This paper will discuss the relation between the concepts of nature and culture and their intricate interdependency, focusing on modernity. Moreover, it will analyze the dichotomy that has historically emerged and its...This paper will discuss the relation between the concepts of nature and culture and their intricate interdependency, focusing on modernity. Moreover, it will analyze the dichotomy that has historically emerged and its implications. Human beings have had different conceptions about what is natural and what is non-natural throughout their history. Before Modernity we did not conceive nature as being a different ontological reality, we did not perceive it as being separated from us. After modernity everything changed, and we began to see nature as a mere object. Nature became, then, a representation, like a painting on a wall. Our contemporary world vision, Weltanschauung, was formed mainly during the 16th and 17th centuries. There was, at that time, a considerable change in the way we perceived and described the world. This new mentality and this new form of representing the cosmos provided the basis for our new way of thinking. They were the substrate upon which our modern paradigm was erected. The world＇s conversion in an image only became a reality thanks to technology. But this change happened only because of the paradigm shift originated in the 17th century. Technique always has been a way to articulate how （and what） we think. With the Greek, technique （technd） was, at first, an extension of the physis. Thus, the technique was a way of being instead of a way of thinking. After the paradigm shift in the 17th century （a metaphysical change, in the very way we connected to the world）, the human being left his former place. Perhaps would be even better if we talked about nature and culture as being as a hybrid. What, at the source, was natural, through the flows of production and consumption, undergoes transformations and becomes something that is not natural anymore but, at the same time, not completely artificial either. Our world, once divided between the social and the natural, becomes a space where a constant process, a continuous flow, is constantly happening. From that dichotomy between something good and something bad arises a dialectic, in which we no longer can see any division whatsoever.展开更多
Intrinsic value in nature is a key concept in professional environmental ethics literature in the West. Western scholars such as Holmes Rolston III and Paul Taylor argue that the philosophical foundation of environmen...Intrinsic value in nature is a key concept in professional environmental ethics literature in the West. Western scholars such as Holmes Rolston III and Paul Taylor argue that the philosophical foundation of environmental ethics should be based on the concept of intrinsic value in nature. Influenced by this concept, some influential Chinese environmental ethics scholars such as Yu Mouchang and Lu Feng argue that the foundation of environmental ethics in China should be based on the concept of intrinsic value in nature. This paper holds that the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical meaning of intrinsic value in nature is the legacy of Western philosophical traditions, which is in conflict with the Chinese philosophical traditions. Meanwile, the paper argues that the Daoist conception of living in harmony with nature can become the foundation for Chinese environmental ethics. The Daoist conception of living in harmony with nature is based on aesthetic appreciation of nature and people＇s participation in the beauty of nature.展开更多
文摘This paper will discuss the relation between the concepts of nature and culture and their intricate interdependency, focusing on modernity. Moreover, it will analyze the dichotomy that has historically emerged and its implications. Human beings have had different conceptions about what is natural and what is non-natural throughout their history. Before Modernity we did not conceive nature as being a different ontological reality, we did not perceive it as being separated from us. After modernity everything changed, and we began to see nature as a mere object. Nature became, then, a representation, like a painting on a wall. Our contemporary world vision, Weltanschauung, was formed mainly during the 16th and 17th centuries. There was, at that time, a considerable change in the way we perceived and described the world. This new mentality and this new form of representing the cosmos provided the basis for our new way of thinking. They were the substrate upon which our modern paradigm was erected. The world＇s conversion in an image only became a reality thanks to technology. But this change happened only because of the paradigm shift originated in the 17th century. Technique always has been a way to articulate how （and what） we think. With the Greek, technique （technd） was, at first, an extension of the physis. Thus, the technique was a way of being instead of a way of thinking. After the paradigm shift in the 17th century （a metaphysical change, in the very way we connected to the world）, the human being left his former place. Perhaps would be even better if we talked about nature and culture as being as a hybrid. What, at the source, was natural, through the flows of production and consumption, undergoes transformations and becomes something that is not natural anymore but, at the same time, not completely artificial either. Our world, once divided between the social and the natural, becomes a space where a constant process, a continuous flow, is constantly happening. From that dichotomy between something good and something bad arises a dialectic, in which we no longer can see any division whatsoever.
文摘Intrinsic value in nature is a key concept in professional environmental ethics literature in the West. Western scholars such as Holmes Rolston III and Paul Taylor argue that the philosophical foundation of environmental ethics should be based on the concept of intrinsic value in nature. Influenced by this concept, some influential Chinese environmental ethics scholars such as Yu Mouchang and Lu Feng argue that the foundation of environmental ethics in China should be based on the concept of intrinsic value in nature. This paper holds that the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical meaning of intrinsic value in nature is the legacy of Western philosophical traditions, which is in conflict with the Chinese philosophical traditions. Meanwile, the paper argues that the Daoist conception of living in harmony with nature can become the foundation for Chinese environmental ethics. The Daoist conception of living in harmony with nature is based on aesthetic appreciation of nature and people＇s participation in the beauty of nature.
