Talk:Nature (philosophy)

This discussion copied to here from Talk:Philosophy of nature, which now redirects to here. ... Kenosis 01:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

new article, but lots of over-laps?
Should this be merged with Natural Philosophy? Or, perhaps to keep the distinction, this new article should be re-named Nature (Philosophy)?--Andrew Lancaster 15:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a re-delegation of content, or renaming of some kind. Previously content was removed by ScienceApologist and this article was made into a redirect.  I think all this should be patiently clarified as to what these topics mean, or say, and should be delegated accordingly.  Right now Natural Philosophy is approximately on the right track, meaning that it speaks to what is commonly understood as natural philosophy by persons knowledgeable in this area.  The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Macmillan,1967 8-vol. set & supp (1996) has a fairly good article on "Nature, Philosophical Ideas of", for example.  So it's a valid topic in its own right as differentiated from "natural philosophy".  I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting a new page titled Nature (philosophy) to here, or vice-versa. ... Kenosis 16:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how do it, but can you change this article to "Nature (Philosophy)"?--Andrew Lancaster 14:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Andrew. Insofar as there can quite legitimately be separate topic forks on Nature, Philosophy of nature, Nature (philosophy) and Natural philosophy, this can readily be done for the present, making adaptations as the content develops. I want to make an NPOV cautionary note here, being familiar with the basic debate within philosophy and the history of it.  Andrew, you have been taking a very stong POV slant on the topic which is an a priori bias.  It will not stand up ultimately, unless balanced in the context of the debate between Plato and Aristotle, between the late neo-Platonic and Aristotlean a posteriori thinkers such as Ibn Rushd and Aquinas, between the continental rationalists and empiricists, and so forth.  Please also recall that there are two additional cardinal rules on WP, which are WP:VER and WP:NOR.  Many of the edits you've offered, some of which can still be readily seen in the content of Philosophy of nature, are musings and synthetic ideas that are unsourced and plainly are attempts to superimpose an idea of the a-priori forms on concepts for which those who developed the concepts had abandoned the Platonic ideas, such as in your repeated references to "forms" in direct relationship to "modern science".  The solution to the a-priori/a-posteriori dilemma requires an understanding of obscure thinkers like Kant, deSaussure, Peirce and others to sort it out, and indeed this debate is still not settled today,  But please don't impose this POV on the content of "nature"-related articles, because what you've been putting forth here just ain't so, and it is extremely apparent that you'll need to dig in with more research of your own and get a more well-developed handle on that ongoing debate through the many centuries and respect both "sides" of it.  So I definitely would look forward to seeing your offerings to WP based on that anticipated growth of your own knowledge on the general subject area of history of philosophy. But, heck, I'm just one editor here-- just happen to be dwelling around these parts of WP presently. ... Kenosis 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which part of the content do you propose to move over to Nature (philosophy)? ... Kenosis 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have moved the entire content over to Nature (philosophy) and made this into a redirect for the present. ... Kenosis 01:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of comments
Argh!! Exactly what "nature" means, and what the natural/supernatural distinction is supposed to be is a huge source of contention, and has been a problem on many other wikipedia pages. You need citations, citations, citations, and beware of POV. Even within the Naturalist camp you can get into lots of fine distinction trouble. Is it all of the physical universe or just the "directly observable" parts? Are you denying confirmational holism as part of the definition of natural? Bmorton3 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)~
