In this day and age, it is all too easy to view nature through the megapixels of a photo on an iPhone, or have over one hundred million images of any animal or plant appear in less than a second via Google Images. It is an astonishing accomplishment in technology, and its attributes to human welfare cannot be dismissed, but it does have its faults. Subsequently, these faults reflect concepts that philosophers have conferred for centuries. Many philosophers believe that technology, along with other entities and beliefs in Western culture, is pulling Americans away from having a strong connection with nature. One of the more contemporary philosophers, David Abram, expresses the importance of having a sense of unity with the natural world in his
…show more content…
It is easy for us as humans to view ourselves as superior to many non-human entities since we cannot empathize with them, but it is a perspective that many Americans need to change. This notion of false superiority is a focal point in Abram’s text, as he denounces “the Great Chain of Being”, a hierarchical continuum that places man above everything except angels and God. Abram states that instead of being at the top of this chain, we are in the midst of it; “We may cast our gaze downward to watch the field of mice and the insects that creep along the bending grasses… yet, at the same moment, hawks soaring on great winds gaze down upon our endeavors,” (49). I believe this is true to some extent, we coexist with the animal and plant species around us, and rely on them to aid in decomposition, pollination, producing oxygen, amongst other deeds, but being the only species able to change our environment to fit our needs does give us an advantage over all other aspects of the natural world. Therefore, mankind must find a way to balance the two modes of thinking – viewing ourselves at the top of chain and in the midst of it. We should respect and preserve as much as the natural world as possible, but use its resources to our …show more content…
In his anecdote, he tells the reader about his experience leaving his home in American academia to connect with nature in underdeveloped countries. As he immerses himself in the flora and fauna around him, his senses strengthen, and he notices sounds, objects, and patterns that he previously ignored. From this trip, he concludes that “we are human only in contact, and conviviality, with what is not human” (22). Abram is not the only philosopher who secluded himself to connect with the natural world; Philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau isolated himself from mankind for over two years. But this way of life, although praised by these philosophers, is unrealistic for the majority of Americans. Most have or are in search of careers, or are full-time students. Many have families to nurture, and must cook, clean, shop, etc., after working their standard 9:00-5:00 PM jobs in order to keep a stable family unit. With these responsibilities, it is unlikely that anyone could completely immerse them in nature for two weeks, let alone two years. But Abram’s statement is correct to an extent; humans are hardwired with an affinity for nature. To deprive ourselves of nature is to deprive ourselves of what makes us human, therefore we must find a balance between complete immersion into the natural world, and complete
It is easy for us as humans to view ourselves as superior to many non-human entities since we cannot empathize with them, but it is a perspective that many Americans need to change. This notion of false superiority is a focal point in Abram’s text, as he denounces “the Great Chain of Being”, a hierarchical continuum that places man above everything except angels and God. Abram states that instead of being at the top of this chain, we are in the midst of it; “We may cast our gaze downward to watch the field of mice and the insects that creep along the bending grasses… yet, at the same moment, hawks soaring on great winds gaze down upon our endeavors,” (49). I believe this is true to some extent, we coexist with the animal and plant species around us, and rely on them to aid in decomposition, pollination, producing oxygen, amongst other deeds, but being the only species able to change our environment to fit our needs does give us an advantage over all other aspects of the natural world. Therefore, mankind must find a way to balance the two modes of thinking – viewing ourselves at the top of chain and in the midst of it. We should respect and preserve as much as the natural world as possible, but use its resources to our …show more content…
In his anecdote, he tells the reader about his experience leaving his home in American academia to connect with nature in underdeveloped countries. As he immerses himself in the flora and fauna around him, his senses strengthen, and he notices sounds, objects, and patterns that he previously ignored. From this trip, he concludes that “we are human only in contact, and conviviality, with what is not human” (22). Abram is not the only philosopher who secluded himself to connect with the natural world; Philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau isolated himself from mankind for over two years. But this way of life, although praised by these philosophers, is unrealistic for the majority of Americans. Most have or are in search of careers, or are full-time students. Many have families to nurture, and must cook, clean, shop, etc., after working their standard 9:00-5:00 PM jobs in order to keep a stable family unit. With these responsibilities, it is unlikely that anyone could completely immerse them in nature for two weeks, let alone two years. But Abram’s statement is correct to an extent; humans are hardwired with an affinity for nature. To deprive ourselves of nature is to deprive ourselves of what makes us human, therefore we must find a balance between complete immersion into the natural world, and complete