Human, Nature, Image: The natural human

This week's readings are "Nature" from The Dictionary of Human Ideas and Gary Snyder's "The Etiquette of Freedom." Both articles analyze the definitions of nature, how differing definitions and thought processes on nature have evolved over the centuries, and how they apply to us as a culture today. The Dictionary discusses nature in terms of four ideas that are supposedly in direct opposition to nature: supernatural, art, custom, and post-primitive. One section of the article that stood out to me was the early philosophers' and intellectuals' theory of a "natural human" and if there was such a thing as a human being whose nature was yet "unspoiled by art." Is it someone who lives as savagely as animals? Or perhaps children are more in tune with an uncorrupted version of nature? They also dabbled with the idea that peasants are perhaps more intimate with nature due to their innate honesty, sincerity, simplicity, and other outstanding virtues. The early thinkers were searching for a type of person who was living in accordance to nature, but to me it seems their search was in vain. It is impossible to find a life being lived in accordance to nature because nature in this context means "the world unmodified by man" and all humans live in a world that has been modified by man, instilled with differing sets of morals, virtues, and customs.

Snyder's article also touches on the idea that there is a dichotomy between the civilized and the wild. He raises the status of the wild over that of the civilized by saying, "The lessons we learn from the wild become the etiquette of freedom." He states that the etiquette of the wild world requires generosity, good-humored toughness, and appreciation of everyone's fragility, and modesty. I agree with this statement, but I would argue that living in the wilderness and obtaining these qualities doesn't make someone any more a part of "living in accordance to nature." To me, it has to do with a different statement that Snyder makes. He states that wilderness is not limited to the two percent of formal federal and state parks, but that wilderness is everywhere and in everything, including our bodies. Bodies are wild and self-regulating. They don't need help breathing or functioning in the basic sense. They are made to grow-up, procreate, grow old, and decay. And in that sense human bodies are exactly like all animals and all things living, "according to nature."

I have always been fascinated with this idea. That our bodies are what connects us to the planet and everything living in it. A few years ago I asked my friend who was in med school why I always have cold hands and feet. I was under the impression that I had bad circulation or something, but she explained that most women have colder extremities because our body heat stays focused in the middle of our bodies to provide warmth for a growing fetus. It was at this point that I realized that whether or not I decided to have children, that's what my body was designed to do and there's no getting around that.

Upon further reflection on this idea of living the life of a "natural human," it is my conclusion that all human beings are living the life of a natural human simply given the wildness of our bodies and our dependence upon its natural functions. There is no way that any one person or type of person can be living a life "in accordance to nature" more so than the rest of us.