 * What is explained in the article is that modern science emphasizes the importance of direct observation. I do not see the article you mention as disagreeing with this, but only adding something to the complexity? Am I missing something?Andrew Lancaster 10:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Second the philosophical meaning of nature as the set of essential properties needs to be given its own space somehow. It is not connected to the second meaning, plants, animals, and even God has a nature in this sense in medieval philosophy. Bmorton3 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Before splitting the article please note the history of this article and other related ones: basically, this aricle is already split off from Nature and it still retains some reference to other meanings. The reason I think me and others have been cautious at this point is because the article has to be coherant. What I found was that as soon as we removed references to "the second meaning" complaints increased. By the way it is connected of course. Andrew Lancaster 10:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the history of the term nature among the ancient Greeks what term are you thinking of in the first paragraph for the "ways" of thing? Physis? Nomos? Cosmos? The Ancient Greeks had nothing like the English term Nature, they used a variety of different terms for different tasks. Again you need some citations. The Greeks didn't all think that physis was a pre-existing guide to natural changes. Heraclitus denies this (logos does that job), as does Pythagoras (its the job of harmony to establish the design of the cosmos). I'll bet I could find other early Greek dissenters. Bmorton3 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Physis is the Greek word for nature, but Heracleitus obviously used his term logos in a very special way. This does not mean he disagrees that there is a nature. I suggest you improve the article on logos. That the meaning of "nature" or physis has changed over time, and has indeed always involved debate, is of course explained in the article already, but it seems very fundamentally wrong to suggest that physis is not the Greek word for nature. There is a steady history from the first discussions to the modern ones. As to your last claim, please find the dissenters if you can. At last the main stream of Greek philosophers and authors used the term in one way, and that is all the article means to suggest?Andrew Lancaster 10:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your history of nature jumps from Plato to modernity without intervention? Anything on other cultures? Confucius and Mozi? Nyaya? Vaiveshika? Carvaka? The Western Medievals? The Muslims? Roger Bacon? Renessainse and Enlightenment? Look carefully at the History of Science page and the Scientific Revolution page. Bmorton3 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * RE "Your history of nature jumps from Plato to modernity without intervention?": Agreed. There is a great deal of work to be done here to go from Bacon's peculiar Platonism through to modernity. ... Kenosis 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Eastern alternatives to the concept of Nature can be linked to, instead of filling this article. Roger Bacon and other medievals took the classical position concerning nature. If they are relevent, it is in the way that their monotheism sharpened the surpernatural/natural debate, which is already much discussed in the article. Every wikipedia article I have seen on any philosophical subject has a tendency to grow incrementally until unreadable because everyone wants to put in extra subjects and show the breadth of their knowledge.Andrew Lancaster 09:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A new look
I have tried to address some of the concerns that were raised in a couple of edits. I hope it makes more sense?--Andrew Lancaster 13:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources and History
Probably I could have put this under two separate headings but here goes.

