“Therefore nature, if it produces nothing incomplete or in vain, necessarily has done all these things for the sake of human beings.”
Aristotle, Politics
What are ‘all these things’ of which Aristotle speaks here that nature has done? By the order of nature plants feed animals, and both plants and animals nourish and serve human life.
It is obvious, even while still remarkable, how animals and plants serve the nutritional needs of human life. In Aristotle’s mind this points to an intention in nature that people have a close interaction with plants and animals. It’s as though our bodies are saying to us: stay close to the soil; steward and shepherd the things that live in and from it. This is part of your life.
Aristotle exhibits a profound docility toward the order of nature. He always gives it the benefit of the doubt, confident that there are good—and often hidden—things in store for those who observe and reverence it.
It is noteworthy that in order for people to render animals and plants useful, various kinds of work are required. Thinking with Aristotle, it is fitting to look again at this work nature seems to ‘call’ us to do—even in its simplest and most mundane manifestations, such as watering our plants. Perhaps we will find in this work itself an unexpected gift—deeper ways that plants and animals serve human life, all by a natural design.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), student of Plato, tutor of Alexander the Great, has been considered by many to be the greatest ancient philosopher. The Politics is one of his major ethical works.
Image: Eric Sloane (1905-1985), American, “Hay Harvest, Late Summer”
Husband, father, and professor of Philosophy. LifeCraft springs from one conviction: there is an ancient wisdom about how to live the good life in our homes, with our families; and it is worth our time to hearken to it. Let’s rediscover it together. Learn more.
This, to me, throws into relief the great arrogance of our modernity, which removes us from nature to become (if only in our own minds) isolated observers, as though creatures could exclude themselves from creation!
Wendell Berry makes this point about our place as part of the world especially well. I’m guessing that readers of BfA are very familiar with his work already.
Jesus referred to us humans as being the salt of the earth. To unpack the metaphor, we are not the food or meal itself, which is the earth and all of its lifeforms, but rather an addition or supplement which brings out its flavor and/or helps to preserve it. Similarly, Albert Schweitzer urged us to have reverence for life, a practical mysticism of bonding with all living things, which begins with moving beyond an anthropomorphic understanding (and devaluing) of them. Am I wrong in sensing a different spirit in “How Nature Provides for Us?” Clarification would be appreciated.
Newton, Thank you for this comment and question. I appreciate it. Can you help me understand the question better? By ‘anthropomorphic’ did you by chance mean ‘anthropocentric?’ In other words, is your concern that in speaking of lower creatures as ‘serving’ human life that this somehow devalues them, or have I misunderstood your question. Thanks.
Thanks for the correction. Yes, I meant “anthropocentric.” Getting old and find myself making these kinds of mistakes more and more frequently. Looking forward to your response.
Newton, Again I thank you for your comment and question. You raise some important issues. Here is my main thought. I think that, while it might not be intuitively clear how this is the case, seeing plants and animals as ‘serving’ human life in fact does not denigrate them at all but rather gives to them their proper worth. Of course there are people who in the name of human superiority will treat these creatures as though they are tools that can be disposed of according to human whim. Such is a surely a perversion of the truth. Plants and animals themselves have natures that dictate their specific place in creation and which call us to treat them according to what they are. I think there is a beautiful paradox here: only when we are willing to treat them according to their natures–taking the time to discover their nuances and bring out their inner potentials–that then we stand in proper relation to them, and thereby are ‘served’ by them.
I certainly share the concern that taking a ‘utilitarian’ approach to these creatures–basically looking to ‘get out of them’ what we can–leads to our being alienated from them. We need to seek to reconnect and bond with them, both observing their true place, and also our true place as the ones for whom they were created. Thanks again.
We’re not as far apart as I feared, but I do not concur with the statement that all other earthly creatures were created for human beings, as indicated in one the Genesis creation stories. I prefer the other story, which implies that all living things were created to express their own natures, while interacting in the larger ecosystem in which each has its particular place and purpose. Life would then be not a hierarchy but a web. I think this is why early eschatology looked to the renewal and transfiguration of all creation, not merely the salvation of human beings. The return of this idea in some current theology is, to me, a hopeful sign.
I love the beautiful things of nature. The ugly —tapeworms under a microscope, crocodiles, et al— not so much.
I liked how you explained about our nature and the relation between plants, animals, and human. A short one, but you have covered this topic in great detail. 🙂
Thank you Govind!