4 ms·
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would disagree: it has an article entitled "Laws of Nature" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/ https://
by mcswell 4y ago
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would disagree: it has an article entitled "Laws of Nature" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/) and separate articles on "Natural Law Theories" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/) and on "The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/). The disagreement over the term "Laws of Nature" apparently goes back at least to Hobbes and Boyle (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-science/#HobbExpeConfRobeBoylRoyaSoci https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-science/#HobbExpeC...).
- Maursault 4y agoI would very strongly guess that, these days, around these American english-speaking parts, the idiomatic definitions, i.e. contrary to acceptable or moral behavior, or impossible seeming or unlikely circumstances, e.g. "murder goes against the laws of nature," also "surviving a plane crash defies the laws of nature," are perhaps exponentially more popular, because a percentage of song lyrical hooks will often describe examples of this use of the phrase, what goes up must come down, and so on and so forth, but I must concede I was unaware of its use conversely in the literal sense. But I don't get out much and feel I have read enough boring stuff, more so, I feel a little victimized for probably wasting significant portions of the best years of my life reading material concerned with boring topics by dedicated and qualified but excessively boring writers. There are exceptions, of course, the usual suspects, the great writers.