This looks like a good article, but it is totally lacking in cited sources. That should clearly be put way up on the agenda for improving this article.

Secondly, when this article was changed to a new title, the history of the original article was not carried over to the new title. Could someone involved with the change get that done.

Thanks and good luck. --SteveMcCluskey 23:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: citations. the paraphrasing of steven fry was originally included in the section "beauty in nature" in the nature article. i realise i should have mentioned that the source of this comment was british tv show "room 101". i should add that although room 101 might be considered a comedy programme, the comments were made in a serious tone. --Halio 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC) ps, steve's other point on article history still needs addressing.

Update on this article. Should it be re-merged to Nature?
This article originally split off from the Nature article because some of the concepts seemed to go too far into philosophy for some people working on that article. However, that article was a mess at the time, and in my opinion this was a big part of the reasons it was so difficult to integrate all the subjects. That article is now much better, although it has perhaps once again become too expansive - although now in other directions. The obvious question is whether the best parts of the now somewhat scrappy Nature (Philosophy) article might perhaps be able to be salvaged into the main Nature article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another merger proposal
I'll keep it short. This article and another one, Philosophy of Nature, come out of the same evolution, having split off from the Nature article. I have been working on Philosophy of Nature recently, and now I propose it as the new article to replace/merge with Nature (Philosophy). I think it contains everything which was self-contained and worth keeping?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Middle Ages
It's a little problematic that this article jumps from Classical thought to Modern thought while entirely by-passing the Middle Ages. The concept of 'nature' is one of the central concerns of the scholastics, and the debates surrounding it are deeply ingrained in medieval culture. ANB (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A medieval section would fit very well, but as the person who put together most of the linking from classical to modern in this article, I just perhaps don't know enough. When we can make an article a little better, we should do so I guess.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion of nature in the Middle Ages at Mother Nature. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not see one there?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Contemporary Scene?
How about a section on more recent revivals of the concept of nature? Two figures that deserve to be included (that I can think of off the top of my head) are Hans Jonas and Brian David Ellis. JKeck (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I just think no one has gotten around to it? Why not make some concrete attempt to add in something about this? I think that the current section on "The Study of Nature without Metaphysics" could be expanded. What you describe as a revival of the concept of nature might be better described as a reaction against naive anti-metaphysics such as what you seem to refer to as positivism below? (The "positivists" would deny that they do not believe in nature.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Physics vs. "Metaphysics"
What's really odd about this article's quotations of Aristotle is that they all come from Metaphysics and not what is ostensibly his work on Nature, Physics. (For example, he discusses nature and the four causes in Physics II.) Such a division in terminology colors the article with the old positivist prejudice: "physics" = new, good; "metaphysics" = old, bad. The real situation is more complicated than that simplistic bifurcation. JKeck (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a complicated subject. Do you have any specific practical suggestions? On the one hand, we must avoid making the article unreadable, or overly about details. On the other hand, please keep in mind that when you talk about Nature as a whole or in the abstract, this is metaphysics, because you are attempting to look at nature from outside so to speak. So there is nothing odd about this article citing that work of Aristotle. It is the most relevant one in some ways. The division between physics and metaphysics is of course Aristotle's and a traditional one, not something made up. You are right to imply that not everyone accepts this way of dividing things up (and the article as written currently reflects that) but you are wrong to say that this is a positivist prejudice. You do question the worth of metaphysics yourself by questioning its separation from physics. If metaphysics (talking about nature overall) is not separable from physics then you are effectively saying you think the whole concept of a deliberate separate study of metaphysics is questionable. Such questioning goes back long before the positivists, and was for example quite clear in Machiavelli and even more clear in Bacon. They were not however naive enough to claim that they could do physics without any implied metaphysics at all. Claiming that nature works effectively in regular way, as if by laws, is a kind of simple metaphysics. But the point is that they are deliberately keeping the assumptions simple and unobjectionable. Currently, the article does not in any way imply that questioning metaphysics is a positivist idea, and I think it should stay that way? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Nature's modern definition and use in intro
.snipped/..I am not a great philosophy student, but i generally recall nature being written about constructively and even admiringly by great philosophers. Could Wikipedia philosopher editors *please* get together and stop a reasonable understanding of this ancient and distinguished concept from being besmirched here by unreferenceable confusions on the subjects breadth and merit ?? Lisnabreeny (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Aren't you a Wikipedia editor? If not, can you please be one? Remember Wikipedia is edited by volunteers, all just working when it suits them. You've apparently noticed an improvement that can be made. Great! :) But seriously, when you make your proposal or edit please remember that nature in philosophy did not always contrast so simply with the man-made, man being part of nature. You are right that it generally did though and so that should be made clear if it is not already.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thankyou Andrew. I have read the article better now and see that it contains much fine content, i need to calm. I had bounced here from appeal to nature which has reached the state where it is contending that all appeals to nature are fallacies, and has dragged health food marketing into the subject. I will be trying to fix that article, and have been making some drafts but without being a philosophy scholar i am taking a while to find and come across suitable references.
 * I think the introduction to this article wants attention. The first definition influentially declares: "In modern scientific writing 'nature' refers to all directly observable phenomena of the 'physical' or material universe, and it is contrasted only with any other sort of existence, such as spiritual or supernatural existence" - This definition should really stick out in philosophical text, where immaterial and metaphysical concepts which are neither physical, spiritual or supernatural - are truely essential.
 * Ive read no scientific uses of the term, which conflict with its general popular use so i think the conflict should be cited if it exists. And i think the difference between, basically 'not man made' and ~everything that is not conceptual, would be a conflict rather than a refinement or subtle difference. A more precise technical formulation of 'not man made', could be: existing without intent (mans' or another intellegences' intent), created not through processes of design, but through such mechanisms as evolution and physical dynamics. This opening statement to Natural science scans easily "In science, the term natural science refers to a naturalistic approach to the study of the universe, which is understood as obeying rules or laws of natural origin." There at least 'natural' seems in line with the common concept of non-technologically created.


