Are human affairs unnatural?

look again
your semantics clearly preclude humans from pronouncing judgments or expressing a sentiment on any single mode of behavior selected from a range of possible behaviors simply because every possible expression has been deemed natural

it simply does not follow
how does this transformation occur?
did we simply fall asleep only to wake up as zombies?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suggest you look again.
That is not what I was suggesting at all.
The contention that everything is natural was SoM's.
I'm asking how something can be deemed "evil" (or "out of line" or whatever) if it is in fact "merely" natural?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

/befuddled

i'll let this drop with a ...how indeed.. and a...

/smirk

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because even though every thing is a valid expression of nature, this does not mean that every thing is in its utmost state of desirability (relatively speaking). Since we change, and have possibly infinite choices over what kind of change will take place at any given moment, we are therefore in a position to nurture, alter, redirect, and/or influence all things (to some extent or another) into states of higher desirability (again relatively speaking).

 

You'll have to expand on that. Are you proposing that things should become unnatural? Or that nature itself isn't "right"?

So you're saying it's natural to be unsatisfied with nature? Or what?

 

I'm saying that it's natural to change for the betterment of the self.*

It must be. If the lioness were satisfied when her belly growled then she would never prey on the gazelle.

*It can be argued that in many situations the betterment of others is also more desirable to the self. If you want to debate this point you'll have to make another thread because although it's related, this debate does not hinge on it being true or false.

 

Except that you HAVE made the equivalence.
Your first sentence says "betterment of the self" whereas I asked about desirable. And THEN you say say "it can be argued" the two are the same. :shrug:
And I'd say your statement is equally debatable.

Oh dear, you don't see physical hunger as a biological/ physiological thing then? It's a psychological one?

 

relative to humanities point of perspective..
humanities ability to find fault with anything..

to accept the fault or delete it?

 

Everything Humans have done and will do is natural, there is no way to be un-natural. You'll have to go out of the universe for that. We are probably another way of nature expressing itself.

 

this is believed because people assume nature is perfect. it is constantly evolving or adapting, that's it. nature is pretty limited actually. pay attention to how it your body handles infection. it can handle some of it but not all of it. this is an indication, again, of constant evolution or adaptation.

for instance, there is much pollution today which causes cancer since before we did not evolve with this. so either a cure is found and the environment is cleaned up or else possibly in the future, only those who develop immunity to these poisons survive. what is limiting about nature is it reacts miminally.

there is no set plan in nature, only reacting to what is harmful to us at any given time.

 

Its limited, as well as being pretty mean =D

 

very true