So what do you call human worlds that are separate from nature? I see what you are saying and I agree to a degree until I see that the whole identification is illusory. Humans have imagined themselves separate from nature but that doesn't mean we are in any way actually separate. Again, that humans vs nature perspective.
Yes, I believe nature has self-destructive aspects so to me the fact that something destroys doesn't make it separate from nature and if I'm being honest I think approaching it with that philosophy is a dead end because it focuses on the competition which can't be resolved that way.
Also, how can you be sure this apparent separation wasn't instigated by nature itself? Maybe it's just part of the Logos' plan?
That's what bothers me the most about some people who make these arguments (not you necessarily) is it sometimes appears to me that they would try to speak for nature, to express what they think nature is expressing and that's fine as an opinion, but its frustrating then when they try to insist that 'nature is x and y' when they really have no way of knowing.
Again, I admit I just don't follow your sense of natural and unnatural. You could maybe say its a semantic issue but I think it's more of a philosophical difference we have. In your defense though I think more people would understand what you are saying than what I am saying.
Also, I really wanted to requote this...
"So I will say that animals and plants kept for a food source are deprived of the full experience of living possible for their lives, just as a person in a prison is."
See the change? That's how my mind works.
Yes, I believe nature has self-destructive aspects so to me the fact that something destroys doesn't make it separate from nature and if I'm being honest I think approaching it with that philosophy is a dead end because it focuses on the competition which can't be resolved that way.
Also, how can you be sure this apparent separation wasn't instigated by nature itself? Maybe it's just part of the Logos' plan?
That's what bothers me the most about some people who make these arguments (not you necessarily) is it sometimes appears to me that they would try to speak for nature, to express what they think nature is expressing and that's fine as an opinion, but its frustrating then when they try to insist that 'nature is x and y' when they really have no way of knowing.
Again, I admit I just don't follow your sense of natural and unnatural. You could maybe say its a semantic issue but I think it's more of a philosophical difference we have. In your defense though I think more people would understand what you are saying than what I am saying.
Also, I really wanted to requote this...
"So I will say that animals and plants kept for a food source are deprived of the full experience of living possible for their lives, just as a person in a prison is."
See the change? That's how my mind works.