 * "To the extent that people might see Nature or the "natures" of things separate from the things themselves, for example if they would believe that human nature exists separately from humans, then they are in conflict with the modern scientific understanding of Nature," - I think this complex statement at the end of the short introduction, should be named, moved to a section, explained and cited. Because the nature of a thing is as separable from that thing, as its colour, its past, future, its class... It is fundamentaly a distinguishable, refineable, discussable etc concept. An inseparable concept, is fundamentally an undefineable and unuseable one. A things nature is separated and examined specifically by observing its whole (everything about it - beyond its design) and its relations to other things. In a well known phrase, a things 'nature' is at least somewhat separate from it 'nurture'. And there i see the echo of 'extent' and 'intent' again.
 * I find myself lecturing and perhaps preaching my own concept of nature here. But i am hoping that this rings a bell in others and isn't an unusual position.Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's maybe not so easy. Some things to keep in mind:
 * I think we need to mention the main alternative ways the word is used in the lead, but then not explain them there yet. We'd generally leave detailed discussion to a sub-section. The reason for mentioning the main alternatives in the lead is that otherwise people will say the article is taking a side and not being neutral.
 * That sentence you quote from Natural Science might not be read by everyone as insisting that human intentions are not themselves part of nature, and simply subject to the same laws of nature as all other things?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True, I was not very happy with the quote from Natural Science, but included it because it seemed to require a particular understanding of the word to make sense, which is not unusual for most words, yet is a difficulty here. I have a been a bit relieved to find a good definition with history and scientific uses of the word here: (Nature) This passage from it, makes me think i might have read it before and repeated it: "This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind."
 * Also pertinent is: "Natura was a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord.[2][3] "
 * (Nature) has been listed as a 'good article' and i propose that it should be referred to for explaination of the common and scientific meanings. The current statement in the intro about spirituality etc, does not match up. By referring to the general article this one could be left to concentrate on the philosophical use.
 * More tentatively - i read that philosophical use of the term is often broadened to the 'innate properties' of a thing. WP redirects Innate to 'intrinsic and extrinsic properties in philosophy' - which would seem to be broad if both are included. There is also (Nature_(innate)) -a small article which begins: "Nature is innate behavior (behavior not learned or influenced by the environment)..." and also happens to link back here. Also Wikitionary has an entry for innate, with etimology linking back to the latin ~innatura :"Inborn; native; natural; as, innate vigor; innate eloquence. Originating in, or derived from, the constitution of the intellect, as opposed to acquired from experience; as, innate ideas. See a priori, intuitive."
 * i have lots to learn about philosophical understanding and use of nature... Im hoping with the discovery of WP's more central Nature article, we can unburden this one from the resposibility of carrying it to the other fields, and i can start on the article i find more problematic - (appeal to nature). Lisnabreeny (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have put up a new intro, composed through much deliberation and drafting. No doubt it wants much improvement, but i am hopeful that it covers reasonably the ways and conflict in how the term is commonly used. Lisnabreeny (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, personally I find that if you think about any of the meanings of nature you will end up coming up with the philosophical problem of what nature is, and so I am not a big fan of the split between this article and the main one. Anyway, regarding your new intro, perhaps to start with it is easiest to show the old and new. Which is easier to read for someone who comes looking for an explanation about the subject?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sure it would be best for the main one to have a philosophy section, as it has geology etc. But ive been speaking/editing somewhat as a person who has found the traditional concept of naturalness coming under indistinct attacks. I had not encountered any person or recallable author, who took issue with the natural world being (more or less) the non-man-made world, until it appeared in politicised arguments on the net, which WP is very exposed to. The concept of the non-technological world is useful in reviewing and relating to technology/industry etc. If the 'natural world' is to be scientifically equateable, in the future to 'the entire cosmos', what will the nontechnological part of it be called, the 'original world'? We will speak of the 'pretechnolgical sciences'? At least- it would make recent and historical texts about the natural world harder to read. I find currently, the term 'natural world' only includes the man-made when the man-made part is irrelevant.
 * So the main change of the intro i was interested in, was removing the claim, which i consider contentious and beg source; that the natural world is indeed being scientifically spoken these days as including artifacts and effects of technology (in significant enough work to mention in the intro - and the feilds where that is happening would be interesting to know too). This is the contention which i mean might be best left to the main article, if it has to appear anywhere.
 * The old intro seems entirely about it, putting forward the 'nature means everything' claim as the main use. That there are 'two sets' is the purpose of the first paragraph, and the everything (except spirituality) is then listed as the first set, the secondary set listed is the traditional, most meanfull and most common meaning. And then it was also confusing when the other meaning 'essential properties' was tacked on to the end.
 * The first difficulty i find with philosophical concept of nature and natural, is that natural doesn't mean "of the natural world" .. oh that's just a start, just english lang difficulty. It could be necessary to make a list of all the different uses of the word and its variations and their variations in meaning... Did i read a description of what 'natural properties' are/can be in philosophy down the page/elsewhere? cant remember.
 * There is:
 * nature:'natural world'
 * nature:kindof property
 * natural:kindof property
 * natural:of the natural world
