The title of this post connects the failure of philosophy in the management of the natural environment to a root cause. This post attempts to find out why application of philosophy has not been able to keep the natural environment intact- sustainably intact for that matter. That the natural environment is not intact is obvious. The Free Dictionary by Farlex tells me that intact means: remaining sound, entire, or uninjured; not impaired in anyway. Certainly, the natural environment is not in that state, more so now. The natural environment is plagued with extinctions, droughts, ever hotter temperatures, floods, cleaving icebergs, melting icebergs, rising sea levels etc. Indeed, some scientists are of the opinion that planet Earth is undergoing the Sixth Extinction, and that it is anthropogenic! Being anthropogenic, philosophy ought to be brought under scrutiny and the root cause determined. I do not see philosophy in itself failing, but I see the application of philosophy not panning out. To a large extent the failure of philosophy lies not in philosophy itself. Generally speaking, the failure of philosophy lies in its application. In this context philosophy as an application in the management of the natural environment. There some philosophies that are inherently flawed.
This post is going to look at the issue of failure of philosophy particularly within the contexts of Occidental philosophy and Oriental philosophy. Occidental philosophy is Western philosophy and Oriental philosophy is Eastern philosophy. In the West we have United States of America, United Kingdom, Germany, Greece etc., and in the East, we have China, Japan, South Korea etc. These philosophies have spawn and nurtured many a civilization to date! Many a time almost encircling and permeating all the world.
In looking at the failure issue, I going to attempt to determine the causes, and root cause of failure. Scientific or religious. My methodology: This post is going to take the philosophies one at a time and analyze them, and therefrom develop failure causes, and climatically the root cause. In this context failure is defined as the condition or fact of not achieving the desired end or ends. Failure may occur as a result of inherent flaws in the philosophy itself. Failure may occur as a result of the interpretation and understanding of the philosophy. Failure may occur as a result of how the philosophy is applied. All those may be causes of failure. They may be the means to the root cause. But then what is the cause of causes or the root cause?
OCCIDENTAL PHILOSOPHY
From my last post entitled “THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT- INCOMPATIBILITY OF PHILOSOPHIES”, I should extract a portion to help me do this section. That portion itself was culled from an Encyclopedia Britannica article (https://www.britannica.com/topic/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.
The issue of anthropocentrism, as defined within the context of the quotation, lies not in anthropocentrism itself (not cornucopian viewpoint). The quotation gives man the most superior place in the natural environment. And the quotation implies this philosophy is derived from the Bible- the Bible of Christianity. I see nothing wrong with that. If the Bible is the point of reference then we must also know that man was made out of dust (Genesis Chapter 2:7). Dust of the natural environment! And, guess what? Animals too were made out of dust! (Genesis 2:19).
In my country Ghana we are about 30 million souls. 30 million souls carved out of dust (by reproduction) and sustained biochemically (e.g. oxygen for breathing), yet it is only one soul out of the 30 million souls that leads the whole lot. The one so picked to lead the others is imbued with extraordinary powers to execute the functions of their leadership. If the leader were a monarch, the others should be subjects. All these souls, including the leader experience the same metabolic processes, yet one is placed over and above the others, so to speak. A leader is placed in leadership position not only to manage the led, inclusive of that leadership is the sourcing, tapping, processing and application of all resources (biotic and abiotic) within their domain, for the wellbeing of each and every constitute of the domain, individually and collectively, including the leader themselves. This is an analogue, of course, to explained the apparent mystery of the superiority of man over other creatures. My take is that man is both superior to and equal to other creatures in the natural environment, depending on how you look at it.
How is it that the issue with anthropocentrism lies not in anthropocentrism itself? That is defining anthropocentrism within the biblical context of “subdue” and “have dominion”. The issue is with how man is using the power that has been bestowed upon them! The issue lies with how the “subdue” and “have dominion” is being interpreted and applied! And there is even a root cause behind that issue. The authority bestowed on man is a bestowment from a superior being who is the Creator, Administrator and Provider with intention of sharing his attributes with man. More of that this later.
ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Oriental philosophy derives from fragments of religious beliefs in the East synthesize over time into major religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism etc.
