Part 1: The Introduction

One may engage with Nature through a multiplicity of diverse relationships—I will deeply expatiate on five. The character, transition, and hierarchy of my exposition will be similar to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s construction in Nature; however, as Emerson outlines the human’s relationship with Nature by how Nature may serve humankind, I will ultimately position Nature as a significant extension of the human, whereby the greater Nature provides biophilic nourishment for the human, as it does for all life, but will never serve the human [1]; additionally, I aim to expand upon Emerson’s notions through incorporating a discussion of moral ontology.

The five relationships I aim to describe will ascend in intellectual, emotional, and spiritual profundity as the inherent connectedness between the two entities (i.e., humankind and Nature) grows stronger. It should be noted that each relational form will possess its unique set of defining qualities; the way in which I aim to communicate my points will utilize evolutionary reasoning and ecological philosophy to explain how the human may come to progress or regress in their connection with Nature. The order/progression of the relationships is as follows: (I) resources, (II) ecosystem services, (III) knowledge, (IV) reflection and meditation, and, lastly, (V) transcendent connectedness.

Throughout this piece, I will make arguments that work to demonstrate how Nature is de facto an entity of abundant experience, knowledge, and indomitable authority. Most significantly, I contend that Nature may help to guide moral precepts and, further, is integral in the cultivation of one’s true sense of self.

The implications of my assertions will come to echo notions presented by Edward O. Wilson in the “Biophilia Hypothesis”, as the conclusion of my exposition will reflect on this five-part progression and make the claim that as one further embraces Nature their intellectual, emotional and spiritual offices will augment in parallel; and, further, that as one regresses in regards my five-part progression so too will such offices degenerate.

That is, according to the “Biophilia Hypothesis”, the human possesses an “inherent need to affiliate with life and life-like processes,” and, further, that “human identity and personal fulfillment somehow depend on our relationship to Nature.” The need is intimately linked “to the influences of the natural world on our emotional, cognitive, aesthetic, and even spiritual development”; and, so, conversely, the “degradation of this human dependence on nature brings the increased likelihood of a deprived and diminished existence…in a wide variety of affective, cognitive, and evaluative respects” (Kellert and Wilson, 42-43).

Therefore, doing what one can to conserve Nature is quite possibly the highest form of goodness and rightness. Although Wilson doesn’t make the claim that such consequences may have a part in guiding moral rules, I aim to argue that they do.

[1] Emerson, Ralph Waldo (2011-03-24). Nature (p. 21)

Next | Part 2: A Brief Begginning