The ideal of nature and perfection being the same, automatically suggests a monism where there isn’t one. I could instead suppose the opposite, that perfection simply is not existent in any moral context, and there is neither good nor bad nature, but instead only the result of the whole process in nature.
Many philosophical types may see this as basic, as something obvious, but the bulk of human persons go through each day expecting something that isn’t there, to really be. They have let-downs, they expect what is not even real, and then after such, they feel that someone or something is insufficient, and thus they feel and practice the morality of necessity, need, importance, or any other value based on this expectation of what is not.
Through negativity man accumulates energy, through a lack of truth comes his values, through a lack of food and a lack of sufficiency comes his will, his intent and his every value, his positivity is made of negativity. This means ofcourse that all things persons practice are usually hypocritical and circular. So then man would carry on to say, “nature is perfect”, aswel as saying that nature is good, though it is also nature that is the source of all attrocity and every bad madness ever to become.
Nice paragraph, I agree with this. We love positivity and are allergic to negativity. Negativity is energy and positive people need it for power so we use science and technology to create electrical/mechanical objects for us to use.
Anyone whom wants any sort of improvement, may be reaching to make a perfection that naturally isn’t there. So you’ll ware glasses, build a car, or anything else like that. Technology in one type of perspective is also “unnatural”, in so far as it is made from man’s ideas, in a nature that has no ideas. I suppose technology and unnatural things can be quite perfect, otherwise we would not be talking or typing now.
I suppose technology and unnatural things can be quite perfect, otherwise we would not be talking or typing now.