or directly.

Nature is the sum of all matter given form, and/or the sum of all forms bound in matter.

Chitin is only stuff. Logarithmic spirals are only math. A nautilus combines both in a beautiful shell; that's nature.

That which is.

Typically nature is referred to as something other than the Self. Something outside of the human. Something separate and distinct from the human. People say "I love to be out in Nature." This is nonsense and ignorance. Nature is that which is. I am that. You are that.

Either a man, woman, child, environment, and whatever takes place inside of it.

It depends quite on its use.

One meaning is something like 'all of existence'.

Another obviously pertains to the world of non-human animals, and plants and landscape. I think this is a perspective that conceives of this stuff going on with no regard for what we think of it, that whatever is going on in this 'nature' is indifferent to human interest.

I think humans often appear supernatural to ourselves. Hence nature is 'out there', exclusive of us.

When I think of nature, I think of a big old tree. I think of the processes that see it survive and grow, and I think of the many insects and animals who make use of the tree. And I think of this going on with only the most minimal of interest from humans.

"Nature" seems to be used in two ways:

"Natural" as opposed to "man made".

And "Natural" as opposed to "supernatural".

So if god didnt do it, and if humans dont do it,then its "natural".