Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is the "nature of man"?

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 10:01:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A contradiction.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Loserboi
Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 10:17:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 10:10:26 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:01:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A contradiction.

Do elaborate.

yes, please
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 10:27:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 10:10:26 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:01:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A contradiction.

Do elaborate.

Man is unnatural. The term "Nature" has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man.

Since you clearly need this for history homework though Loserboi, Locke thinks the nature of man is to be mostly harmlessly selfish (and the state of nature, i.e. pregovernmental life, inconvenient for mere implementation reasons), Hobbes thinks its to be somehow harmfully selfish (and the state of nature, nasty, poor, brutish, and short), Rousseau thinks the nature of man to be supposedly all-loving altruistic "good" (and the state of nature to be a wonderful if never to be realized place).

Thems are the only three your teacher cares about.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 10:28:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
or polisci homework or philosophy homework, whatevs.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 10:31:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 10:27:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:10:26 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:01:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A contradiction.

Do elaborate.

Man is unnatural. The term "Nature" has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man.

Uhh... I think that man and man-made are separate. The former is natural, the latter unnatural.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 10:33:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 10:31:03 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:27:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:10:26 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:01:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A contradiction.

Do elaborate.

Man is unnatural. The term "Nature" has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man.

Uhh... I think that man and man-made are separate. The former is natural, the latter unnatural.

Man is a man made work. Thinking is a choice, not some biological automaton. If one refuses to think, one refuses to become human. If one chooses to think, one thereby enters humanity.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 10:33:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 10:27:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Man is unnatural. The term "Nature" has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man.

You dawg, we herd u liek equivocation...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 10:36:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 10:33:21 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:27:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Man is unnatural. The term "Nature" has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man.

You dawg, we herd u liek equivocation...
In this case it is NOT equivocation, because it is eminently clear that he is studying enlightenment political philosophy in some manner. "The nature of man," the moral stature to which nature supposedly damns man, is the contradiction these people promote. It could have been equivocation-- had Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, et al, meant anything other than they did.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 10:52:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 10:36:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:33:21 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:27:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Man is unnatural. The term "Nature" has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man.

You dawg, we herd u liek equivocation...
In this case it is NOT equivocation, because it is eminently clear that he is studying enlightenment political philosophy in some manner. "The nature of man," the moral stature to which nature supposedly damns man, is the contradiction these people promote. It could have been equivocation-- had Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, et al, meant anything other than they did.

Actually, it is equivocation.

Nature - the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized; "it is the nature of fire to burn"; "the true nature of jealousy."

OR

Nature - the natural physical world including plants and animals and landscapes etc.; "they tried to preserve nature as they found it."

When referring to "the nature of man," the first definition is obviously assumed. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 11:06:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 10:52:01 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:36:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:33:21 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:27:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Man is unnatural. The term "Nature" has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man.

You dawg, we herd u liek equivocation...
In this case it is NOT equivocation, because it is eminently clear that he is studying enlightenment political philosophy in some manner. "The nature of man," the moral stature to which nature supposedly damns man, is the contradiction these people promote. It could have been equivocation-- had Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, et al, meant anything other than they did.

Actually, it is equivocation.

Nature - the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized; "it is the nature of fire to burn"; "the true nature of jealousy."

OR

Nature - the natural physical world including plants and animals and landscapes etc.; "they tried to preserve nature as they found it."

When referring to "the nature of man," the first definition is obviously assumed.
Not by Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, et al. It is not to recognize what a man is that they spoke of the matter, nor to essentialize (to do so would render need for speaking of the "State of nature" as irrelevant, for other states could not render other matters), rather, it is the notion that Nature, the world as Nature's God supposedly made it, sets a certain moral course for human beings.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 11:18:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 11:06:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not by Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, et al. It is not to recognize what a man is that they spoke of the matter, nor to essentialize (to do so would render need for speaking of the "State of nature" as irrelevant, for other states could not render other matters), rather, it is the notion that Nature, the world as Nature's God supposedly made it, sets a certain moral course for human beings.

I don't see what that's got to do with your original statement that "Man is unnatural. The term 'Nature' has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man."
Loserboi
Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 11:32:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 10:27:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:10:26 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:01:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A contradiction.

Do elaborate.

Man is unnatural. The term "Nature" has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man.

Since you clearly need this for history homework though Loserboi, Locke thinks the nature of man is to be mostly harmlessly selfish (and the state of nature, i.e. pregovernmental life, inconvenient for mere implementation reasons), Hobbes thinks its to be somehow harmfully selfish (and the state of nature, nasty, poor, brutish, and short), Rousseau thinks the nature of man to be supposedly all-loving altruistic "good" (and the state of nature to be a wonderful if never to be realized place).

Thems are the only three your teacher cares about.