In this section the main material to discuss is a paper titled “Chinese ecological pedagogy: humanity, nature, and education in the modern world” authored by Ruyu Hung and sourced from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2019.1572443. Ruyu Hung is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy of Education at the National Chiayi University, Taiwan. She was awarded Research Fellowships of Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association (2018) and Fulbright Senior Researcher Scholarship (2015/6). She was a visiting professor in Osaka University, Japan (2018), the University of Luxembourg (2013-4) and the University of Hawaii at Manoa (2016). Her research interests include broadening and enhancing the philosophy of education, regarding postmodern philosophy, phenomenology, and ecological philosophy. The material follows:
‘Tien-rén-hé-yi’ (天人合一) (‘the harmony between humanity and nature’) is a core idea in Chinese traditional culture. We will find several hundred thousand papers on this theme if ‘tien-rén-hé-yi’ is used as a keyword. Chinese thought is taken as comprising environmentally friendly doctrines and values, yet the current environmental problems in modern China paradoxically cast doubt on the age-old belief. There is a call for deeper reflection on the meanings of the concepts taken for granted, concepts such as ‘harmony’, ‘humanity’, and ‘nature’. What is the value of nature from the perspective of Chinese thought? What is the moral status of nature and nonhuman beings in Chinese tradition? Is the archaic idea of the harmony between humanity and nature viable in modern societies characterised by digital technologies, capitalist marketisation, and globalisation? For philosophers of education in Chinese heritage societies, it is compelling to examine, criticise, interpret, reinterpret, deconstruct, or reconstruct Chinese philosophy of education with respect to nature and environmental issues in light of the impact of modern technologies. This special issue as a response to the call provides a forum for developing a Chinese educational philosophy envisioning ecological pedagogy—ecopedagogy.
The phrase of ‘tien-rén-hé-yi’(天人合一) is the most widely known tagline of Chinese ecological philosophy. Although ‘tien-rén-hé-yi’(天人合一)is usually translated as ‘the harmony between humanity and nature’, there are nuances implied in different uses of the word of ‘tien’ or nature. There are several meanings of ‘tien’. Youlan Feng (1983) identified five meanings of ‘tien’: (1) a material or physical ‘tien’ or sky; (2) a ruling or presiding ‘tien’, which is anthropomorphic god; (3) a fatalistic ‘tien’, which is similar to fate; (4) a naturalistic ‘tien’ that is equivalent to nature; and (5) an ethical ‘tien’, which means the moral principle.
I have a slightly different opinion about the five uses of ‘tien’ as identified by Youlan Feng (1983). First, the word ‘tien’ literally means ‘the heaven’ or ‘the sky’. It is the opposite of the earth. Second, ‘tien’ also denotes ‘the god’ or ‘gods’. In Chinese, ‘tien’ is often associated with the word ‘shén’ (神, god) in two-character terms like ‘tien-shén’ or ‘shàn-tien’ (上天, high above gods).Third, ‘tien’ is used in the term ‘tien-xìa’ (天下, under the heavens) to denote the physical world. Fourth, ‘tien’ is used in the term of ‘tien-dào’ (天道, the way of ‘tien’), or ‘tien-mìng’ (天命, the decree of ‘tien’). Either implies the meanings of the truth or the order of the heaven/nature. The fourth use of the word ‘tien’ shares a common meaning with the fifth use, which is ‘tien’ to indicate ‘nature’ or ‘the natural order’. The word ‘tien’ in the Analects is often used to indicate something that is greater than human beings (Legge, 1861). It does not speak to command or influence upon humankind. Human beings can only know about the ‘tien’ or the will of ‘tien’ by becoming aware of the transformation and motion of every living or nonliving being in the world. ‘Tien’ in this sense is nearly synonymous with ‘nature’. Many passages about ‘tien’ as nature can be found in the Analects. Confucius and his disciples mention ‘tien’ on many occasions. In the Analects, ‘tien’ is often mentioned as referring to the existence or state of an entity or process that is beyond human control.
Why Tien-rén-hé-yi? Before the answer comes be informed that tien-rén-hé-yi is sometimes spelt tian-ren-he-yi. The answer comes from an abstract from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10490-015-9448-6 thus:
Research on the business-environment dilemma has traditionally focused on strategies based on isolated, either/or mindsets, such as economically-oriented and environmentally-oriented strategies. Drawing on the cultural, philosophical, and intellectual traditions of China, we sketch the contours of a new holism-based strategic mindset, which results in a tian-ren-he-yi strategy. As an Eastern perspective, tian-ren-he-yi means “nature and mankind combined as one” or “nature-human harmony.” We leverage both qualitative and quantitative investigations to first identify the underlying mechanisms connecting tian-ren-he-yi strategy and firm performance, and then to compare the performance-enhancing potential of tian-ren-he-yi strategy with the two strategies based on the isolated mindset. Our analysis shows that when managing the business-environment dilemma, tian-ren-he-yi strategy has stronger performance-enhancing potential than either economically-oriented or environmentally-oriented strategies.
