We overload "nature" too. There's the physical universe, and also the local ecosystem; alternatively, it means the rules they operate by.
And there's "human nature", which can mean the ways we were designed to function (human nature to love your children), or the brokenness we suffer from (human nature to be selfish). For the Christian there's a new nature given as well.
And there's the "nature" of the expression of individual gifts and traits (a "natural-born storyteller") or expressions of training ("a natural-born killer").
So is a writer using "nature" to describe something common to all humans, or specific to this individual? Is it something built in, or thanks to training (marching towards the gunfire)? It makes a difference in what is changeable, or even what's good--and I see a lot of disagreement on that.
Until we learn to disaggregate these meanings, and quit playing motte and bailey with them, I guess we're stuck making sure we parse out how the writer is trying to use them.
FWIW, about 400 years ago a "natural" was an idiot.
2 comments:
Nature in Greek is physis (pr. "foo-sis"); it's the root of both "physics" and "physician," with all that implies for the wide division between hard science, the harder medical/chemical sciences, and 'social sciences' like psychology and sociology.
For Aristotle, as I was just talking about again this morning, there's a very significant difference between human "first nature" and "second nature." There are things we get from nature by being born human, like a long childhood of weakness and vulnerability in need of protection; there are things that become natural to us through upbringing and habit, until they are as much a part of us -- but they are more malleable, at least at first.
Grim:
And it's the same Proto-Indo-European root as "be" and "future".
Post a Comment