Rejecting The Natural/Synthetic Dichotomy

re: Rejecting The Natural/Synthetic Dichotomy

nicolaas — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:43:58 GMT

'it is impossible for humans to step outside of the context of nature. Unless one wishes to posit a supernatural, all that exists or occurs is natural by default.'

How do you know it is impossible?

Do you have a clear and comprehensive understanding of what nature actually is - given the fact that you only know nature from this small part of the universe called earth?

Your pre-scientific assumption is based on a believe/religion that informs your approach to rejecting the dichotomy - something which could be regarded as very 'unnatural'

re: Rejecting The Natural/Synthetic Dichotomy

MhRipley — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:26:35 GMT

Absolutely correct. Too bad Rand actually emulated Locke, who comes off as more blatantly statist than anyone else, yet is claimed to favor ''liberty'' (i.e.: social contracts to which I was never a party to have no bearing on my judgment, let alone my life as one. So, thus, they are actually useless!)

And, just for the record, I find the minarchist position wholly untenable. No state, or political system, has ever been, or ever will be ''limited''. While the Church may have actually lost its power, the State is the one whose capacity to inflict death and destruction is STILL alive and well, as it is right now, anyway...

re: Rejecting The Natural/Synthetic Dichotomy

Mike — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:52:15 GMT

I like this line of reasoning a lot. I come up against this natural/synthetic false dichotomy perhaps most often in talking with people around me about medical treatments and drugs in general. There is a widespread belief that a "natural" (herbal, whatever) cure ought to be preferable to an "artificial" (pharmaceutical) one. The same reasoning is given to support the idea that, say, smoking marijuana might be okay since it comes from "teh earth" but that taking Ecstasy is bad for you since it come from "a lab".

This is nonsense on many levels. The thing I try to ask these folks is, "Do you know what a beaver dam is? Is that natural or artificial?" If it's held to be artificial (a position nobody adopts), you'd be led to a philosophical position in which any intentional manipulation of one's environment is branded "unnatural". Most folks know the beaver dam is natural. Why don't they hold the same posture toward human creations?