Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
no, i do not see the human species as not of nature. (do you write questions for the LSAT or something?) I do, personally see man as part of nature.
I pointed out that this question (the thread's question) brings forth the paradoxical problem of classifying man as both part of and in conflict with nature/ the natural. By "in conflict with" i mean things like presuming to conquer nature. One generally does not conquer something/someone with which/whom one is in harmony.
But you do point out that it is us, humans, who have developed these concepts of "nature" through a process of definition that tends to leave the impression that there are categorical differences between forms of matter that may not actually be meaningful.
I'm pretty baked though, so i'll leave it at this:
throughout human civilization and culture we've struggled with the concept of our own apparent cognitive superiority to other beings, and have sought out ways of explaining and representing to ourselves what we presume to be exceptional capacities in a decidedly positive way. We should probably realize that not only are we a part of nature, we're not the only part; and, consciousness, as we understand it, can only be understood as far as consciousness allows. Thus, we are necessarily perspectivally bound to the dimensions of human cognitive functioning. So, whatever we may assert, however we may adjudicate, we can never know what an entity possessed of a different valence of cognitive capacity knows, how it knows it (meaning, in what way, what is the timbre of its knowledge?), or whether our categories of evaluation are extensive enough to adjudicate such forms of knowledge.
so i guess whether nature has intention is really a quite small question, only pertinent to Dasein, struggling about searching for an answer to the existential "why?" For the question is only pertinent to Dasein, human beings, who are themselves (ourselves) responsible for the concepts of nature and intentionality.
be easy,
