ched 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 ...