Tien-rén-hé-yi philosophy, an Eastern perspective, is a philosophy that sees man and nature as one. It seeks harmony between man and nature. It seeks a holistic approach to the environmental problem drawing on cultural, intellectual and philosophical traditions of China. Drawing on traditions of China implies a rethink and reengineering of those traditions to regenerate relevant strategies to face new environmental challenges that were not prevalent in times past. Challenges of anthropogenic climate change etc. The philosophy behind the Tien-rén-hé-yi philosophy shows that there is a friction between man and nature! In that the philosophy seeks harmony between man and nature. A breach the philosophy intends solving. Even though the philosophy says man and nature are one, the phrase “man and nature” implies a distinction and differentiation between man and nature! Is that not a hint of anthropogenic hegemony? In the oriental philosophy, there is no clear-cut link between God and man in connection with the “subdue” and “have dominion” over the natural environment, as it is in the occidental philosophy. However, there is inference to god and gods. Nature in this section is used interchangeably with natural environment.
NEITHER EAST NOR WEST
Philosophies of neither East nor West has succeeded in the management of the natural environment, and consequently sustaining the intactness of the natural environment. The emergence of environmental philosophy in itself is a sign of the degradation of the natural environment. It is a rude awakening to the world regarding the mess the natural environment has degenerated into! It seeks to reverse the trend that is leading to that degeneration.
Whether an environmental philosophy is inspired, authorized, mandated or bestowed by God, gods or man, for man, the state of the natural environment now manifests the failure of philosophy to the extent that the natural environment is not as desirable as it should be. Cosmocidally undesirable. Philosophy has failed in that sense. Neither East nor West has the philosophy to do it! As I pen this post a Japanese- owned oil carrier has sunk in the waters of Mauritius spilling oil into the waters- estimated 1000 tons. Canada’s 4000-year-old Milne Ice Shelf has broken apart, the reason, melting from both hotter air above and warmer water below. It is believed this occurred between July 30 and 31.
The East contains countries like China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, India etc. These are top economic power houses. China is number two, and Japan is number three in world economic ratings. They all tap resources from the natural environment to engineer and craft their economies, not for the benefit of themselves only, but the rest of the world too. The hp laptop I am using to type this post is made in China, and I am typing in Ghana, West Africa, about 7000 miles apart by air. China, as an example, taps resources from around the world to manufacture products for consumption of the world.
In extracting raw materials from the natural environment to build economies the intactness of the natural environment is disturbed. In extracting raw materials from the natural environment to manufacture goods to please our sensual needs, has the oriental environmental philosophy, which in itself is good, been properly applied?
Of course not!
A CBS article through https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-china-lockdown-over-air-pollution-already-spiking-industry-dirty-economic-rebound/ says:
Air pollution in China has already bounced back from astounding lows during the country's coronavirus shutdown to monthly levels exceeding those recorded during the same period last year, data show. Chinese government figures confirm a spike in April, which the Finland-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) warns could herald the beginning of a "dirty" economic rebound from the crisis in China.
"Air pollutant levels plummeted during the national lockdown in February, bottomed out in early March and have now overshot their pre-crisis levels," CREA said in a study released this week. While the organization said the return of some pollution was expected, but "what's not obvious is whether air pollution will overshoot pre-crisis levels, especially when many economic sectors are still reeling. Such an overshoot would signify a 'dirty' recovery in which the more highly polluting sectors are leading."
This clearly violates the Tien-rén-hé-yi “holism-based strategic mindset”. Also, it is not in harmony with the philosophy of “harmony between humanity and nature”.
In the West there are countries like United States of America, Germany, France, U.K., Spain, Canada etc. The United States of America is the number one economy in the world. Germany is the number four economy in the world. These countries from the West also tap resources from the natural environment around the world to run their economies for the benefit of the world at large. United States of America contributes a lot financially in the running of the United Nations Organization. Where does the United States get its money from? From its economy which derives raw materials from the natural environment.
However, in tapping resources from the natural environment, the West like the East, leaves in its trail destruction. The intactness of the natural environment is compromised.
An occidental philosophy behind the tapping of resources of the natural environment is the cornucopian philosophy. A cornucopian viewpoint “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.”
