1. First of all, the line between an objective view of nature (putting aside whether a truly objective nature exists) and philosophical pessimism exists but I find it extremely fascinating how Herzog, based on the quotes you have put in here, seems to cross over this threshold so quickly that if you aren't looking it appears to not even exist. He goes from "hard truths in life" to an intense Schopenhauerian perspective. Frankly I find philosophical pessimism exactly what Christians warned about when they spoke of what the "demonic" was. (Also relates to why they rejected Gnosticism so much). Again, this line between nature being "objectively cruel" and it just being "evil", as Herzog seems to imply, exists and we shouldn't forget it. At least the way I see it, the first perspective is more concerned with truth (though objectivity as ontology and epistemology to begin with is on shaky ground especially in regards to nature. Terrence McKenna really comes to light here), while the second perspective is more concerned with a feedback loop of its underlying assumption. Pessimism versus optimism is nothing but a feedback loop of an underlying assumption. (reinforcing an optimistic point of view versus a pessimistic point of view)
Second of all, I couldn't help but think of my own related idea while reading this. I think its likely that from a Nietzschean perspective, we deeply resent nature. Nature was our master, and we adopted a sort of "slave morality" towards it, conceptualizing it as "evil". This resentment turns into desire to control nature and this explains why we are wrecking the planet. An incredibly neurotic condition indeed. But nature is indifferent. It doesn't care about us. We are slowly matching it in power but in many ways it is still more powerful than us (again how nature is defined is important here). Its a weird idea but I think it highlights our neurotic dysfunction with nature as a whole and why we cannot seem to get a grip on our problems with it and why we are still causing so much damage. In the darkest deepest subconscious, I think most people actually want to destroy nature. They deeply desire to gain control back and punish that which has caused us immense pain and suffering (again the resentment response). If we're being honest, if we actually had an okay relationship with nature, we would not be wrecking the planet. But nobody wants to admit that. and that's pretty dark.
Thanks for the comment. I agree with your two points. Herzog shifts, probably unwittingly, from a cold, objective perspective to a value-laden pessimism. As for Nietzsche, he called morality ‘anti-nature’ yet he never implied rejecting morality (in the pejorative sense) meant we should embrace nature or go back to nature or take it as our guide.
I think your students will enjoy the course; I enjoyed the essay!
I took a similar course as an undergrad about 35 years ago - we read McPhee, Abbey, Wendell Berry, Muir, and others. It certainly influenced me professionally.
I was particularly interested in your framing of Mill’s dilemma from my personal perspective as a consulting professional environmental engineer. During 30+ years in practice, my particular specialty was the proper (lawful) management of hazardous industrial raw material and wastes, ahem, ‘by-products’, for big name clientele that included most of the Fortune 100 manufacturers and leading healthcare/educational institutions operating in New England in the past few decades.
In addition to helping my clients secure permission from the state to make steady and planned emissions of waste into the environment, I also spent a lot of time convincing the state that any accidental releases of hazardous material would be handled responsibly.
For this, I was paid handsomely and it goes without saying, I think, that this is not exactly what I expected an “environmental” engineer would be doing during my days as an undergrad 🤣
The idea of how nature is defined and therefore conceived by people struck me as a fish that suddenly notices it is surrounded by water.
In my practice, most of the serious work was a collaborative effort between industry and government regulators, mediated by engineers such as myself. I am sure the goals of each party in the negotiations are evident, but to gain any concessions from industry, and vice versa, the parties might use different framings or “understandings” of “nature”, on a case by case basis, to their advantage.
This is something I did not recognize at the time, necessarily, but it is something I would like to reflect back upon in hindsight.
I am curious if you think the tension between industry and regulators is a framing of your question that helps add shape to your supporting material? I would be interested in discussing this more deeply if you are interested - and I would also like to audit the course when it goes live if that is possible.
Thanks for your perspective. I think your story highlights an important feature of the concept of nature, namely, that it is context-dependent and that we choose to apply it to certain things or contexts rather than others based on pragmatic considerations rather than for intrinsic reasons. Nature is a historical construct and as such it’s not surprising its use can be contentious. At the same time it’s a meaningful concept and we can distinguish between things that are natural or artificial, or more or less nature than other things, in meaningful ways depending on context.
