The question of what is nature

These are a few of the major early commentators on the Physics. All multi-volumes.

Then we also have the later Islamic reception

Then the other day I gave you a glance at Aquinas’s tome on the subject.

I’m not an anti-science person by any means, I just think it’s suspicious that modern physics confirms modern prejudice. Flux ontology, relativism. So I want to examine earlier understandings of physics to see if there’s anything that might have been unfairly marginalized. H blew me away with his interpretation of Aristotle’s physics. So I think there’s more there than meets the eye. Call me an anti-science lunatic if you want, or just consider me as studying the history of science, either way. Or you can read Bjerknes’ 3000 page book on Einstein which is too pure for this world.

People take physics on faith today. Do you even know what Einstein did? Did he look through a microscope to gather his findings? People don’t know, they just “trust the science”.

This is what I’d be doing on a seastead of a moon base, so might as well do it on land in the meantime.

Let’s recall what both early and late H thought of Aristotle’s Physics

the hidden and therefore never adequately thought-through foundational book [Grundbuch] of Western philosophy

Similarly, Avicenna grounds his philosophy with physics. If you remember, this is the split within Abrahamic monotheisms- the West went with Averroes, Persia went with Avicenna. Does Iran know nature better than the slaves here? Some believe this to be the case. Speaking of 2022, Avicenna wrote his most extensive account of physics in 1022.

This is a dense text. What are the core concepts? Matter, form, nature, motion, causation, space, place, void, inclination, and time. Do you think we in the current year necessarily have a better idea of those concepts? I somehow doubt it.

Yesterday when I mentioned how Everyperson is Cartesian and doubts everything. You think I’m not part of that too? I just take it to extreme levels. If you remember the Brobdingnag’s suspicion, the west was already going downhill at the time of Aquinas and Duns Scotus. And the Latins appropriated the Islamics’ Greeks. So we’re just going one step further back.

We’re attempting a genealogy of “nature”

Since nature is undoubtedly a principle of natural things, it is plausible to conceive of nature as being, together with matter and form, among the most important principles of natural things that the science of physics has to investigate. In fact, in the discussion of nature in Physics II.1, Aristotle himself raises the question of whether nature ought to be identified with matter or rather with form, eventually concluding that “form is nature rather than matter.”

Avicenna, like H, also writes on book II.1 of the Physics.

Benardete has shown that “nature” goes all the way back to the Odyssey. For now we’re going back “only” a thousand years.

What’s the nature of a jew, what’s the nature of a woman, what’s the nature of a pleb AHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA They really want you to keep a ~modern~ idea of nature.

We’re still trying to piece together how the Aristotelian corpus is connected too

If nature is a cause and principle of motion in Aristotle’s natural philosophy, it is not the only one. There is also soul (ψυχή), which Aristotle discusses and defines in his De anima.

We can do a genealogy of “soul” as well, one of these days.

Do modern people believe in either soul OR nature? Seems like the consensus is they’re “made up”.

“If we think too much about that we’ll be going back to Feudal Times!!” I’m just looking for the truth, that’s all.

Isn’t the “prejudice” that they’re both “made of matter”?

That soul and nature are distinct principles, while nonetheless being related and conceptually similar, was also a common theme among Neoplatonists.

My point with all this is that if H floored you with his interpretation of book II.1, all of the above mentioned commentators have interpretations of the same book, and have their own unique spins on “physis”.

Simply put, I don’t trust an exile mental illness political order to tell me what nature is.

There is no “equality” to be found in this

everything which has a nature is capable of initiating motion, i.e., has in itself the source for its own motion, such as to proceed towards a specific end

The different species that we all too conveniently umbrella under the word “humanity” all have different ends they proceed toward. And this is their unchanging nature. And some of those ends they proceed toward are not good.


Using Aristotle to BURY all you niggers, what do you think I’m doing?

Nah, this is just politically neutral learning about toga people. Makes you wonder though how the kike end proceeded toward is to obfuscate this idea of nature. “It’s just stereotypes! Meaningless!” Yeah and when you say that you’re a typically-natured kike. Surprise! Identity reveal- it’s a nigger!

Look into his eyes.

This isn’t something a Christian could accept either. This is just Greek barbarism to them. Yes, a certain nature does perceive it that way… Hint hint wink wink.

Damnit, I went into “joker mode” again – I guess that’s my nature??

Yeah right, it’s everyone else that is the “villain”. It’s a tacit criminal conspiracy that all the pleb-natures agree with each other about (without needing to say anything to each other directly).

Some of my best pals don’t speak English

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: