 |
| Image of Socrates- Philosopher |
― Albert Einstein
The foregoing quotation by Albert Einstein tells us that there is dysfunction in the relationship between man and the natural environment. The quotation tells us that man is full of themselves apart from the rest of the natural environment, even though obviously, the very biochemical self of man is inextricably derived from, and sustained by the natural environment. The quotation says that self-centeredness that man feels is “a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness”.
Is there then a supposition that there is incompatibility between the philosophy of man and the environmental philosophy? Is man conducting (conducts are based on principles or philosophies) themselves in ways that are in conflict with the principles and natural laws that hold and keep the natural environment in balance and sustenance? Is there a clash of philosophies resulting in the separation Albert Einstein is referring to, and the need for “widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty?
Let us delve into philosophy to develop a background.
PHILOSOPHY
To develop a broad background, as a gambit, I am looking at philosophy in broad terms here.
And from Wikipedia I appraise ourselves of the meaning and usage of the term philosophy:
The word Philosophy is derived from two Greek words; Philo meaning love and Sophia meaning wisdom. In general, it means love of wisdom. Philosophy is a broad field of knowledge in which the definition of knowledge itself is one of the subjects investigated. It spans the nature of the universe, the mind, and the body; the relationships between all three, and between people. Philosophy is a field of inquiry – the pursuit of wisdom; the predecessor and complement of science, developing the issues which underlie science and pondering those questions which are beyond the scope of science.
The essence of philosophy is the study and development of fundamental ideas and methods that are not adequately addressed in specialized empirical disciplines, such as physics or history. As such, philosophy provides the foundations upon which all belief structures and fields of knowledge are built. It is responsible for the definitions of, and the approaches used to develop the theories of, such diverse fields as religion, language, science, law, psychology, mathematics, and politics. It also examines and develops its own structure and procedures, and when it does so is called metaphilosophy: the philosophy of philosophy.
Philosophy has a rich literary heritage, including the writings and teachings of profound thinkers from many cultures throughout history. Philosophers seek to understand the principles that underlie all knowledge and being. For this purpose, they develop methods of thinking, including logic, introspection, and meditation. Applying these methods, they investigate the most fundamental questions, such as "What is the nature of the universe?" (metaphysics), "What do we know, and how do we know it?" (epistemology), "What is the difference between good and evil?" (ethics), "What is beauty?" (aesthetics), and "What is the meaning of life?" (teleology).
Looking at philosophy in broad terms, we gather that philosophy is universally all embracing, inclusive, interrelated and interconnective. To my mind all philosophies must be on a harmonious wavelength so as to, for example avoid the separation between man and the universe (natural environment) Albert Einstein is talking about. You may be wondering how such harmonious wavelength could be achieved within such a mindbogglingly vast expanse such as the universe? Well the universe as a whole needs it if it is to hold its own! More so for man who forgets they must live their lives in subjection to the natural environment as it is the only place in which they can survive! NOWHERE ELSE!
NATURAL PHILOSOPHY
This section attempts to narrow down philosophy to the study of nature (natural philosophy), and its evolution into natural science, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy gives some depth to the attempt.
Natural philosophy or philosophy of nature (from Latin philosophia naturalis) was the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural science.
From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, natural philosophy was the common term for the practice of studying nature. It was in the 19th century that the concept of "science" received its modern shape with new titles emerging such as "biology" and "biologist", "physics" and "physicist" among other technical fields and titles; institutions and communities were founded, and unprecedented applications to and interactions with other aspects of society and culture occurred.[1] Isaac Newton's book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), whose title translates to "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", reflects the then-current use of the words "natural philosophy", akin to "systematic study of nature". Even in the 19th century, a treatise by Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait, which helped define much of modern physics, was titled Treatise on Natural Philosophy (1867).
In the German tradition, Naturphilosophie (philosophy of nature) persisted into the 18th and 19th century as an attempt to achieve a speculative unity of nature and spirit. Some of the greatest names in German philosophy are associated with this movement, including Goethe, Hegel and Schelling. Naturphilosophie was associated with Romanticism and a view that regarded the natural world as a kind of giant organism, as opposed to the philosophical approach of figures such as John Locke and Isaac Newton who espoused a more mechanical view of the world, regarding it as being like a machine.
In the 14th and 15th centuries, natural philosophy was one of many branches of philosophy, but was not a specialized field of study. The first person appointed as a specialist in Natural Philosophy per se was Jacopo Zabarella, at the University of Padua in 1577.
Modern meanings of the terms science and scientists date only to the 19th century. Before that, science was a synonym for knowledge or study, in keeping with its Latin origin. The term gained its modern meaning when experimental science and the scientific method became a specialized branch of study apart from natural philosophy.[2]
From the mid-19th century, when it became increasingly unusual for scientists to contribute to both physics and chemistry, "natural philosophy" came to mean just physics, and the word is still used in that sense in degree titles at the University of Oxford.[citation needed] In general, chairs of Natural Philosophy established long ago at the oldest universities are nowadays occupied mainly by physics professors. Isaac Newton's book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), whose title translates to "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", reflects the then-current use of the words "natural philosophy", akin to "systematic study of nature". Even in the 19th century, a treatise by Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait, which helped define much of modern physics, was titled Treatise on Natural Philosophy (1867).
Greek philosophers defined it as the combination of beings living in the universe, ignoring things made by humans.[3] The other definition refers to human nature.[3]
ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHY
This philosophy places the focus on man and how they relate to the natural environment. A hint that it was getting to man that their philosophies were not compatible with the philosophies of the natural environment. The principles that inspire and motivate the activities of man in the natural environment is not in harmony with the laws of nature! For example, the unbridled drive for profit through man’s activities outweighs the harm those activities will cause the natural environment, thus separating man from the natural environment.
From the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_philosophy I further the discussion.
Environmental philosophy is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the natural environment and humans' place within it.[1] It asks crucial questions about human environmental relations such as "What do we mean when we talk about nature?" "What is the value of the natural, that is non-human environment to us, or in itself?" "How should we respond to environmental challenges such as environmental degradation, pollution and climate change?" "How can we best understand the relationship between the natural world and human technology and development?" and "What is our place in the natural world?" Environmental philosophy includes environmental ethics, environmental aesthetics, ecofeminism, environmental hermeneutics, and environmental theology.[2] Some of the main areas of interest for environmental philosophers are:
Defining environment and nature
How to value the environment
Moral status of animals and plants
Endangered species
Environmentalism and Deep Ecology
Aesthetic value of nature
Intrinsic value
Wilderness
Restoration of nature
Consideration of future generations
Environmental philosophy emerged as a branch of philosophy in 1970s. Early environmental philosophers include Richard Routley, Arne Næss, and J. Baird Callicott. The movement was an attempt to connect with humanity's sense of alienation from nature in a continuing fashion throughout history.[4] This was very closely related to the development at the same time of ecofeminism, an intersecting discipline. Since then its areas of concern have expanded significantly.
MAN’S PHILOSOPHY
This section looks at philosophy of man with its incompatibility with the environmental philosophy. Albert Einstein in the quotation that opens this post points out to “a kind of optical delusion” in the “consciousness” of man. What is it in man that causes them to think they are not part of the natural environment, yet depending on it biochemically, completely?
Through the link https://www.britannica.com/topic/anthropocentrism there is an attempt at explanation. That philosophy of man is described here as anthropocentrism.
Anthropocentrism, philosophical viewpoint arguing that human beings are the central or most significant entities in the world. This is a basic belief embedded in many Western religions and philosophies. Anthropocentrism regards humans as separate from and superior to nature and holds that human life has intrinsic value while other entities (including animals, plants, mineral resources, and so on) are resources that may justifiably be exploited for the benefit of humankind.
Many ethicists find the roots of anthropocentrism in the Creation story told in the book of Genesis in the Judeo-Christian Bible, in which humans are created in the image of God and are instructed to “subdue” Earth and to “have dominion” over all other living creatures. This passage has been interpreted as an indication of humanity’s superiority to nature and as condoning an instrumental view of nature, where the natural world has value only as it benefits humankind. This line of thought is not limited to Jewish and Christian theology and can be found in Aristotle’s Politics and in Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy.
Some anthropocentric philosophers support a so-called cornucopian point of view, which rejects claims that Earth’s resources are limited or that unchecked human population growth will exceed the carrying capacity of Earth and result in wars and famines as resources become scarce. Cornucopian philosophers argue that either the projections of resource limitations and population growth are exaggerated or that technology will be developed as necessary to solve future problems of scarcity. In either case, they see no moral or practical need for legal controls to protect the natural environment or limit its exploitation.
INCOMPATIBILITY
Albert Einstein noted in his time that there was something wrong in the relationship between man and the natural environment. He noted that the philosophy underpinning man’s activities is not compatible with environmental philosophy!
The emergence of environmental philosophy in the 70s for me, signifies the crescendo of concerns man themselves have been raising all along in connection with how they relate to the natural environment. The consequences of the philosophies man had been pursuing were becoming more obvious.
Let us look at one such philosophy. The complaint that the release of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a major contributor to global warming is a major concern. However, there are some who philosophizes that the more carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere the better because plants will use it in the process of photosynthesis, with oxygen as by product!
It may then be said that, no wonder the mean temperature of planet Earth keep getting warmer. But then the “more carbon” philosophy is buttressed by yet another philosophy. The philosophy that the current global warming, held by many as the cause of climate change, is caused mainly by the radiation of the sun. Not anthropogenic greenhouse gases!
From the section “Man’s Philosophy” let me requote a portion, showing how incompatible man’s philosophy is with the environmental philosophy:
“Some anthropocentric philosophers support a so-called cornucopian point of view, which rejects claims that Earth’s resources are limited or that unchecked human population growth will exceed the carrying capacity of Earth and result in wars and famines as resources become scarce. Cornucopian philosophers argue that either the projections of resource limitations and population growth are exaggerated or that technology will be developed as necessary to solve future problems of scarcity. In either case, they see no moral or practical need for legal controls to protect the natural environment or limit its exploitation.”
Man was not only to “subdue” and “have dominion” over the natural environment, he was also “to dress it and to keep it” (Genesis chapter 2 verse 15).
SYNCING PHILOSOPHIES
That the philosophy of man is not compatible with environmental philosophy is clear, not only as far as this post goes, but also as common knowledge. That our river bodies are filled with waste is known by artisanal fishermen in remotest areas on the planet.
Notwithstanding the failure of man in managing the natural environment, man is yet the smartest constituent of the natural environment. Take, for example, dams built by man and beaver, and compare them. Man’s output in that regard is far superior to that of the beaver!
It is the mind of man that is their greatest asset. Man conceives and engineers philosophies for themselves. The natural environment by itself cannot conceive and engineer philosophies for itself. Man studies the natural environment to learn how it functions and thereby derive philosophies for the natural environment.
On page 44 of the January 1970 edition of the Plain Truth, Robert Kuhn, a scientist, researching into the human brain as compared with animal brain said: “Man thinks. At least he thinks that he thinks. But he knows. And he knows that he knows. Man is indeed unique: No other physical being is creatively self-conscious, nor can any other ponder the transcendental questions of life, death and ultimate purpose.”
Again, Robert Kuhn, on page 46 of the same edition of the Plain Truth on the same subject said: “But who could honestly say that man differs only quantitatively from chimp? Who but man possesses the awareness of ecstasy the ecstasy of love, the love of beauty, the beauty of accomplishment, the accomplishment of inspiration, the inspiration of creativity, the creativity of wisdom, the wisdom of humility, the humility of humor, and the humor of himself? Man stands apart- a distinct creation.”
Yet man is the one creature in the whole of the natural environment who has upset the natural environment the most. Overwhelming majority of climate scientists are agreed that the ongoing climate change is anthropogenic. In other words, climate change is as a result of the negative activities of man.
Here one notices a dichotomy in the mentality of man! Man, through their awesome ability have created amazing things using resources the natural environment provides, yet through the activities of the same man mindboggling destruction has afflicted the natural environment.
Man needs and depends on the natural environment to sustain life. Indeed, all constituents of the natural environment need the natural environment to sustain life and existence. The problem is that man has failed to use the resources of the natural environment for their wellbeing without destroying it.
For man to use the resources of the natural environment without breeching the balance it requires to be intact and functioning well to sustain life and existence, then the philosophy of man must be in sync with the environmental philosophy. It is the philosophy of the natural environment that keeps its components coordinated, whole, intact and functioning well.
Man ought not to only “subdue” and have “dominion” over the natural environment, they ought to “dress it and keep it” too. That way the separation between man and the natural environment should be bridged, and compatibility achieved.
CONCLUSION
In looking at the term philosophy, I deployed a definition from Wikipedia. The definition shows how broad, fundamental and all-encompassing the term is. It encompasses the universe itself. It is about knowing everything knowable. The universe is made up of many parts. Planet Earth is a microcosm of the universe. Planet Earth itself is made up of components, living and nonliving. The natural environment is a part of planet Earth. All these are meant to be preserved and sustained by philosophies- individually and collectively. When the philosophies relating to the individuals gel, and gel into the collective, then the whole attains balance, preservation and sustenance.
Man, as part of the natural environment have coined their own selfish philosophies which place them above the natural environment. This is what Albert Einstein says is a separation. The philosophies of man create a gap between the philosophies that hold the natural environment and man. Under “Man’s Philosophy” in this post, I requote such a philosophy: “Anthropocentrism regards humans as separate from and superior to nature and holds that human life has intrinsic value while other entities (including animals, plants, mineral resources, and so on) are resources that may justifiably be exploited for the benefit of humankind.”
The result of that philosophy is the state planet Earth finds itself in today- global warming, climate change, extinctions, perhaps sixth extinction, etc. The philosophy of man is not compatible with the philosophy of the natural environment. Man’s divine authority to “subdue” and “have dominion” over the natural environment must not be misconstrued to mean exploitation.
The authority to “subdue” and “have dominion” must go in tandem with the responsibility to “dress it and keep it”.
Ref.:
Comments
Post a Comment