What+is+Nature!?

So what is Nature? I am having a lot of issues with this topic. Br. Tom told me that Nature is “anything born of the Earth.” Ok…I mean, that definition makes sense to me, but it doesn’t really help me. How is writing supposed to be “born of the Earth.” A tree is obviously Nature. A poem is not a tree. What does Pope want!? Does he want the writing to be as natural and innocent and Nature? Should it portray Nature appropriately? Should it evoke emotions like Nature? Would our minds be considered part of Nature? They were physically “born of the Earth” but much of them were sculpted by outside influences. For me, answering these questions all this begins with how Pope sees Nature and then how he sees Nature connecting to his life. I’m having a lot of problems trying to see like he does. What does the man want from us!? 1204600002

I know exactly what you mean. When we first starting discussing this in class the first thing I asked Br. Tom was does Pope describe Nature to us eventually. The problem is that he doesn't! No where does he say this is what Nature is, and this is what you want to achieve in your writing. It is preposterous to expect someone to capture Nature in their writing if you don't explain to them what it is. However by saying that the ancients came closest to reaching this lofty goal, I would suspect that a rigorous form is part of the pathway. Yet, I find that Nature tends to be free and open. Form doesn't usually invoke that kind of feeling. Anyways, I think that our bodies and our feelings would probably be considered part of Nature, but our minds would not be. We have thoughts that obviously lead us away from Nature if we have trouble writing about it. Also, I would think the writing can't be innocent. The poets of the past used to write of crazy things. Look at Oedipus Rex for proof. Maybe someone else has some ideas on what Nature is. Also, does anyone know what kind of time period Pope lived in that would lead to him pointing out Nature as a major issue in writing? 1204857076

I am struggling with this same problem, but I have come to the conclusion that the definition of nature is similar to the definition of poetry. Pope left out the definition of nature for a reason and I think that reason is that the definition of poetry can be different for everyone. Pope wants us to try to write the closest we can to our definition of nature. Perhaps his definition of nature is following a very strict form and that is why he liked the ancient poetry. However, I think he is asking us to come up with our own definitions of nature and then write to be closest to whatever that is. He is asking us not to force a specific type of writing, but rather to write from our hearts, from whatever comes naturally.1205108381

I agree. I think that it was smart of Pope to leave out the definition of nature because he wants different readers to come up with their own definitions. I think that each of our own definitions come from our own experiences so it would be hard for a writer to give one correct definition when the people reading their work maybe has a different perspective of what it could be. I think that he leaves it open for all of us to bring something different and personal to the poem and what the meaning of the poem is. I think that it was clever of him to make nature such a large part of his work but then to leave the definition up to his various readers. 1205197157

I remember there was a part where Pope said something about how Homer was the beginning of "natural" writing; he was the father of it all and modern writers should follow that example. Pope wants to "follow nature." We are humans, born of the earth and must follow nature. Literature, born of us, must follow the nature of Homer. And by nature, I don't think he's talking about writing about trees and grass, but rather //natural// human emotions, natural experiences. He says, "Nature, like liberty, is but restrain'd/By the same laws which first herself ordain'd" (90-91). He shows that nature is ordered, it must follow rules, and so must our writing. Just as we must live by the rules of our nature, literature must live by the rules established by Homer's nature. 1205357382

I, too, was extremely confused with this topic. I think the thing that got me the most was that Br. Tom kept saying that everything in nature was born from it. Basically once human hands touched it, it was ruined. I had only a small problem with this because, supposedly, everything we make cannot be nature because we have touched it, contaminated the true nature in it. Even if it's just physical changes, such as taking a tree and making a table, it's still ridding the trueness of nature from the moment we cut it down. Then again, if we were to create a piece of poetry, it's supposed to be like nature, perfect, pure, untouched. But haven't we ruined it? I guess that because we are human, we have flaws and therefore our poetry cannot be as nature is. Even though we are technically a part of nature because we were born, we come with mistakes and flaws that make us who we are. How are we supposed to make something pure out of something not pure? 1205366240

I'm not offended by you adi, but I just want to say that this type of question just bugs me. And by that I mean the type of intellectual, heady, almost meaningless questions that come up so much in this type of literature. Questions like "What is man?," "What is existence?", and now "What is nature?." These questions just bug me because when people start to argue about them, which I believe was their sole purpose of creation- to create argument, no one can agree on anything because everyone has their own inherent definition of these heady topics. It comes down to the limitations of our own language more than anything else. But people get so into it that sometimes I just want to shout, "What a waste of TIME!" Because the truth is, it doesn't really matter for us to perfectly define all this stuff. You are always going to find someone with a different or completely opposite view. I just wish people could realize that these definitions are supposed to be ambiguous and vague. Argueing about them is just taking time away from actually doing something productive, like creating art for example. Does anyone else see the pointlessness of these questions?1205369792