The philosophy is an example of a philosophy with inherent flaws. It clearly allows for unbridled exploitation of the natural environment. It espouses the belief that the resources of the natural environment cannot be exhausted. Such philosophies undermine the philosophy of sustainability. It makes the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals program look like an exercise in futility.
This cornucopian philosophy is a recipe for the mismanagement of the natural environment.
The president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, does not believe in anthropogenic climate change. The cornucopian philosophy ties in with the president’s position. A consequence of that position is the withdrawal of the United States from climate change conferences (COP 21) under the aegis of the United Nations.
I am using the United States as an example for countries of the occidental philosophy.
Both the philosophy of divine origin and the cornucopian one, comprising the occidental philosophy as a whole, as presented in this post, in application, have resulted in a natural environment staggering under extinction. Mismanagement of the natural environment.
Neither East nor West. Neither oriental nor occidental. Neither of the philosophies is yielding the desired result. Either philosophy has resulted in the mismanagement of the natural environment. Environmental philosophy as a whole is experiencing failure! Environmental philosophy as a whole is experiencing failure notwithstanding upsurge in efforts and trends in sustainability, renewables, recycling, organics etc.
Why is man failing try as they do? With even a divinely (God) inspired environmental philosophy man is failing? Why is it that man with their own good environmental philosophy cannot make the desired impact? Why is it that man with such a great mind will ideate an inherently-flawed environmental philosophy?
I have said that failure of an environmental philosophy may be due to the way it is implemented. I have said that the failure of an environmental philosophy may be due to the way it is interpreted and/or understood. I have said that an environmental philosophy may be inherently flawed. Those are means to an end, not end in themselves. You may say they are causes of failure. But then what is the root cause? What then is the cause behind the means? What then is the cause behind the failure of environmental philosophy- the fundamental cause? The next section handles those matters.
HUMAN NATURE
However an environmental philosophy is created, man is at the center of it. Animals cannot ideate and develop environmental philosophies. Plants cannot come up with environmental philosophies. Stones cannot innovate environmental philosophies. Soil cannot generate environmental philosophies. Air cannot formulate environmental philosophies. Water cannot devise an environmental philosophy. Yet all of them, like man, are constituents of the natural environment of planet Earth. Man naturally find themselves placed in a position to manage the natural environment. Even without giving it a divine perspective it is clear that man is the in-charge! In a quarter final match in the 2020 UEFA Championship, Bayern Munich of Germany thrashed Barcelona of Spain 8-2. For this reason, the Barcelona coach was sacked! Why? Because the coach who was the manager of the team, was expected to have done far better. The loss in match was as a result of mismanagement. The same with man, being the manager of the natural environment, if the natural environment is in a mess, it stands to reason that man should be held responsible.
The cause of the failure of environmental philosophy in the management of the natural environment is therefore man. More specifically something in man called human nature! Human nature is the root cause of the failure of philosophy in the management of the natural environment!
Wikipedia through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature attempts definition of human nature as: “Human nature is a concept that denotes the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally.[1][2][3][4] The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind, or what it 'means' to be human. This usage has proven to be controversial in that there is dispute as to whether or not such an essence actually exists.
Arguments about human nature have been a central focus of philosophy for centuries and the concept continues to provoke lively philosophical debate.[5][6][7] While both concepts are distinct from one another, discussions regarding human nature are typically related to those regarding the comparative importance of genes and environment in human development (i.e., 'nature versus nurture'). Accordingly, the concept also continues to play a role in fields of science, such as neuroscience, psychology, and social science (such as sociology), in which various theorists claim to have yielded insight into human nature.[8][9][10][11] Human nature is traditionally contrasted with human attributes that vary among societies, such as those associated with specific cultures.”
Human nature though related to fundamental disposition and characteristics of humans, it is not natural but acquired! We must go to the origin of human nature. Human nature must be the easy and compelling tendency to do that which is not good. How did man acquire the tendency of doing evil. An example is how man is running down the natural environment.
This post derives thoughts on human nature from a biblical worldview. The source of the origin of human nature could be found in the Christian Bible. Specifically, Genesis the first book of the bible. God created man and woman and placed them in the garden of Eden (planet Earth). God gave them instructions (particularly Adam the man) on lifestyle. God put in man (man’s spirit/mind) the ability to make choices (volition). All biblical quotations are sourced from the NIV.
In Genesis 2: 15-17:
15. The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work and take care of it.
16. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
17. but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
The stage is set, as it were, for man, out of volition, to make a choice! With implications for either a well-managed natural environment or a mismanaged natural environment.
Genesis 3: 1-7:
1.Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God has made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the Garden’?
2. The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
3. but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it or you will die.’ “
4. “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman.
5. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6. When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
7. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
The consequences of the event on the relationship between man and the natural environment as pronounced by God can be found in Genesis 3: 17- 18 as follows:
17. To Adam he said, because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, you must not eat of it, cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18.It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat plants of the field.
Through these passages one realizes that at the prompting of Satan(serpent) the woman disobeyed God, and obeyed Satan, and did what she should not have done. After eating the fruit, he gave it to her husband Adam, who should have known better, who also ate it.
Thereby, the nature of man changed (Adam and Eve). Man came to know what was good and what was evil. Man was all innocence before then. Man came to know what was good but was not able to do what is good, by God’s standard. Man came to know evil and was able to do evil because they obeyed Satan rather than God. And that is the origin of human nature! Satan, one of three archangels mentioned in the bible, infected man with his nature! The dominoes effect of that nature, as acquired by man (Adam and Eve), is what you and I have in us today, as human nature! Satan, created Lucifer by God rebelled against God, what he did with Eve was a continuation of the rebellion.
The tendency of man to do evil rather than what is good was acquired 4004 BC or so, and for posterity! Human nature had been acquired, and for posterity!
Because of the newly acquired nature, acquired through disobedience to God, the ground (the natural environment) was CURSED! The natural environment meant to be a blessing became a curse! The relationship between man and God changed. The relationship between man and the natural environment changed.
The relationship between man, God and the natural environment are inextricably linked by philosophy. God’s philosophy says do not touch this particular tree. Satan’s philosophy says touch that particular tree God says not to touch.
If you buy a Mercedes Benz saloon car, a relationship between you the buyer, the manufacturer of the car, and the car itself starts. The manufacturer gives you the buyer instructions as to how to use the car you have bought so as to maintain a smooth relationship between the three parties. If along the line someone pops up to tell you the buyer to use the car other than how you have been instructed by the manufacturer to do, what do you think should happen? You should end up wrecking the car and breeching the relationship between the three parties! That is what is happening between God the manufacturer, man the user, and the natural environment the product.
Human nature is negative, not positive.
Human nature is acquired, not natural!
Human nature is a spiritual stuff, a stuff not for science to dabble in!
The acts of the newly acquired nature of man (human nature) are listed in Galatians 5: 19-20 thus:
19. The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
20. idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, faction and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.
Now that you know how human nature is manifested as analyzed in Galatians 5, it should be clear to you what drives man to act, including the formulation of philosophies with which the natural environment is managed, or rather mismanaged.
It is through human nature that man “subdue” and “have dominion” over the natural environment even though such authority was bestowed upon man by God.
It is through human nature that man has conceived, engineered and built human civilizations.
The result of managing the natural environment through human nature is the situation man find themselves in to date!
The philosophy that can eliminate human nature, the root cause of the failure of philosophy in the management of the natural environment, is the philosophy through which the natural environment can be managed successfully.
CONCLUSION
This post sought to determine the root cause of the failure of philosophy in the management of the natural environment. Mainly Oriental philosophy and Occidental philosophy.
That the natural environment is being mismanaged by misapplication of even divine inspired environmental philosophies, man-made philosophies, inherently-flawed philosophies is self-evident. Many a cutting-edge climate scientist are agreed that the natural environment is in bad shape. It does not even take cutting-edge climate scientists to know that something is wrong with the natural environment. From far-flung areas around the world complaints of erratic seasons are voiced. There are complaints of deterioration of the natural environment. An example is cleaving icebergs. It is so grave some are of the thinking that planet Earth, for that matter the natural environment is undergoing 6th Extinction.
Almost all are agreed that the mismanaged state of the natural environment is anthropogenic. Anthropogenic means it is the doing of man that has brought the natural environment to its current state.
If man is the cause of the state the natural environment finds itself in, then the onus lies on man, one may say, to find the cure the natural environment needs. It is not as if man is not raising instruments to find the cure. This post focused mainly on the instrumentalities of Oriental and Occidental philosophies. Instrumentalities drawn from divine inspiration. Instrumentalities drawn from inspiration of gods. Instrumentalities conceived in the mind of man. Why is it these philosophies are not efficacious?
This post concludes that neither Oriental philosophy nor Occidental philosophy, for that matter any other philosophy the world is offering now, is efficacious in the management of the natural environment because of human nature, as a root cause. Human nature because it constrains man from doing that which is good, but it encourages and facilitates the doing of evil in man.
Comments
Post a Comment