Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Philosophy what is natural what is natural "What is it for something to be 'natural'?" One may think that deciding upon whether or not something is "natural" would not normally be a difficult task, yet before we present an answer to what appears this simple question, we must consider what we mean by the term "natural". Do we mean that something is "natural" because it is how it is meant to be, or because of some other reason? Different individuals would assume differing definitions for the term "natural". To list specific examples, "natural" could be · something in a state that it was intended to be · something that has been untouched/unaltered by man, as opposed to it being synthetic/man-made/processed · something that is "normal" in a particular context Now, what do we mean when we say something is in its purest state? Perhaps we mean that if we find something within a remote location, which has never been exposed to human contact, it would be in its purest state. But then could this also be classified beneath our third definition of "natural", something that has not been touched by man? Then let us take another approach - we could interpret the term "purest" as being in its simplest form; if we examine any object, its purest form would be as a single molecule, compound, we could even go as far to say that it is the atoms that comprise it. Yet everything is made of atoms, so would everything be in a "natural" state? The use of the word "purest" is therefore not suitable for a definition of "natural", and one would have to be more specific with its meaning. If we say that something is "natural" as it is how it is intended to be, we must ask intended by whom. A chair and a table are used for certain purposes, and they serve those purposes well; we can conclude that they are the way they were intended to be, so would we consider the chair as being "natural"? I believe that most would not, as the chair was created by man, which again brings us back to the "untouched by man" definition. Or do we mean that something is natural if it is in a state as intended by God, or some supernatural force? This would bring us into the metaphysical realm, and so instead we shall say "as intended" in a general sense, not by any specific person or thing, but as it was found within nature. For instance, a tree is in its "natural" state, as it was intended to appear and function as it does. However, it is clear that if we were to give this definition of "natural", we would again be obliged to categorise this meaning beneath our third definition of something not being man-made. We will also encounter difficulties in defining something "natural" as being untouched/unaltered by man. Most individuals would be quite content to say that something is natural if it is not man-made; however, this would conclude that many things that we would normally call "natural", were not natural, for instance, language, as it has been devised by man. Descartes argued that language was an integral part of being human, and so would it not be "natural", as it is quite significant in differentiating humans from animals? I will present another example: consider houses, or buildings. Now we would normally consider these as being unnatural, as man has had to process materials to construct them, and that man has constructed them. But we would have no problem in classifying a bird's nest, or a spider's web, as being "natural", as it has been constructed by those respective creatures within nature. Could we not draw an analogous situation with humans? Animals build their "homes" to protect from predators or to shelter from the elements; in a way, humans build their houses and buildings to function similarly. Why would we then consider a bird's nest as being natural, whereas our houses unnatural? If we continue with this argument, we would be compelled to regard everything within human society as being "natural". It perhaps might be best then, to define "natural" as something that is considered normal within a particular context. Lets inspect the act of breast feeding. Most would say that breast feeding for a new born infant is essential in its development, as the mother is able to pass onto her offspring necessary aliments crucial for its survival. We would then conclude that breast feeding were "natural"; would we then also have to deduce that bottle feeding were unnatural and wrong? What if the mother were unable to breast feed her child? Would we say that the mother was in an unnatural state, that she was acting unnaturally by allowing her child to feed from a bottle? And so we can say that, in this case, breast feeding is natural, in a particular context. We are able to see that in certain circumstances, one would be unable to conduct oneself in what would be called a "natural" way; that is, we would be acting "naturally" if we did so in a socially accepted way. Again, this definition of "natural" is confined to the limits within a particular context. Bibliography: Word Count: 877
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.