Well nature is such an abstract term adi that it probably means something different to everyone. Personally, I think of nature as anything that takes place spontaneously or is innate. Someone can't do work and create something and then claim it as natural, because if they hadn't done the work, the product wouldn't exist. That's why I have trouble seeing art as nature. Sure it's easy to see how the ideas and realities expressed in art are natural, but the art itself is created by us people. If art that is created by us is nature, then wouldn't toxins and pollutants created by us be natural too?1205375277

MKo, I understand where you are coming from with the whole "why debate what is nature," but we all need something to post about... so let's continue the debate. :) LDo, the line you quoted from the poem, "Nature, like liberty, is but restrain'd/By the same laws which first herself ordain'd" (90-91), I took this quote to mean something different. I did not take it as, "there have to be rules about nature," but rather "we have made these rules about nature." In nature, there should be no rules, nature is anything and everything born of the earth (if that's the definition we're going to use). We as humans have started to make rules for nature: nature cannot be this, can't be that, oh this is far from nature. Why can't we just let nature be what it is? Why must we label everything and create rules for something that is so free? 1205377720

This is the one real criticism that I have of nature in Pope's essay because anything born of the earth could mean alot of things. On one hand nature has a regular and surprising order. Grass grows, gets eaten by herbivors, which get eaten by carnivors, that die, and in the end the dead help feed nutrients to the grass and the cycle starts over again. So on one level I can see the order in nature on which Pope justifies the fact that the Heroic Couplet which is a very versatile but none the less very orderly style can be seen in nature. This view however forgets the caotic side of nature in its unpredicatble weather, volcanoes, fires and all the other unpredictable but still natural events. Since these unpredictable and caotic events are also part of nature doesn't that mean that we can have poetry structures that still adhere to his definition of great poetry yet don't follow the forms that he holds so dear? Plus how can you translate something natural like a tree into poetry? While I found the essay contained many great points on a variety of subjects I found that this particular point to be somewhat wanting. user:DGr-c

Hopefully I can answer for you your questions with my perspective:

"What is man?" the climax of creation; conscious beings created in God's image and likeness, i.e. we have a capacity for love the most critical action.

"What is existence?" Too broad of a question, and thus it makes no sense. If you are questioning the purpose of existence on this earth, then the answer is to use our beautiful gift of free will the way God would have wanted us to use it, by increasing our love for him on this world so that we may love him enough to be capable of completely uniting with him in the next world.

"What is nature?" Nature, according to Pope, the Enlightenment thinker, is rational and pure creation. As humans, flawed beings who, accordingly, will create flawed things, we can learn from the rational and pure nature to make ourselves and our thoughts more rational and pure. Too many critics, according to Pope, did not heed nature, and thus had irrational and impure criticisms. Pope's objective in the essay was to point out the flaws of critics in hopes that the unneeded,bad criticism would end. 1205385200

On a separate note, I hold serious qualms with the rest of Mko's statement:

"These questions just bug me because when people start to argue about them, which I believe was their sole purpose of creation- to create argument, no one can agree on anything because everyone has their own inherent definition of these heady topics. It comes down to the limitations of our own language more than anything else. But people get so into it that sometimes I just want to shout, "What a waste of TIME!" Because the truth is, it doesn't really matter for us to perfectly define all this stuff. You are always going to find someone with a different or completely opposite view. I just wish people could realize that these definitions are supposed to be ambiguous and vague. Argueing about them is just taking time away from actually doing something productive, like creating art for example. Does anyone else see the pointlessness of these questions?"

People, like me, enjoy arguing about such topics because only through arguing, which, when done properly, is a serious of questionings, can people come to greater understanding about the truth of our world. The philosophy you seem to be advocating is a rather depressing one: the goal of existence, according to you, is to isolate oneself completely for the purpose of avoiding argument. You contradicted yourself when you talked about art being productive while arguments are counter-productive. In reality, art and argument are one in the same. The greatest works of any type of art are making some sort of argument about something. Your initial premises do not yield your conclusions because, according to your initial premises, creating art for other people would be a tragic occurrence because people may disagree with or argue about subjects of your artwork, not to mention that your work of art is an argument itself. If you want to avoid argument, then you must isolate yourself completely from everything and everyone, including art.

You also contradicted yourself by arguing on this forum. If you hate arguements about heady terms so much, then why did you state your viewpoint on them, and in doing so, start an argument. Why are you "wasting time?"

