Aristotle argues that anything that has internal motion is nature. This can be interpreted as evolving due to internal reactions, and most people classified all biological organisms into this category. To this I posed the question in class: if by definition anything that is evolving due to internal processes is nature, then would not certain metals, which are not biological organisms, be nature due to their radioactive qualities?
Another way to interpret this definition is focusing in on the term “internal motion.” Everything in the material world has an atomic structure, and at the atomic level every object is in motion all the time. It’s just that the movement is not visible to our eyes. So then by that logic, could one not use this to argue once again, that everything in the material world is in fact nature?
Using this idea, the only thing I think that could not be classified into nature that are still physical are things such as fire and wind. These things are not entirely elemental in the sense that they are themselves are caused by the elements of the periodic table. Also intangible things such as love, fear, knowledge, and courage are not by this definition nature, because they do not, themselves contain internal motion, and yet they evolve over time. At the same time, I recognize that one could argue against this saying that emotion, concepts, and ideas are nature because they are created by the chemicals in our brains.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Aristotle wanted to use his definition to prevent us from getting bogged down in the “all is one” idea. Since everything has internal motion at the molecular level, we can’t differentiate between anything if we use this framework and it becomes unhelpful. Because of this, it is important that he brings up the point about self sustenance. When Aristotle introduces this, we are now able to differentiate between the natural things talked about in class (i.e. humans, plants) and the unnatural things (i.e. bed, lectern, robe). This is when he discusses putting a bed in the ground and seeing if a new bed grows, similar to a seed growing into a plant. Natural things can maintain themselves through some sort of copying, whereas unnatural objects cannot. Therefore, while radioactive isotopes are in motion, they do not produce another identical radioactive isotope. Molecules, while in motion, do not produce other molecules unless acted upon by some outside force (like an enzyme or energy). Ultimately, I think that Aristotle would disagree that these substances are natural by his framework.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement that love and emotions are nature as well. They aren't created from elements, and like you said - they are only created from chemicals in our brain. Also, Aristotle talked about this idea that natural processes can sustain themselves, yet have the internal motion to evolve or that something can naturally die. Love and emotions aren't tangible objects and there is the arguement that only larger brained organisms can feel these emotions. I don't believe that they are part of nature because love and emotions will exist in human culture even if you and I died. Love and emotions have proven to exist since humans created a written language. In this sense, love and emotions do have the ability to "sustain" but they cannot physically change or die and therefore I do not consider them part of "nature".
ReplyDeleteMorgan
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about all evolving material processes being natural. This would include metals and rocks because they do have internal processes on the subatomic and atomic levels. Perhaps we could think of material objects as moving differently through time according to their nature. Mountains age slower than human beings but they are still changing. They’re evolving. Biological systems change and move much quicker, and in more complicated ways. We are made of atoms just like the mountain and chemicals just like metals, but we diverge on the level of biology.
As life forms we experience e-motions like love, hate, fear, compassion, courage, etc. I do think that these involve complicated biochemical processes. What is it about us specifically, though, that would cause the creation of such wonderful things as love and virtue? I think that it's because we’re social animals. We evolved in a social environment. Anyone that has watched Meerkat Manor knows that other animals are social as well, but why are we different then them? I think its because we also evolved in a cultural environment. This is why our faces are so detailed, our personalities are so diverse, and our cultures are so important.
Fire and wind are natural occurrences through the complicated interactions of elements. They are “by nature” as Aristotle would say. Love and virtue are natural occurrences through the complicated interactions between people. They are "by human nature". I would go so far as to say that our original conception of ‘spirit’ was generated from our interactions with the natural environment and the universe. This would certainly explain why love and spirit are often correlated concepts.
I apologize for this reply being so long...perhaps I should make a post variation. Thanks Morgan, good thinking.
I found that I agreed with much of your logic. On one hand, all things (even something still like a table) are in motion that consist of matter due to the electrons that are constantly orbiting inside the atoms of that matter. In opposition, can it be said that intangibles like desire, love and hate are in motion, part of nature, or both? I think that emotions, interactions between animals, thoughts, etc. are all definitely nature, but not in “motion.” Yes, all of these things are controlled by the brain and the chemical reactions and signals to the body, but they themselves are not in motion, but rather provoked or motivated by motion. Thus, I feel it can be said that things with internal motion are always nature, but natural things do not always have to have internal motion.
ReplyDelete