2

When we say "aritificial", we typically mean "created by intelligent being". When we say "natural", we typically mean "created by nature, not by intelligent being".

But then is the human created using in vitro fertilisation natural? Or is that human artificial? What would be the difference between "natural" human and "artificial" one?

Are tools created by less intelligent beings natural? Can tools even be natural?

Now going further, if we assume the universe is created by intelligent being, is the nature itself artificial? What happens with relations of "natural" and "artificial" then? And would something change assuming panpsychism?

What does philosophy say about these questions?

rus9384
  • 2,536
  • 2
  • 13
  • 28
  • Well first you have to decide whether humans are part of nature or not. Second, "natural" is a meaningless term, other than when used to load an argument with positive or negative emotions. The emotional baggage of the term is its only value. I prefer the term "Deliberately created" to denote something that is "artificial". – MichaelK Jul 09 '18 at 16:22
  • @MichaelK, there exists *natural* selection, will you argue? This question is not about ethics, people use the words "natural" and "artificial" often enough in their speech to make this question meaningful. If we replace "artificial" with "deliberately created" then anything non-artificial is created undeliberately? – rus9384 Jul 09 '18 at 16:26
  • I am going out on a limb here... but I would dare say that anything that was created through the **deliberate actions of an agent**, is "artificial". So for instance: a beaver dam is an artificial construction. The flood that occurs when the dam bursts however is not artifical... it just happened because the dam collapsed. Unless of course the dam was torn down by humans ([example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUm_eYJKaO8)), then it was an artifical flood. – MichaelK Jul 09 '18 at 16:31
  • 2
    The sphere of artificiality is a sphere of *meaning* that has to be carried by objective reality. An artefact is artificial because we formed objective reality in accordance with intention. It is an embodiment of meaning that can only be understood and enacted as a product of reflection (intellect, spirit). Nature is not the embodiment of meaning, although we can impose meaning on it, carried by its objective reality....have to go on writing ;) – Philip Klöcking Jul 09 '18 at 16:42
  • 1
    If the question is how "natural" and "artificial" labels are applied it is a question of colloquial use for English SE. If there is a philosophical issue behind it it should be elaborated in the post, "what does philosophy say about" is too vague. Why should philosophy say anything more interesting about it than about the difference between fruits and vegetables? – Conifold Jul 09 '18 at 17:16
  • @Conifold, I already said how (in what cases) they are applied. Another thing is how it corresponds to various philosophical views. E.g. if there is a creator, nothing is natural? Or what? Fruits and vegetables are almost independent on various metaphysical views, while naturality and artificiality are not. Indeed, maybe it depends on what to count as intelligent agent, but this is not in the scope of this question. The thing is whether such an agent him-/herself is natural. – rus9384 Jul 09 '18 at 17:50
  • Let's say people with different metaphysics would apply the labels differently. So what? Where is the answerable philosophical question? The metaphysical substance, in your own words, is in whether something is "created by intelligent being", what you are asking is whether people would choose to use "natural" in any such cases, a purely linguistic question. Musings about people's linguistic preferences are beyond the scope of this site, and they are likely to accept standard usage anyway, regardless of their metaphysics. Creationists talk about God-given "natural law", for example. – Conifold Jul 09 '18 at 19:55
  • @Conifold, but this is not about the words, but about the notions behind them. Linguistics do not answer questions on the level of notions (which are independent on language, "nature "has it's meaning in english and in chinese and it is not much different, if it is - it is because of *philosophical* background). The question is what is the difference between nature and arts (generalized to anything artificial) on the level of notions. – rus9384 Jul 09 '18 at 20:01
  • On the level of whose notions? Let's rephrase your question without linguistics: "what does philosophy has to say about things created vs not created by intelligent beings?" Well, they are so created or not created, people disagree which is which. Do you see how this is empty? I am sure this was not your intention but you need to think this through before you have a non-trivial question to ask. – Conifold Jul 09 '18 at 20:09
  • @Conifold, so, there are no branches of philosophy regarding the issue of naturality that discussed it? When I say what philosophy says about it I mean exactly this, not random people thoughts. – rus9384 Jul 09 '18 at 20:33
  • There certainly are, but vague "what does philosophy have to say about X?" are not the kind of narrow scope questions that we entertain here. SEP has a long article on [natural law](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/) alone, even Wikipedia has a long [nature in philosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(philosophy)) entry. Simple googling might help make your question much more specific and answerable within reasonable space. – Conifold Jul 09 '18 at 20:46
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/79955/discussion-between-rus9384-and-conifold). – rus9384 Jul 09 '18 at 21:19

0 Answers0