NATURE IS THE EXISTENCE OF THINGS, SO FAR AS IT IS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO UNIVERSAL LAWS. SHOULD NATURE SIGNIFY THE EXISTENCE OF THINGS IN THEMSELVES, WE COULD NEVER COGNIZE IT EITHER A PRIORI OR A POSTERIORI. NOT A PRIORI, FOR HOW CAN WE KNOW WHAT BELONGS TO THINGS IN THEMSELVES, SINCE THIS IS NEVER CAN BE DONE BY THE DISSECTION OF OUR CONCEPTS (IN ANALYTIC JUDGEMENTS).
I do not totally agree with this statement. I think that things do exist in nature but nature is not the existence of things. If nature was the existence of things then where would people fall and their existence. But then you must think of all the things that exist in nature like the bodies of water, animals, people, and plant life. i do belice that without all these things nature could not exist but some of the things that exist in nature are not dependant on it. I think this statement proves that is value to human and plant life but it is not the means of existence. I think that nature is something that is a posteriori because it is based on observation and how people, animals, and plant life adapt to there surroundings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"I do not totally agree with this statement. I think that things do exist in nature but nature is not the existence of things."
I agree with you. I think that things can live some place like a forest has animals living in it, but the forest did not create those animals.
THATS EXACTLY MY POINT! JUST BECAUSE NATURE CONSIST OF CERTAIN THINGS DOESNT MEAN THAT NATURE IS WHAT MAKE THEM EXIST! MANKIND AND ANIMALS LIVE IN NATURE AND NEED CERTAIN THINGS IN NATURE FOR THEIR EXISTENCE BUT ALL THINGS IN NATURE ARE NECESSARY FOR SURVIVE!
Post a Comment