/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12378344]

So what exactly is wrong with appealing to nature?

[Anonymous No.12378627]

Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good.

Mercury is natural. Is it good for you?

[Anonymous No.12378635]

OP is a midwit.

[Anonymous No.12378644]

Given the size of space in comparison to life on Earth, inanimacy is more natural than life. Thus, life should be eradicated.

[Anonymous No.12378651]

>>12378635
yes, I am...
I finally realize...

[Anonymous No.12378657]

>>12378344

the history mankind is continual struggle against nature because it turns out that the state of nature fucking sucks

[Anonymous No.12378770]

"Nature" is a vague concept, but by any reasonable definition material - not some actual spirit or supernatural instance - and thus not morally binding.
Look at homo rights. Pro-lgbts say "homosexuality occurs in animals, so it is natural and fine". (It is implied that whatever happens in "nature" is fine, even though nature, as I said above, is an amoral system by definition.)
Anti-lgbts say "homosexuality doesn't help the species to survive, so it is unnatural and not fine". (It is implied that nature wants all species to survive, which doesn't make much sense because nature isn't conscious and can't have wishes or goals.)

[Anonymous No.12378780]

>>12378770
Wow. Logic wins again.

[Anonymous No.12378798]

>>12378627
The gap in this logic is the ignorance or neglecet of the reality of the symbiosis humanity has with the ecology of earth. Living systems on this planet has evolved in and of itself, alongside living systems. Life begets life, in other words. Therein lies the blindspot in our civilization. Somehow, we cannot reconcile our conception of civilization in concord with our symbiotic-ness to the rest of the planet.

[Anonymous No.12378806]

>>12378780
?

[Anonymous No.12378823]

>>12378344
Nature includes my ability to come there with guns, plant my flag, and enslave the natives.

[Anonymous No.12378828]

>>12378657
This!

If you want a more cerebral way of looking at it, life is essentially a process of becoming God.
I can go into detail but I think you'd get the gist.

[Anonymous No.12378834]

>>12378806
He capably proved why that type of argument is a fallacy thus showing that the tools of rhetoric are neutral and sound, at least in this case.

[Anonymous No.12378845]

>>12378657
>the history mankind is continual struggle against nature

*modern history, which is only a reflection of our struggle with our own nature.

[Anonymous No.12378850]

>>12378344
Usually based on a spurious teleology that owes more to human preferences than any kind of natural order or intention. There's nothing wrong with referencing characteristics of nature or natural phenomena for an argument... the point is that it the argument must be more specific than "it is natural ergo good"

[Anonymous No.12378867]

Wow I bet that island doesn't even have gay marriage. The US Army needs to set up a base there ASAP.

[Anonymous No.12378883]

That island needs Jesus Christ, the one and only true god

[Anonymous No.12378917]

>>12378344
People mean different things when they say nature. If by nature you mean "mother nature", the material order to things such as plants, animals, maybe even environments and weather, then nature is not compatible or equivalent to what humans call "good". The idea that because an animal does something it is justified is both lazy and inconsistent. Consider that there are animals that eat their sexual partner after copulating, rape their inferiors in and across species, and consume feces. The fact that humans have a concept called "good", even if it differs from religion to religion or culture to culture, means that nature has evolved a part of itself separate from itself. Consciousness itself is unnatural and thus should not appeal to nature. The question is, what should conscious humans appeal to?

[Anonymous No.12379025]

>>12378627
What a retarded argument. Dealing with mercury isn’t natural, but living in nature is natural.

[Anonymous No.12380721]

>>12378344
Why is modern society not "natural". It's human nature to invent and progress. Why is a spearhead more natural than a skyscraper? Because an idiot can make one?

[Anonymous No.12380723]

>>12378627
How about the mountains of evidence suggesting better health and happiness markers among hunter gatherer societies than the vast majority of "modern" industrial nations?

[Anonymous No.12380732]

>>12379025
Ok how do you define natural?

[Anonymous No.12380733]

>>12378798
what books do I need to read to understand this image

[Anonymous No.12380740]

>>12378828
What?

[Anonymous No.12380753]

If I understand correctly is because animals practice a bunch of horrendous and obnoxious things, we shouldn't make them an example on how to act

[Anonymous No.12380779]

>>12378635

wow I'm also a midwit

I bet a good chunk of people are midwits. Thanks for teaching me this word

[Anonymous No.12380834]

>>12378344
Human are defined as much by their nature as by transcending it.

[Anonymous No.12380859]

>>12380723
>implying you can scientifically measure happiness or "the good life"

"those tribal retards in some shithole tropical island are happier than us because they don't have internet!"

>>12378798
If this "symbiosis of humanity with the ecology of earth" is true, then our supposed ignorance of this fact is irrelevant. If we're so chained to the ecology, then any attempt to rise above it is futile, and every thing humans do, from the industrial revolution to transgender operations, is also natural. Somehow this doesn't seem the case to me, though. If man is capable of fucking exterminating all life on earth with nuclear weapons then clearly we occupy a special place outside the rest of the animal kingdom.

[Anonymous No.12382110]

>>12378344
wait, I think I saw that meme way before North Senegal
how surreal

[Anonymous No.12382217]

>>12382110
>North Senegal
I meant Sentinel lmao

[Anonymous No.12382273]

what are some good books about islands?

[Anonymous No.12382314]

>>12382273
Island of Dr Moreau

[Anonymous No.12382317]

>>12378627
Imagine thinking "natural" means "exists in nature"

[Anonymous No.12382323]

>>12378627
>and what is good, my boy? why, a warm cup of tea and a pipe, i say.

whoa... philosophy solved forever..... how are the anglos so powerful and intelligent?

[Anonymous No.12382348]

>>12380859
Retardpilled post

To say that there is a symbiosis between man and nature isn't to say man is "chained" to nature or that man can't rebel against his relationship with nature.

We have an intelligence that is capable of registering norms of human behaviour and structures of nature, and seeing that these ordinarily produce some kind of good. That doesn't mean we can't reject that by rejecting this intelligence

So no, the excesses of the human technological system, which consist precisely in man's rejection of his own rationality in favour of animality, are not "natural"

[Anonymous No.12382489]

>>12380721
That is also a concept that my brainlet head cant warp around and i wish i could learn a bit more.
If we use the term "natural" as "not human made" then everything we do is unnatural, even eating, shitting etc.
if we use it as "a creative and controlling force in the universe" then everything we do is natural.
I guess the term changes, its super vague, i hate when people try to denounce something or promote it because its "natural" or not.
Also using the term natural as an appeal to the "lower instincts" seems retarded, since many of the times we even have difficult times trying to separate those things and categorizing them, and telling when someone is "following" them or not, as if we have the choice to not follow them at all.

[Anonymous No.12382494]

>>12378344
nothing hehehehehehehehe

[Anonymous No.12382510]

>>12378883
I glad that bitch nigga got rekt

[Anonymous No.12382528]

>>12378344
Nothing. Take the Klages pill.