I'm finished already thanks though, 15 pages of useless essays done.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 11:35:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 11:18:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 11:06:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not by Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, et al. It is not to recognize what a man is that they spoke of the matter, nor to essentialize (to do so would render need for speaking of the "State of nature" as irrelevant, for other states could not render other matters), rather, it is the notion that Nature, the world as Nature's God supposedly made it, sets a certain moral course for human beings.

I don't see what that's got to do with your original statement that "Man is unnatural. The term 'Nature' has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man."

It's a statement about the same definition (minus the god bit) of nature they were using. Not only does predestined moral stature self-contradict, but that sense of nature-- the one they use-- contradicts man.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 1:04:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 10:27:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:10:26 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:01:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A contradiction.

Do elaborate.

Man is unnatural. The term "Nature" has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man.

Since you clearly need this for history homework though Loserboi, Locke thinks the nature of man is to be mostly harmlessly selfish (and the state of nature, i.e. pregovernmental life, inconvenient for mere implementation reasons), Hobbes thinks its to be somehow harmfully selfish (and the state of nature, nasty, poor, brutish, and short), Rousseau thinks the nature of man to be supposedly all-loving altruistic "good" (and the state of nature to be a wonderful if never to be realized place).

Thems are the only three your teacher cares about.

Live some life, this whole thing came from a book.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 1:05:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 10:33:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:31:03 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:27:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:10:26 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:01:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A contradiction.

Do elaborate.

Man is unnatural. The term "Nature" has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man.

Uhh... I think that man and man-made are separate. The former is natural, the latter unnatural.

Man is a man made work. Thinking is a choice, not some biological automaton. If one refuses to think, one refuses to become human. If one chooses to think, one thereby enters humanity.

How does this make man unnatural?
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 1:06:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 11:18:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 11:06:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not by Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, et al. It is not to recognize what a man is that they spoke of the matter, nor to essentialize (to do so would render need for speaking of the "State of nature" as irrelevant, for other states could not render other matters), rather, it is the notion that Nature, the world as Nature's God supposedly made it, sets a certain moral course for human beings.

I don't see what that's got to do with your original statement that "Man is unnatural. The term 'Nature' has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man."

nice point.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 4:03:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 1:05:27 PM, kelly224 wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:33:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:31:03 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:27:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:10:26 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/12/2010 10:01:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A contradiction.

Do elaborate.

Man is unnatural. The term "Nature" has no distinguishing power unless it separates man and manmade works from that untouched by man.

Uhh... I think that man and man-made are separate. The former is natural, the latter unnatural.

Man is a man made work. Thinking is a choice, not some biological automaton. If one refuses to think, one refuses to become human. If one chooses to think, one thereby enters humanity.

How does this make man unnatural?

Man-made
artificial, i.e., the antonym of natural.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 4:29:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 4:03:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Man-made
artificial, i.e., the antonym of natural.

everything's natural...

Men, and their *Choices*, don't float along distinct and unsupported...

there's no reason to make this Supernaturalish distinction between Man and The World.

People's Choices are Rooted in their cares... and those arise in the natural course of a man's life...
IT IS B/C of their nature.

They DO have nature's or else they wouldn't Care.. and so.. They wouldn't CHOOSE.. which is the KEY to your supernaturalish understanding of "man"

Much like you Sarte says he has no nature and believes in a Free Floating, unconstrained, Supernaturalish, UTTERLY FREE CHOICE...

and in the course of his ramblings He proves himself (and His understanding) to be a silly duck...

If asked the source of His Choices Nietzsche would say: Look to Mine Animals!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 4:53:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
also relevant to your distinction between Artifice and Nature is Nietzsche's Apollonian and Dionysian distinctions...

though, justly, he concludes that the "independent nature" of Apollonian Constructions is just an illusion... and that it all is Ultimately Rooted in the Dionysian Reality. 8)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 5:04:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
there's no reason to make this Supernaturalish distinction between Man and The World.
There is all the reason in the world. The alternative is to be buried in the world. Enjoy the grave. ^_^.

Men, and their *Choices*, don't float along distinct and unsupported...
Neither do cars. They don't need to to be machines to take you where you want to go. The fact of the road does not negate the fact of the car, nor the fact of there being conditions to what man can do negate the fact of volition.

They DO have nature's or else they wouldn't Care.. and so.. They wouldn't CHOOSE..
To choose is to do something nature cannot, to negate nature in that aspect one chooses.

Much like you Sarte says he has no nature and believes in a Free Floating, unconstrained, Supernaturalish, UTTERLY FREE CHOICE...
A strawman volition. Actual volition must abide by the reality it works in.

also relevant to your distinction between Artifice and Nature is Nietzsche's Apollonian and Dionysian distinctions...

though, justly, he concludes that the "independent nature" of Apollonian Constructions is just an illusion... and that it all is Ultimately Rooted in the Dionysian Reality.
To declare such a thing is to engage in a process of reasoning and thereby affirm reason even as one denies it(or "Apollo.")
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 5:14:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 5:04:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
there's no reason to make this Supernaturalish distinction between Man and The World.
There is all the reason in the world. The alternative is to be buried in the world. Enjoy the grave. ^_^.

