Nature is the existence of things, so far a it is determined according to universal laws, Should nature signify the existence of things in themselves...
Kant is saying the things(objects) around us make up nature..I dont think things themselves make up nature...I think just our natural surroundings make up nature..meaning trees, grass, water, etc. Objects are what we put in nature, not what nature is made up of.
3 comments:
Whether or not Kant says the things around us make up nature.. okay whatever, but how does he question whether or not it really exists? I feel like that is the most crazy thing for anyone to say that you are not sure if "the things around you" exist. The wall that is in front of me exists now matter what. I see it, its there and if I asked anyone else they would see it too. I also agree with what you say about the trees and such, they are natural.
Our natural surrounds are trees, grass, lakes, ponds, etc. But I think what Kant is trying to say here is if these things were not there.. we wouldnt have nature. All of these objects together produce what we call nature.
I see what you mean about Kant and what he believes in nature but could he mean nature out of the simple context of how we may think. Maybe like the nature of how we live out lives and the things that are around us not just the nature of outside?! I dont know that's where I kind of see it going.
Post a Comment