 * That situation should ideally get adequately covered in an intro, i was hopeful my opening paragraph introduced the two most functional uses quite cleverly. But perhaps lacking. I hoped the second paragraph was mentionable and a nice 'pacer' And i thought the third revealed a source of the terms dilution nicely, but such an idea should perhaps be sourced :( ... And there is a reminder of the 'innate' use again at the end.
 * I wont mind too much to see it all change, as long as the contention ive poured out..settles, and i'll think about making it easier. Oh but i did wonder about that - the intro doesnt need to be too easy, because there is much of this article which can not be made easy to read, because it is philosophy with all its uncommon meanings and exacting constructs. Lisnabreeny (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wont mind too much to see it all change, as long as the contention ive poured out..settles, and i'll think about making it easier. Oh but i did wonder about that - the intro doesnt need to be too easy, because there is much of this article which can not be made easy to read, because it is philosophy with all its uncommon meanings and exacting constructs. Lisnabreeny (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lisnabreeny,
 * If the Nature article is to cover the philosophy of the term, would that sub-section be different from this article?
 * The various meanings of Nature are all inter-connected. You seem to see a bit conflict between them which does not really exist. In modern times nature is thought of as being laws of nature. In classical times each type of thing was thought to have its own law of nature, so to speak, whereas modern science tries to define laws of nature in a way that applies the same to all things. Bacon, who argued the case for this, calls them simple natures I believe. Human decisions never change the laws of nature, but they are subject to those laws. This same subtle point, or something similar, is required in both classical and modern understandings of nature.
 * You say you have a contention, but it seems to be something difficult to explain in a clear way. Or at least I do not see a clear definition of it either in your article changes, or on this talk page.
 * I am a bit worried that you are yourself struggling with the concepts involved and re-writing the Wikipedia article itself, rather than say a draft, while you struggle with it? Please for example look at your second sentence, and ask yourself if it really makes the article better.
 * I suggest reviewing the old and new versions as summarized above and trying to make sure the edits do not make the article worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have bolded some key phrases in my explaination of the contention to help. I appreciate your feedback on my change of intro, but cannot agree that it is worse than the previous, which as explained i find both mixed up and slightly misleading on a contentious claim. You are welcome to change it, or i may try to improve it myself sometime. But i will contest appearances of the issue ive raised here, which i do not believe i am struggling with.. innately.
 * About the content of the main nature article. Surely only selected, circumspectly paraphrased parts and summary of this one would be suitable to add there, as there are multiple chunks of sometimes nuanced philosophical language here. The main article is multidiscipline and across the disciplines it is about as long as, maybe a bit smaller, than this focused article is. Lisnabreeny (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, you find one version confusing and I find the other version confusing, so if we can find something we both find not confusing we should be on a good path. I looked, as per your guidance, at the bold letters in your post above. One bit that seems important to you is your claim that the previous version says "that the natural world is indeed being scientifically spoken these days as including artifacts and effects of technology". It did not say that literally, but it did say that some usages of the word nature include all things, which is correct. For example when people write about the laws of nature, do they ever intend to say that man-made things are not subject to them? (But please note that saying that all things are part of nature is NOT the same as saying there is no distinction between natural and man made things. This distinction may be difficult but it is a real distinction found in reliable sources which we should reflect. We can not ask reality to simplify itself so we can simplify a Wikipedia article.) Please comment on that point, but in the meantime some comments on your version:-
 * The second sentence in the current version does not seem to be a good sentence no matter what it is intended to mean? I have pointed to this several times and someone really needs to fix it or else it should be removed because it is currently not really able to be parsed in a clear way. In other words, I can guess what it might be intended to mean, but I can not be certain based only on a normal knowledge of the English language and the subject matter being discussed.
 * The second paragraph is waffle. It is not about anything. It just says that the subject of this article is a subject which has been discussed.
 * The third paragraph reads like your own un-sourced opinion, or a personal reflection.
 * A lot of points made in the version you want to replace are no longer mentioned in your new proposal. Is this because you are sure they are wrong? Remember WP:PRESERVE. If you think they are wrong, then the normal thing to do is to post your exact concerns so that sources can be looked for in order to confirm or deny them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * - I dont want to requote, but i examine the languange and terms used exactly in list point 1 of the prev version, and it says scientifically nature refers to everything except spirituality and religion (with one sentence), and then repeats that with the essentially redundant entire cosmos/universe sentence. Even to make this claim twice, why does it only exclude spirituality and religion when historically it has always excluded essentialy mans-influence (or the technologic part of mans influence) eg. If in a lab, it was discovered that it was possible somehow, to invent new physical laws at concious whim, completely independantly from any other physical laws, and bring them into existence, could such new laws sensibly be considered natural? The reason why there is a question to answer, is because of the established meaning of the word nature. Nature only refers to 'everything physical' in cases where mans' creations are not relevant to the subject, ie the subject has no concept for mans creation. This situation that it is not always relevant, doesn't need stated twice to make up the primary list point of the intro, and with dubious associative language re spirituality to get misunderstood by some, and argued about by people like me :]


