When I attended the most recent Socrates Café, I somehow expected the discussion to revolve around trees and rocks, given that “nature” was the topic. Naturally when you ask philosophy students what their definition of nature is, the answer you get is always some version of “everything is nature.”

You mean even artificial things? -Yes

What about things outside of Earth? -Yes

So basically nothing that is tangible isn’t nature, was the general consensus. Then there were a whole bunch of discussions that delved far away from “nature.” That’s the problem when the topic is too vague. Everyone just finds a way to talk about something that’s on their mind at that present moment.

I wrote on a flashcard to make sure I didn’t lose anything I learned. The notes included:

“Henry Matisse”

“Montaine on physiognamy”

“Souls contained in single temporal bodies? Multiple souls in one body”

“Science explaining world? or explaining ways to get around the world”

“Newton’s Square Law”

“Reason is the universal instrument”

“Are humans the one species of the universe that perceives things as what they are?”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s