What Does Nature Mean to You
Phuong Pham (XP) Professor Sarah Mittlefehldt ELA 1000-07 Images of Nature Sept 11, 2011 Response Paper 2 What is nature? If “nature” is a term solely referring to physical matters viewed in their own existences, separate from those of others, then it shall be an inadequate definition to answer the question “what is nature? ”. Getting them to interact with one another and including the process of interrelations among those matters into the definition of “nature”, we still have an insufficient definition.
The missing component here, and the precise definition that truly reflects what nature really is, in my opinion, is the fundamental and consistent rules that shape and govern all processes occurring in the world. I consider the notion that nature is only living beings and lifeless objects – or physical matters for a more general term – a misconception. Nature indeed consists of those, yet that does not necessarily and accurately mean nature is a general term meant to represent and to address them.
As aforementioned, in my view, there are two intrinsic features of nature: fundamentality & consistency; therefore, if physical matters are testified under my conditions for something to be viewed as “nature”, they would inevitably fall out of the categories. Considering how immensely powerful the universe’s energy is, physical matters that exist are all subjected to changes and, to some extent, decays. Even the Sun, one of the largest and most potent celestial bodies so far known to human, scientifically has its finite longevity. “All compounded things are subject to decay. – said Buddha. The condition of consistency therefore has not been satisfied; physical matters, viewing alone in their own separate existence, could not be considered nature. Hence, I attempt to take one step further by bringing the physical matters into direct contact with each other, but the mere processes between the matters, once again, do not meet the requirement of fundamentality to become “nature”. The state of fundamentality is characterized as being basic, serving at the staring point from which others of the same kind could be developed into more sophisticated state.
Since such stage is basic, it also implies that there will be no other stage preceding it, no longer traceable back to any other simpler stage of existence. In a sense, the most fundamental processes are generalized so that they are applicable and identifiable to congruous but more specific processes. Take the chemical reactions for instances, when NaOH meets HCl, the two will react to each other, forming a chemical reaction and transformation that result in NaCl and H2O.
Claiming such a reaction is “fundamental” for chemical reactions would be impetuous: the process is in specific terms, regarding to specific substances. The process could serve to explain a more developed process of chemical reactions, but it fails to fit in the later condition of fundamentality – it cannot be traced into simpler stages. How to know if a simpler stage exists? Observing similar experiences, with substances similar with NaOH and HCl to check if the resulting substances are similar with NaCl and H2O would yield the possibility for the answer to the questions above.
To summarize, the processes between physical matters are not fundamental enough to be considered “nature”. Now that two steps above are not enough, we have to go one more step to analyze the rules that govern all the processes occurring in the world. That is what I define as nature. To simplify the relationship between matters, processes and fundamental rules, let me introduce them in the context of history. Traditionally, history has had fixed boundaries and focal points – period, countries, events, and people.
It also has had clear and firm notions of procedures: how one inquires into historical problems, how one presents and documents one’s findings, what constitutes admissible and adequate proof. However, there has been a revolution taking place in historical studies: where history once was primarily narrative, it is now entirely analytic. The old questions “what happened? ” and “how did it happen? ” have given way to the question “why did it happen? ”. The prominent method now is to answer the question “why”.
If “what happened? ” relates to the physical matters involved in certain events, and “how did it happen? ” relates to the processes of reaction between the matters, “why did it happen? ” tackles the fundamental processes that gave way to and resulted in the next stage of processes amongst matters. The new method is called psychohistory, as it derives its “facts” not from the records of events and consequences (process), but from a view of human nature that transcends history (fundamental rules).
Psychohistory denies to the past an integrity and will of its own, in which people acted out of a variety of motives and events had a multiplicity of causes and effects. It imposes upon the past the same determinism, the same fundamental rules, the same set of governing laws that it imposes upon present, thus robbing people and events of their individuality. The past and present are now connected into a single schema that it presumed to be true at all times and in all circumstances. Psychohistory itself makes a vivid and ample example for what I have been referring to: nature.
For closing thoughts, nature to me is neither, and has never been, the physical matters that exist in the universe which human’s sensory organs or mechanical device can detect, nor the relationships and the processes of reaction amongst them. The true nature is the set of processes that is fundamental and consistent, the kind of processes that serve as the general basis from which more sophisticated, developed and specific processes are built on, and to which such processes in higher stages can be traced back.
Psychohistory, as iconoclastic as it would be to traditional history, is what I often refer to as true “nature”. Dr. Hayes’ current interests “involve integrating the available science with appropriate economic concerns to encourage policies that weigh environmental and public health concerns more heavily”(1), which foster in me an ambition of learning further conceptions of nature – not only does in make us think about its definition but it also makes us ponder upon the connections amongst nature and other elements, other issues in this universe.
I am now major in Business with a minor in Economics and Dr. Hayes’s integration between nature conceptions and economic principles is definitely one of the most interesting realms that I wish to dig into and study further about it. Reference (1)Dr. Hayes’s bio on National Geographic http://www. pbs. org/strangedays/episodes/troubledwaters/experts/bio_hayes_tyrone. html