 * Your listpoints:
 * Ah, i thought you meant the second pararaph earlier. The new second sentence says something very similar to the previous version's second sentence. The common Etymology of the two distinct uses, (of nature) and (innate) is the word natura, which gives also innatura. I read that on Wikitionary. It reads ok and makes fine sense to me, but i can see it might ask improvement.


 * Thats not fair about the second paragraph. I described it before as a 'nice pacer' But i think it is a 'good' thing to mention in an intro intending to be somewhat appealing to the public as well as experienced philosophers -that the Natural world and related concepts have been major subjects of scientific study and works. Almost certainly the major subject, but that is not stated for acceptability.


 * Agreed the third point is a personal reflection which i thought was good so included, i did concede earlier that it might want removed because it could be hard to cite. It was also included because at this stage, the intro would be rather short and empty without something to replace it.


 * (i) I think i replaced the first paragraph with a very similar but more accurate and slightly more detailed one. (ii) I think the first list point, is quite wrong. It is not helpful to point out that some subjects, do not find the historical meaning of nature relevant enough to observe it, especiall as 'the main' useage. In what subject is anything man made, considered natural?... (iii) I think the second list point begins by stating the very obvious, but poorly with with weasel words, 1 x casual 3x generally and wilderness which is actually a slightly negative/barren/dull term for natural environment
 * The first paragraph of the second LP, only belittles the most widely held meaning (in science and culture) of nature.
 * Then the second paragraph is the first mention of the most linguisticaly different other use of 'nature' -as innate properties. Which is covered in one sentence, that is very lighty considering the very exacting use of it in proceeding article. The final long sentence is oddly placed and weird. A nature of a thing, is innate to it (ety ~inborn), it can be in someway distinct from other things. But who does think of 'human nature' existing separately from humans? Where is that contended and why is it being corrected here? I suspect someone may have carried this over accidentaly from a debate, perhaps on homosexuality, but i see no clear sense of it in this context of a general intro, and no need to bring up the charge of 'conflict with science' in a breif vaguely worded paragraph. With best intent and appreciation Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

-Tried improving first paragraph... (sorry no, seemed to loose that edit, will try again soon. Confusion over the words meanings come from this: -
 * "world" and "worldly" are clearly noun and adjective
 * "nature" and "natural" are also noun and adjective, in the same way. natural can mean 'of nature' in the same way as 'worldly' can mean of the world. But nature has two meanings, a 'macro' noun and a 'meta' noun ~whatever is the proper words for those. "A world" is like another world which is like "the world". But "a nature" is not physical. There is one Natural world, 'natures' are not like it, only related to it by language and possible conceptual links. So that being the case with, two different noun types for nature, the verb types 'natural' are at least duplicated, perhaps more, if combined, around the common etymology.
 * Throw into that tangle of meanings, uses of 'nature' which mean 'everything tangible', I think they can only do so without confusion because the traditonal meaning doesn't matter to some context, eg. astrophysics (the invented detectors are not part of the astrophysic domain) or chemistry (the test tube is not part of the chemical domain) Where in philosophy is the natural world written of functionaly (and not lazily, transiently) as meaning the entire cosmos? Is that useage commmon and frankly sensible enough, to appear here? Lisnabreeny (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lisnabreeny, Hi again:-
 * Concerning spirituality and religion perhaps this can be re-worded, but I think the idea should not be removed entirely. Like I said, it is very common to refer to the "laws of nature" and whenever you use that term, it is implied that all "normal things" are subject to them and thus somehow part of nature. Or not? Things which are outside the laws of nature such as acts of god are distinguished. Or not? What you perhaps don't realize is that in the history of philosophy, theology and science, human deliberate action has sometimes been treated as being partly outside the laws of nature and godlike, and this was at least sometimes used as an explanation of why human made things are like nature, but not nature simply.
 * The debate about whether natures can exist separately from the things which are examples of them (for example human nature is a being separate from humans) is nothing to do with debates about homosexuality and I really wonder how you could think this. Please read about the concept of a formal cause. This is a basic old theme in the history of philosophy. You should not be deleting references to theories you apparently do not even know about.
 * I still really think you include way too many vague extra words that sound like someone talking about their own changing feelings on a subject they do not know very well. Please try to tighten up the style? I also find you posting above a bit of a ramble I'm afraid. It is hard to answer because you are not clearly defining what your points are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lisnabreeny, can you explain what the following paragraph means, or is intended to mean? And can it be sourced? It sounds like your own thoughts on the subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Andrew - I am very admiring of what you have achieved there so far. I will explain that last paragraph after a these other points:


 * I read in the article on Aristotle he was a main founder /or developer of natural philosophy - but those refs are redundant now with your new text.


