Talk:Nature (philosophy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This discussion copied to here from Talk:Philosophy of nature, which now redirects to here. ... Kenosis 01:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 new article, but lots of over-laps? 1.1 Lots of comments 2 A new look 3 Sources and History

[edit] new article, but lots of over-laps?

Should this be merged with Natural Philosophy? Or, perhaps to keep the distinction, this new article should be re-named Nature (Philosophy)?--Andrew Lancaster 15:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a re-delegation of content, or renaming of some kind. Previously content was removed by ScienceApologist and this article was made into a redirect. I think all this should be patiently clarified as to what these topics mean, or say, and should be delegated accordingly. Right now Natural Philosophy is approximately on the right track, meaning that it speaks to what is commonly understood as natural philosophy by persons knowledgeable in this area. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Macmillan,1967 8-vol. set & supp (1996) has a fairly good article on "Nature, Philosophical Ideas of", for example. So it's a valid topic in its own right as differentiated from "natural philosophy". I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting a new page titled Nature (philosophy) to here, or vice-versa. ... Kenosis 16:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how do it, but can you change this article to "Nature (Philosophy)"?--Andrew Lancaster 14:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Andrew. Insofar as there can quite legitimately be separate topic forks on Nature, Philosophy of nature, Nature (philosophy) and Natural philosophy, this can readily be done for the present, making adaptations as the content develops. I want to make an NPOV cautionary note here, being familiar with the basic debate within philosophy and the history of it. Andrew, you have been taking a very stong POV slant on the topic which is an a priori bias. It will not stand up ultimately, unless balanced in the context of the debate between Plato and Aristotle, between the late neo-Platonic and Aristotlean a posteriori thinkers such as Ibn Rushd and Aquinas, between the continental rationalists and empiricists, and so forth. Please also recall that there are two additional cardinal rules on WP, which are WP:VER and WP:NOR. Many of the edits you've offered, some of which can still be readily seen in the content of Philosophy of nature, are musings and synthetic ideas that are unsourced and plainly are attempts to superimpose an idea of the a-priori forms on concepts for which those who developed the concepts had abandoned the Platonic ideas, such as in your repeated references to "forms" in direct relationship to "modern science". The solution to the a-priori/a-posteriori dilemma requires an understanding of obscure thinkers like Kant, deSaussure, Peirce and others to sort it out, and indeed this debate is still not settled today, But please don't impose this POV on the content of "nature"-related articles, because what you've been putting forth here just ain't so, and it is extremely apparent that you'll need to dig in with more research of your own and get a more well-developed handle on that ongoing debate through the many centuries and respect both "sides" of it. So I definitely would look forward to seeing your offerings to WP based on that anticipated growth of your own knowledge on the general subject area of history of philosophy. But, heck, I'm just one editor here-- just happen to be dwelling around these parts of WP presently. ... Kenosis 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Which part of the content do you propose to move over to Nature (philosophy)? ... Kenosis 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the entire content over to Nature (philosophy) and made this into a redirect for the present. ... Kenosis 01:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of comments

Argh!! Exactly what "nature" means, and what the natural/supernatural distinction is supposed to be is a huge source of contention, and has been a problem on many other wikipedia pages. You need citations, citations, citations, and beware of POV. Even within the Naturalist camp you can get into lots of fine distinction trouble. Is it all of the physical universe or just the "directly observable" parts? Are you denying confirmational holism as part of the definition of natural? Bmorton3 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)~

What is explained in the article is that modern science emphasizes the importance of direct observation. I do not see the article you mention as disagreeing with this, but only adding something to the complexity? Am I missing something?Andrew Lancaster 10:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Second the philosophical meaning of nature as the set of essential properties needs to be given its own space somehow. It is not connected to the second meaning, plants, animals, and even God has a nature in this sense in medieval philosophy. Bmorton3 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Before splitting the article please note the history of this article and other related ones: basically, this aricle is already split off from Nature and it still retains some reference to other meanings. The reason I think me and others have been cautious at this point is because the article has to be coherant. What I found was that as soon as we removed references to "the second meaning" complaints increased. By the way it is connected of course. Andrew Lancaster 10:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the history of the term nature among the ancient Greeks what term are you thinking of in the first paragraph for the "ways" of thing? Physis? Nomos? Cosmos? The Ancient Greeks had nothing like the English term Nature, they used a variety of different terms for different tasks. Again you need some citations. The Greeks didn't all think that physis was a pre-existing guide to natural changes. Heraclitus denies this (logos does that job), as does Pythagoras (its the job of harmony to establish the design of the cosmos). I'll bet I could find other early Greek dissenters. Bmorton3 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Physis is the Greek word for nature, but Heracleitus obviously used his term logos in a very special way. This does not mean he disagrees that there is a nature. I suggest you improve the article on logos. That the meaning of "nature" or physis has changed over time, and has indeed always involved debate, is of course explained in the article already, but it seems very fundamentally wrong to suggest that physis is not the Greek word for nature. There is a steady history from the first discussions to the modern ones. As to your last claim, please find the dissenters if you can. At last the main stream of Greek philosophers and authors used the term in one way, and that is all the article means to suggest?Andrew Lancaster 10:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your history of nature jumps from Plato to modernity without intervention? Anything on other cultures? Confucius and Mozi? Nyaya? Vaiveshika? Carvaka? The Western Medievals? The Muslims? Roger Bacon? Renessainse and Enlightenment? Look carefully at the History of Science page and the Scientific Revolution page. Bmorton3 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

RE "Your history of nature jumps from Plato to modernity without intervention?": Agreed. There is a great deal of work to be done here to go from Bacon's peculiar Platonism through to modernity. ... Kenosis 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Eastern alternatives to the concept of Nature can be linked to, instead of filling this article. Roger Bacon and other medievals took the classical position concerning nature. If they are relevent, it is in the way that their monotheism sharpened the surpernatural/natural debate, which is already much discussed in the article. Every wikipedia article I have seen on any philosophical subject has a tendency to grow incrementally until unreadable because everyone wants to put in extra subjects and show the breadth of their knowledge.Andrew Lancaster 09:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new look

I have tried to address some of the concerns that were raised in a couple of edits. I hope it makes more sense?--Andrew Lancaster 13:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and History

Probably I could have put this under two separate headings but here goes.

This looks like a good article, but it is totally lacking in cited sources. That should clearly be put way up on the agenda for improving this article.

Secondly, when this article was changed to a new title, the history of the original article was not carried over to the new title. Could someone involved with the change get that done.

Thanks and good luck. --SteveMcCluskey 23:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: citations. the paraphrasing of steven fry was originally included in the section "beauty in nature" in the nature article. i realise i should have mentioned that the source of this comment was british tv show "room 101". i should add that although room 101 might be considered a comedy programme, the comments were made in a serious tone. --Halio 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC) ps, steve's other point on article history still needs addressing.