3 ms·
Perhaps the author plans to develop the core argument better in subsequent chapters but I find this weak so far. I think my issue with the core thoughts of this
by NathanKP 2y ago
Perhaps the author plans to develop the core argument better in subsequent chapters but I find this weak so far. I think my issue with the core thoughts of this piece can be summed up in this statement from the article:
> To place intrinsic value on nature, then, is ultimately nihilistic and profoundly anti-human.
This statement only makes sense if you hold the view that human and nature are two separate things. This is a narrow Western viewpoint, whereas the Eastern mindset skews towards nondualism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism). The human is seen as an interconnected part of all the nature around them, not a separate thing. In this mindset assigning value to nature is a path to assigning value to oneself.
For example, many cultures with a more collectivist mindset have historically derived great personal meaning and value in their lives from the idea that they were protectors and stewards of the nature around them, even as that nature protected and sustained them.
In my opinion, setting the human apart from nature (and in some cases in opposition) is it's own path to nihilism. The more we build this wall of separation the more quickly we fall down slippery slopes to the darkest areas of modern Western thought. With few other ways to define the value of a human, we attempt to define the value of humans relative to the value they produce for each other, and then we independently isolate human value by ranking humans in order of most value to least value, etc.
- mint2 2y agoI wouldn’t call it a western viewpoint, looking at environmental records around the world it’s clear that both “Eastern” and “Western” cultures are both highly capable of showing wanton disregard to nature. Let’s not go out of our way to find contrived differences.
- NathanKP 2y agoYou are correct, the nondualism prevalent in Eastern thinking is not mutually exclusive with wanton disregard of nature. I'm just suggesting that this idea of "intrinsically valuing nature means devaluing the human" requires a strong mental separation between the human and nature, and this way of thinking isn't quite the universal truth that the article makes it out to be.
- Log_out_ 2y agoBut human nature requires constant surplus bribery to not decay into cyclic warfare. Into which all cultures, living in harmony decayed down into. Japans warlords, chinas warlords and brutal starvations, the islanders ritualistic abortions by tribal warfare.. the harmony there had a horrible price.
- mint2 2y agoSure perhaps there’s some difference in prevalence but I’m not even sure of that. Believing humans transcended nature isn’t universal in western thought either - source: an American of Western European descent of a fairly typical background, I.e. me. For a larger group, anyone who cares about global warming is clearly showing they do not separate humans from nature. Sure on the other hand there are people who seem to believe humans are above nature, but it seems to be a fairly worldwide fallacy. Maybe some areas have a higher prevalence of the belief, but it’s nowhere near universal anywhere.
- sdw932 2y agoseparation between human and nature != humans are above nature or maybe more accurately: humans are above nature \subsetof separation between humans and nature There's a ton of people who care about global warming by thinking of humanity as a destructive plague on the innocent natural world. That's also a philosophy that hinges on separation between humans and nature.
- lukas099 2y agoIt's also a contradiction to say that valuing nature is nihilistic. At best, it's begging the question.