Great piece. I have two notes
1. First of all, the line between an objective view of nature (putting aside whether a truly objective nature exists) and philosophical pessimism exists but I find it extremely fascinating how Herzog, based on the quotes you have put in here, seems to cross over this threshold so quickly that if you aren't looking it appears to not even exist. He goes from "hard truths in life" to an intense Schopenhauerian perspective. Frankly I find philosophical pessimism exactly what Christians warned about when they spoke of what the "demonic" was. (Also relates to why they rejected Gnosticism so much). Again, this line between nature being "objectively cruel" and it just being "evil", as Herzog seems to imply, exists and we shouldn't forget it. At least the way I see it, the first perspective is more concerned with truth (though objectivity as ontology and epistemology to begin with is on shaky ground especially in regards to nature. Terrence McKenna really comes to light here), while the second perspective is more concerned with a feedback loop of its underlying assumption. Pessimism versus optimism is nothing but a feedback loop of an underlying assumption. (reinforcing an optimistic point of view versus a pessimistic point of view)
Second of all, I couldn't help but think of my own related idea while reading this. I think its likely that from a Nietzschean perspective, we deeply resent nature. Nature was our master, and we adopted a sort of "slave morality" towards it, conceptualizing it as "evil". This resentment turns into desire to control nature and this explains why we are wrecking the planet. An incredibly neurotic condition indeed. But nature is indifferent. It doesn't care about us. We are slowly matching it in power but in many ways it is still more powerful than us (again how nature is defined is important here). Its a weird idea but I think it highlights our neurotic dysfunction with nature as a whole and why we cannot seem to get a grip on our problems with it and why we are still causing so much damage. In the darkest deepest subconscious, I think most people actually want to destroy nature. They deeply desire to gain control back and punish that which has caused us immense pain and suffering (again the resentment response). If we're being honest, if we actually had an okay relationship with nature, we would not be wrecking the planet. But nobody wants to admit that. and that's pretty dark.
Thanks for the comment. I agree with your two points. Herzog shifts, probably unwittingly, from a cold, objective perspective to a value-laden pessimism. As for Nietzsche, he called morality ‘anti-nature’ yet he never implied rejecting morality (in the pejorative sense) meant we should embrace nature or go back to nature or take it as our guide.
I think your students will enjoy the course; I enjoyed the essay!
I took a similar course as an undergrad about 35 years ago - we read McPhee, Abbey, Wendell Berry, Muir, and others. It certainly influenced me professionally.
I was particularly interested in your framing of Mill’s dilemma from my personal perspective as a consulting professional environmental engineer. During 30+ years in practice, my particular specialty was the proper (lawful) management of hazardous industrial raw material and wastes, ahem, ‘by-products’, for big name clientele that included most of the Fortune 100 manufacturers and leading healthcare/educational institutions operating in New England in the past few decades.
In addition to helping my clients secure permission from the state to make steady and planned emissions of waste into the environment, I also spent a lot of time convincing the state that any accidental releases of hazardous material would be handled responsibly.
For this, I was paid handsomely and it goes without saying, I think, that this is not exactly what I expected an “environmental” engineer would be doing during my days as an undergrad 🤣
The idea of how nature is defined and therefore conceived by people struck me as a fish that suddenly notices it is surrounded by water.
In my practice, most of the serious work was a collaborative effort between industry and government regulators, mediated by engineers such as myself. I am sure the goals of each party in the negotiations are evident, but to gain any concessions from industry, and vice versa, the parties might use different framings or “understandings” of “nature”, on a case by case basis, to their advantage.
This is something I did not recognize at the time, necessarily, but it is something I would like to reflect back upon in hindsight.
I am curious if you think the tension between industry and regulators is a framing of your question that helps add shape to your supporting material? I would be interested in discussing this more deeply if you are interested - and I would also like to audit the course when it goes live if that is possible.
Regards, and thank you!
Thanks for your perspective. I think your story highlights an important feature of the concept of nature, namely, that it is context-dependent and that we choose to apply it to certain things or contexts rather than others based on pragmatic considerations rather than for intrinsic reasons. Nature is a historical construct and as such it’s not surprising its use can be contentious. At the same time it’s a meaningful concept and we can distinguish between things that are natural or artificial, or more or less nature than other things, in meaningful ways depending on context.