Ryan
Cooley
October
15, 2014
Seminar
in Composition
Adam
Johns
What
is Nature?
I
believe in our world as it stands today, if you were to perform a random
sampled experiment and asked people how they would define nature, you would get
the same general answer. I claim general because everyone knows that trees and
plants are nature but there may be a few different words thrown around in
different definitions. Personally, I would define nature like this – everything
that happens naturally in our world before it is effected or disturbed by
beings; the growth, death and cycles that make a full life. Let me explain a
little; I find everything in this world lives in the metaphorical ‘circle of
life’ and that life is born and that life will too die. In between life and
death may not be so natural as to call it natural and that is why I said “before
effected or disturbed” because everything around us shapes us in some
particular way or another. For example, there are many theories about human
nature and our instincts that we are born with, I believe in John Locke’s ‘tabula
rasa’ theory and as we grow, we develop personalities.
Why
do I believe nature should be defined this way? Most simply because in a short
and sweet definition, I find that my definition covers the broad spectrum of
life. There are always exceptional situations but the assignment is to write a
quality essay not a book. I do not see much comparison with my definition and
Wilder’s view ‘that which culture destroys, replaces, than mourns.’ It reads
almost as if Wilder is not defining nature as it is but nature as civilization
makes it. I am sure Abbey would definitely agree with Wilder that as a culture
we seem to take nature for granite and tear it down to create structures we
want. This view is not wrong but the natural definition of nature (no pun
intended) has nothing to do with what has happened but what is supposed to be. That
is where I find my definition more accurate, nature is what happens in this
universe before we effect it, after that it just becomes artificial.
Yes,
we replace nature but only few ‘mourn’ it for what it was. One of those few is
Abbey and even though I have a track record of going against him in many of my
writings, in this case I do believe his view of nature. Without a direct quote,
from information gathered in Desert Solitaire I believe Abbey’s definition
of nature probably goes along the lines of the natural world that humanity has
yet to mess up or the last remaining remnants of our world that is beautiful
and matters. Abbey is one that cherishes all the little blemishes of Arches and
the other national parks he has worked in, from making the juniper tree an
important figure to befriending a snake, whether it is actually truthful or
not, Abbey still appreciates our primitive nature and what the world used to be
compared to what we are turning it into. Abbey and I follow the same path in
our views of nature and the natural world, only he holds the extremist title
over me.
Even
though I do not completely understand what Lewontin is talking about in his Biology
of Ideology, I find some comparisons in our ideals of nature. He points out
“the contrast between genetic and environmental, between nature and nurture”
(Pg. 29, Lewontin), basically going along with my claim that there is the natural
world and the natural being and then there is how we morph them through ‘nurture.’
Nature is a broad topic that can be endlessly discussed because it is what we
live with, nature is everything. Science is the study of all natural things in
the universe and science is quite possibly the broadest topic that humans
embark on. Interpreting that Wilder is in her own corner of this fight in
opinions of nature, there is certainly evidence to back her up but I would bet
my money on two prolific professionals in Abbey and Lewontin and then me to
argue our side.
So I think if there is one specific place to focus on if this would turn into a revision, would be the first paragraph. It really doesn't seem to do much. You could concisely state everything you said in the first paragraph in one sentence, two at most. Also, I don't get a sense for what your argument is after reading the first paragraph. The argument is not explicitly stated here, and it doesn't become explicitly stated anywhere in the paper. Focus on stating your argument in your first paragraph so that you have a solid base to build the rest of your paper off of. Also, there are some typos that could be corrected, such as "effected" and "granite". In general, I also think it would be beneficial to your paper to add more direct quotes for some definitive information to base the paper off of. Overall, focus on clearly stating your argument in your first paragraph so that the rest of your paper can be built up around it, having an argument to reference. And to provide evidence for your argument, use more direct quotes.
ReplyDeleteThere’s a lot going on in your introduction. Why so much? Are you writing about nature or human nature? Why the circular definition - “everything that happens naturally in our world before it is effected or disturbed by beings”? Defining nature by reference to “natural” is pretty problematic, isn’t it? That’s not to say that I don’t find your approach interesting, because I do - I just think you’re trying to do too much. Simplification would be good here.
ReplyDelete“It reads almost as if Wilder is not defining nature as it is but nature as civilization makes it. “ -- This was not something Wilder actually said - it was a sample argument *about* Wilder that I wrote. Your sense is accurate, though - I was imagining an argument about the relationship between nature and culture.
“nature is what happens in this universe before we effect it, after that it just becomes artificial.” -- I actually didn’t see a coherent, concise definition here before this. You could have gotten to this more quickly, and focused on defending it. For instance, who is the “we” here? Where does the taint come in? Is it with humanity? Intelligence? Civilization? Etc. You’re defining nature negatively, which is fine, but to do that effectively you need to define its opposite.
The closing is scattered - it’s not wrong, for instance, to bring Lewontin up, but I don’t follow your strategy.
The prompt asked you for a *useful* definition. What use would you put this definition to? If it is simple (as you claim, and you do eventually give a simple version of it) why do you struggle to move beyond just offering the definition itself, into defending it or investigating problems with it? In other words, why does this definition make sense, and what is it for?