 * A link to natural philosophy could be ok, and should be 'also see' there is a reasonable 'start class' high-importance article there, not a redirect to here.


 * Related to your thoughts that this article could be integrated back into the main nature article. I think the intro should bare in mind less experienced readers, so i did not remove the statement that ~'people who see the nature of things seperate from the things themselves are in conflict with science..' because i thought it philosophically incorrect, but because that part of the intro seems to be written plainly, yet it only makes sense in philosophical language. It needs more explaination than a summary can be given in the intro, it is confusing to many an interested reading like myself. You have in me someone interested in philosophy, reading to learn, but wanting WP philosophical articles not to put unexplained confusable statements, in intros at least. I mentioned homesexuality debate because that was mentioned in wp's naturalistic fallacy article "Such inferences are common in discussions of homosexuality and environmentalism." but mine was a throw away, rambling comment :]


 * Regarding the sentence, you though as almost meaningless: "In the history of science, religion and human knowledge the natural world and natural properties of things have been a major subject of inquiry and discovery. " - It was a slightly simple reminder of the importance and promemence of the concepts of nature and natures, to all/most sciences. Which if put well can read nicely in an intro, and which is a most qualified claim to make in this subject than almost any other. Many authors given a simple chance to establish there subject as important will take it, rightly so. Natures nature in science provides this, anyway, it is optional.


 * About the last paragraph: There is argument over how natural various farming, foods, medecines, genetic modification techniques, even lifestyles are. I have seen several wp:philosophy articles referenced repeatedly in web forum debates which can not-insignificantly affect cultural understanding. There are contentions on what the benefits of naturalness is, and the validity of applying the term natural to things. As science and industry developes, the increased presence and amount of artifical things, increases causes of contention. Thats what i meant to.. elucidate there, along with a reminder of the different meaning of natural property. It was a paragraph of reflection on the now, before the articles sections begin. I think it is an evident situation so shouldnt need sourced, but if it is disliked then it is disposable. Some kind of reflection would be good to have though, for readability at the end of the intro.


 * -The intro reads nicely to me now, i would ask that you give the final paragraph second thought, perhaps ask second opinion before removing it entirely. Here is another rough shot at it -
 * Understandings of nature depend on the subject and age of the work where they appear. Aristotle's explanation of natural properties is different from what is meant by a natural property in modern philosophical works, which can also differ from other scientific and conventional usage. Since the idea and meaning of nature was first concieved, the circumstances relevant to its meanings have been changed by the output of human technology itself: the seemingly heavenly movements of the sun and stars have been revealed as astrophysical -expanding the realm of the natural. And today machines, computers, rare chemicals and even unevolved lifeforms are invented, which challenge the concepts definition.


 * Best regards, Lisnabreeny (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I'm sure you realize, when re-working your re-working, I had tried to take into account what I could understand of your concerns, even if I thought they were misunderstandings. Obviously if the old version created misunderstandings that was a bad thing. I'll keep looking at that last paragraph with those comments of yours now. Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, concerning that last paragraph I think the main thing you need to try to do is to find some sort of source. You refer to having reading stuff like this? You could also polish your writing a bit! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Breaking up that paragraph as it currently stands:-
 * As the sophistication of human technology has increased throughout history, more phenomenon are encountered which might rarely or perhaps never occur in the natural world (without intelligent activity and experiment).This situation may be a source of debate about how 'natural' such fields and objects of study are.
 * Looking at these and your explanations above it seems you are saying that the boundary of what people would consider normal or natural have changed as science has progressed: More and more unusual things are found to be under the control of the same forces of nature. Am I right about the intention? It is an interesting reflection but I can't think of a source for it. Indeed I have a feeling that I can perhaps find sources which suggest the opposite, in other words that scientists have always tended to argue that the laws of nature which apply to a grain of sand apply to the moon. It really needs a source, and even then I am not sure it belongs here in the lead.
 * However an object's own nature (its innate properties) is a consideration which is linguistically(sic) distinct from such determinations of how natural or unnatural, its origins or form should be classified.
 * This sentence I stumble upon, but to the extent I understand it, it is I think wrong. If you call a thing's properties it "nature" then you are implying that the properties are caused by natural causes. The two meaning of nature have always been intertwined.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "If you call a thing's properties it "nature" then you are implying that the properties are caused by natural causes." I am confused about this. Because the term is used as far as i can tell differently in different quoted texts ive come across. The terms are intertwined yet somehow different from standard linguistic convention. eg. In explaination of the naturalistic fallacy, i have read 'pleasant' presented as a natural property.