LOL... Nietzsche's always so right! :)

Those who do cling to such distinctions ALWAYS do so because they're World Denying/Despising Nihilists!!!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 5:17:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 5:14:20 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/13/2010 5:04:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
there's no reason to make this Supernaturalish distinction between Man and The World.
There is all the reason in the world. The alternative is to be buried in the world. Enjoy the grave. ^_^.

LOL... Nietzsche's always so right! :)

Those who do cling to such distinctions ALWAYS do so because they're World Denying/Despising Nihilists!!!


To conquer nature and place oneself above it is not to deny that it exists or that it has value.

To refuse to do so is to deny that "Value" means anything.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 5:18:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You see, Matt, Objectivism is a philosophy for life ON earth.

What your spouting sounds like one for a philosophy for something that isn't life, UNDER earth :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 5:22:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 5:04:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
To choose is to do something nature cannot, to negate nature in that aspect one chooses.

Nature results in People who Care and reason..

choice ensues.

Much like you Sarte says he has no nature and believes in a Free Floating, unconstrained, Supernaturalish, UTTERLY FREE CHOICE...
A strawman volition. Actual volition must abide by the reality it works in.

what do you mean by this?

That Choice Is rooted in Cares??? or no?

also relevant to your distinction between Artifice and Nature is Nietzsche's Apollonian and Dionysian distinctions...

though, justly, he concludes that the "independent nature" of Apollonian Constructions is just an illusion... and that it all is Ultimately Rooted in the Dionysian Reality.
To declare such a thing is to engage in a process of reasoning and thereby affirm reason even as one denies it(or "Apollo.")

Noone's denying reason/the Appolonian... Nietzsche (at least in That work) Revels in it...

Also even though this is from a certain perspective... Based IN our Reasoning capacity... that Doesn't mean it can't Conclude that that Reasoning is limited and Rooted in Nature... or that "choices" aren't rooted in Natural cares...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 5:25:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 5:14:20 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/13/2010 5:04:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
there's no reason to make this Supernaturalish distinction between Man and The World.
There is all the reason in the world. The alternative is to be buried in the world. Enjoy the grave. ^_^.

LOL... Nietzsche's always so right! :)

Those who do cling to such distinctions ALWAYS do so because they're World Denying/Despising Nihilists!!!


I think Early on (in the 'Birth of Tragedy' piece) the Lack of distinction Bothered Nietzsche too...

But as he went on he realized it oughtn't...

The illusions can be enjoyable... but even without them... you can find contentment.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 5:30:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 5:18:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You see, Matt, Objectivism is a philosophy for life ON earth.

What your spouting sounds like one for a philosophy for something that isn't life, UNDER earth :P.

My "philosophy" Acting ON Earth develops due to my consistent cares...and how I observe things in the world...

As I go on.. I learn how better to Get those things I care about.. and avoid those I dislike. Pragmatism!

Though... if my cares change.. any such constructions are apt to go too.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 5:32:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 5:30:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Though... if my cares change.. any such constructions are apt to go too.

The "constructions" being guides on how to act...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 5:36:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 5:22:23 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/13/2010 5:04:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
To choose is to do something nature cannot, to negate nature in that aspect one chooses.

Nature results in People who Care and reason..

choice ensues.
And so ends the part for nature to play.


Much like you Sarte says he has no nature and believes in a Free Floating, unconstrained, Supernaturalish, UTTERLY FREE CHOICE...
A strawman volition. Actual volition must abide by the reality it works in.

what do you mean by this?

I cannot merely will a car into existence. I must build it, or buy it from someone who can, or go without.

That Choice Is rooted in Cares??? or no?
"Cares" are something you've never really defined. It's rooted in a goal, or the lack of one (in which case one chooses not to think).


also relevant to your distinction between Artifice and Nature is Nietzsche's Apollonian and Dionysian distinctions...

though, justly, he concludes that the "independent nature" of Apollonian Constructions is just an illusion... and that it all is Ultimately Rooted in the Dionysian Reality.
To declare such a thing is to engage in a process of reasoning and thereby affirm reason even as one denies it(or "Apollo.")

Noone's denying reason/the Appolonian... Nietzsche (at least in That work) Revels in it...
That ain't Nietzsche As Usual that's for sure.


Also even though this is from a certain perspective... Based IN our Reasoning capacity... that Doesn't mean it can't Conclude that that Reasoning is limited and Rooted in Nature...
Limited? Yes. But very very shallow roots. That consist of exactly 1 cell. The rest is above nature-- it is artificial!
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.