On another note, Socrates essentially created the concept of "arguing" by questioning his students in the heart of the Acropolis to reveal their ignorance. The Socratic method, as it came to be known, advocated such discussion because it yielded greater enlightenment for all parties involved. Personally, I feel finding the truth to be a valuable quest, and I would assume that most of humanity would agree or else these questions that you get so frustrated with would not exist and/or would not be so popular. If you denounce arguments on heady topics, then you, in effect, denounce the greatest thinkers ever (Socrates, Jesus, etc.). Based on what you stated, you hate everyone who ever made any viewpoint on any "heady topic", which would include yourself.

"no one can agree on anything because everyone has their own inherent definition of these heady topics"

I was really offended by this quote because, in essence, your are denouncing organized religion, or agreement on topics by humanity in general. So, in effect, you're stating that humanity is to ignorant to listen to other's viewpoints and come to logical conclusions: this is something I disagree with. The amount of Catholics in the world is a little over 1.1 billion. These people may not agree on everything, but they agree enough to profess the same doctrines and dogmas each Sunday at mass.

If you would like to continue I'll open a separate forum.

For our religion class we had to write journal entries about the material we read in class. For one of my journals, I was discussing the idea of natural symbols in the book Song of Songs, and how much of the beauty in their lover is defined through natural symbols. I discussed Pope's essay briefly because he talked about the idea of beauty in Nature, and how we can define beauty through things that are found in nature. Unfortunately, I took nature at its most basic form in that I discussed natural things such as trees, flowers, humans, animals, and so on. But I do believe that other things are natural. For example, I would consider love part of nature because all living things reproduce and I guess I just believe there is love in reproduction. Maybe I'm just being far fetch'd, I think that's the phrase, but I do believe that some of these things such as love are also natural. 1205425601

Maybe like nature as being anything not terribly influenced by the human mind. And beauty is found outside the world we've created for ourselves, in the world that was already there. So think back to what the earth might be like had we never become civilized, think to what's here now that would be then too, and that's about nature in Pope's view I think. Interesting how some people praise the human mind, and its ability to create, yet others bash it and say that beauty must be found in nature, ie before human reason came affect us. Sorta contradictory, but here, there ya go. People can see nature as many different things too, it's violence, or its simple quietness, and I think much of this is also present in us, because we too are products of nature. But that's just my take. 1205446435

I most certainly agree with Tom in this case. To question why we debate about nature is to question a significant catalyst of human development. Pope leaves out a definition in his essay because he feels (from what I can gather) that he has not quite found for himself a good definition of nature. He also understands that his opinion alone can't fully comprehend nature. What do we do to get a definition, though? If each of us has part of the puzzle, why is it better to keep to ourselves when we could be working together to figure it out? This is exactly what debate is intended for. Think of how our world would be like today if man did not use debate to help advance the world to a new level understanding. Frederick Douglass and Dred Scott had a different idea of what man was than other members of society in their time. Would it have been better for them to have kept silent? Were they just wasting their time when they spoke out? What about Hitler? He CERTAINLY had a different view of what man was. Should we have kept silent? What about Martin Luther King, Jr., or Susan B. Anthony, or Pope John Paul II? Were they just wasting their time, too?

Trust me, I mean no disrespect in what I'm saying, but it just doesn't make sense to say that people who debate the essential questions of life are useless. I think that these people are the most useful people on earth, as they help bring the world to a new level of respect for and understanding of their surroundings, their peers, and themselves. True, the debate is endless, but so is the road to perfection.1205450722

I think that nature, according to Pope, is a thing that is set and organized and balanced. It does not necessarily have to be of the earth, or at least i dont think so. I think that is just has to be perfect, like not changeable. Nature cannot be changed. It just is. I like that about it. I think that is what we need to aim for when we write poetry. We need to aim for perfection, the perfect way of getting our point across. 1205465593

I was very confused by this concept in class as well. Upon further thought, I tend to think that when Pope says nature, he referring to the fundamental things of the earth, and of human life. He is saying that writing needs to reach to the very fundamental aspects of human nature and the basic and natural aspects of the earth. Writing that is too lofty and doesn't reach people at their core has no purpose. This made me think a little bit about the author of As I Lay Dying (I want to say Goldsmith, but I don't want to confuse anyone if I am wrong). His Nobel Prize speech talked about writing needing to be about courage, love, etc., things that are most basic to humanity and to life in general. Pope seems to be saying the same thing, at least that's what it seems to me. 1205466832

That is a good comparison Mmi. I was a bit confused too at what Pope was wanting, but when you compare it to the Nobel speech I can begin to understand. When I think of nature, I tend to always think trees, rock, mother nature type things, but I was forgetting human nature. We as humans have a lot to us. Emotion and many many traits like love and courage. We too have life of course and I think that human nature was what Pope was really trying to touch on. I like that he left out the definition too because this gives us the chance to debate and question what he is talking about. It helps to not have a set definition because we all take it in different directions and i think Pope wanted it that way.1205469678