Can artificially created things not have natures? If they have does that make all things natural? A good explaination of how 'natural properties' have been variously defined and used could be good in the intro instead of my tapping the subject. When aristotle wrote of natures he was writting of a less developed concept, kind of 'physis'. The precise philosophical use of the term is illusive, and definitely not standard language, or id have groked it completely by now. Can the nature of a novel superconducting fluid created in a lab and unlikely to have ever spontaneously arisen elsewhere in the universe, not be pondered in similar fashion to the nature of seawater? If it can does that make the fluid 'natural'?
 * "Looking at these and your explanations above it seems you are saying that the boundary of what people would consider normal or natural have changed as science has progressed: More and more unusual things are found to be under the control of the same forces of nature. Am I right about the intention?" - I think that is part of the case, and thought of it but i didnt mention it for focus. Explicity: >"more phenomenon are encountered which might rarely or perhaps never occur in the natural world (without intelligent activity and experiment)" That we make more unatural things, cars, cfc, synthetic lifeforms, nanomedicines, computers, etc. We make, more ~perhaps they can be called 'artifacts'. Having more kinds of produce to describe, and with 'natural' often thought of as a safe/safer world/word, makes the word a subject of extra debate. It is perhaps not a strong philosophical matter, more a cultural situation, and now i think about it, one which i shouldnt have attempted to describe in the intro. Except, the range of 'artifact' which aristotle had to consider, is greatly increased today. How would he consider the computer? Its nature - software? It is complex, i relent. Lisnabreeny (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting subject, but I don't think people in history thought quite like you think they did. I think Aristotle's conception of nature is much more complex than the one used to explain sup-conductors, and he'd accept that I believe. Super conductors themselves might be complicated, but not the nature or natures we understand to be at play in them. Bacon, who made the classic case against Aristotle and for what is now the normal way of thinking also called the modern approach to nature "simple". For Aristotle, every type of thing, or at least every living thing, seemed to have its own "law of nature" so to speak, causing it to be what it is, but sometimes failing to get it quite right. I do also believe that Aristotle was quite aware of the possibility of philosophy like Bacon's, where simple regularities of nature can add up to very complicated things including living things, and indeed Bacon blamed Aristotle's influence for bullying away the influence of people like Democritus who thought about nature more like we do today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Super conductors themselves might be complicated, but not the nature or natures we understand to be at play in them." yet some superconductors could be considered to be of the most artificial substances yet discovered. If we have trouble then describing such a substance as 'artificial' because to have natures would confer natural~ness, then language is breaking down. I read these statements as sort of recursive, and from what i have read so far, i cant accept them: "on the other hand to the essential properties and causes of those things to be what they naturally are" I think the word naturally is very confusing there, if not actually confused. I think the definition of natures should avoid turning back in on itself, especially given the compexity of the term. Here is another small wp statement of 'natural properties' - Nature (innate)
 * The intro doesnt mind much removal of that paragraph. I will try a couple of wording tweaks, but leave the 'recursive' statements for now. -- stroke that, i see you are reworking, and have already improved the parts i wondered about. Lisnabreeny (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Eastern philosophy section
There is no talk on the eastern philosophy section, despite its many attention tags. Reading through the whole article I find the first section the heaviest to read (though informative), middle sections most accessible, but this last section tricky and made harder with all the tags. It could be an idea to rearrange and economise its tags a bit. I see it could be quite tricky to harmonise with the rest of the article. Perhaps it could be summarised here and moved to its own article. Lisnabreeny (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarity
This article is not written in an understandable modern style. Particularly I am concerned by the Classical nature & Aristotle section. At the very least it should be good English - some sentences v poorly structured, maybe through editing. Ej 92.15.85.247 (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Philosophical subjects are often not easy, including classical ones which involve trying to explains ways of thinking that are now very hard to follow. But of course if there are sentences which are bad English we should fix them (as long as this does not change the meaning).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)