Relationship of Humankind with Nature

        Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism are two opposed worldviews which both have persuasive arguments about the relationship between humankind and nature. In this paper, assumptions of these two worldviews will be examined by the essays of Hayward (1997) and Gray, Whyte, and Curry (2018), then we will argue why anthropocentrism is more appropriate to build a better future.

        Hayward explains, anthropocentrism regard humankind separate from nature and assume it has a privilege to exploit environmental resources and use other species for own sake. It orders the value of species according to their perfection degree and concludes that less perfect types should be subordinated to more perfect ones. Human-centeredness is not only inescapable but justifiable for us like it is natural for any creature to act caring about its kind. Objective reality does not comprise ethical truths but assumptions in people’s minds. In the biological world, solely humans have a capacity for moral justifications because of the absence of requisite rationality in other species, which distinguishes us from nature. Hence, only humans can be addresses of moral imperatives. Like our intellectual abilities is a consequence of biological evolution, moral codes are an outcome of cultural evolution that enables human civilizations to arise with the accumulation of culture consists of technological and social innovations.

        Grey et al. describe that ecosphere is seen in ecocentrism as a source of all life’s birth and sustenance, which comprises all needed elements and processes. Humans were evolved out of the ecosphere like every organism, and they are part of nature with no logical distinction from others that provides inherent value. Humankind’s needs are secondarily significant, considering the whole ecosystem of which they are part. Science and rationality did not discover and conceive the complexity of ecosystems and mechanisms inside, so damages to nature cannot be justified. Even if other organisms are not moral agents, we have the moral responsibility towards them as all species and ecosystems have moral worth and value. There is a harmony of organisms in which they evolve and individually serve for objective good that is coded in DNA where ecosystems support life continuum and value in it. Unfortunately, people’s greed severely damaged the environment with the advancement of technology. However, like some traditional communities, people should live with a sense of peace and unity and preserve it with deep respect.

        In our opinion, the worldview of anthropocentrism is more appropriate for building a better world for three reasons. Firstly, the human is the perfect organism in biodiversity and maintain its evolution with civilization consist of science and technology, which requires the use of natural resources. Some indigenous people might live with harmony, and as a part of nature; however, their development level remains behind other civilizations. Evolution is a natural process that comprises no dignification rather cruelty, which leads to extinction and dissipation of sources in favor of powerful. Presently, evolution is also made artificially by humans, so they should have some rights to boost it. Secondly, there is no necessity that people use resources with no morality and without consideration of the health of nature. People have morality as a product of their intellectual evolution, so the disposition of their behaviors is towards the right decisions. Even if today’s people consume immodestly and pollute the environment, it resulted from the moral choices, not the direct consequence of human-centeredness. With better education, a promising future can be built. Thirdly, one of the requirements for humans to maintain a pleasant life is satisfying their needs and desires, which is obtained by behaving egoistically like any other creature. Only in the ecosystem can people find materials which sometimes might be a habitat for species or organisms itself. Therefore, we need to interfere with nature in a human-centered way.

        To conclude, while anthropocentrism prioritizes human interest over the complete ecosystem, ecocentrism regard human as a part of the more crucial entirety. We think anthropocentrism is better for our future because of the continuum of evolution, the possibility of more fair implications, and the necessity for our needs.

References

Hayward, T. (1997). Anthropocentrism. In R. Chadwick (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (pp. 1-21). Sandiego, California: Academic Press INC.

Gray, J., Whyte, I. and Curry, P. (2018). Ecocentrism: What it means and what it implies. The Ecological Citizen, 1(2), 210-224.

FV - Kısa Deyişler - 2

Gelecek çağda karşımıza çıkacak olan: Gerçekliğimizle gerçeğin bağının kopması. Yanıtı hediye ediyorum : Önemli olan kişinin kendi gerçekliğidir.

Toplumun tercihleriyle uyum içinde yaşayan kişi ilk çelişkinin çıkardığı çatışmada anlar tercihlerinin kendine ait olmadığını.

Ne zaman ve nerede sorularını felsefe öldürdü. Neden, nasıl ve niçin birleşti; ardından o tek soru yok oldu. Geriye ne sorusu kaldı: öznenin kendisi tüm soruların cevabı.

Hazzın ego farkındalığında yaşanması onu zayıflatır, yüzeyselleştirir; küçültür. An içinde yaşanan zevkin bilinçle sömürülmek istenmesi. Yaşamak değil, yaşamış olmanın ön plana çıkması. - Edebiyat türevi sanatlar, felsefenin kadınlaşmış halidir.

Tarih yanılgısı. Algıda bozukluk ve zihni zayıflığın gereksinimi. Genelin özele yansımasının tek gerçek kabul edilmesi. Felsefenin zıddı.

Gençlik paradoksu. Yaşama başlamanın, bitişindeki tecrübeyi gerektirmesi. Ancak yaşlılıkta doğrulanabilecek bir sonuç. Nasıl başlanacağını söyleyenlerin, söylediği gibi başlayamaması. Her bünye kendisiyle uyumlanan yargıları doğru sayar, yaşlılılara uyumlanan; gençleri ne kadar sağlıklı yapar?

İnsanı ayağa kaldırmaya çalışan bütün düşünce sistemleri bir çöküş ürünüdür. Felsefe bunların içinde en yüce türdendir. Gerçeklikle çarpışma.

Fışkıran Varoluş Kitabı - Özdeyişler 1

1

Hiçbir duygu, dürtü, arzu; kısacası anlam, insanı sonsuza dek sürükleyecek kadar kuvvetli değil.

2 - Felsefi Hikaye Deneyi

Tavandan damlayan her şeffaflık özelliği, sıvıyı içine çeken yatağımın neredeyse tamamını görünmez yapmıştı.

3

Absürdleşme başlangıçta henüz anlaşılamamış yıkımın, sonrasında anlamamazlıktan gelmeye çalışılarak olayı çelişkiye bürümeye çalışmanın ürünüdür.

4

Felsefenin yaşattığı acı, korku, endişe ve sonucundaki varlığın bütünsel titrenci insanın ö z f a r k ı n d a l ı ğ ı n d a n, kendi trajikliğini farketmesinden gelir. Bu yüksek bilincin kaybedilmek istenmemesi de kişiyi yaşama karşı edilgenleştirir.

5

Kişi insanlara dağıtıyor olduğu şeyin objektif olarak hissettirdiklerini yaşayamaz, verdiğinin sahipliğini alanlar gibi hissedemez. Güneş için evren ne de soğuktur...

6

İçinde uyumaya çalıştığın rüyalarından kahkaha atarak uyanmaya başladığın ölçüde kendini aşmış bir kişisin.

7

Her doğan günle kendimi yıkıyor ve yeniden doğuyorum. Her gün daha yüksek bir inşaaya!

Kendimi yıkacak kişi de benim,

Budur işte yalnızlığım benim.

8

En güçlü yanın zannettiklerin, kendine itiraf edemediğin zayıflıkların olabilir.

9

Ahlaksız yaşam çıkar yol değildir; ancak, yeni bir ahlak tanımı mecburidir.

10

Düşüncelerin ne anlama geldiklerini iliklerime dek hissediyorum, onları yaşıyorum. Nasıl olup da geçip gidersiniz, kimisi korkunç kimisi sevimli; tepkisizliğiniz donuk tinlerinizden geliyor.

11

Karşı çıkma duygusu aslında iradenin ideal oluşturma arzusunun özgür durumda kalma isteğidir.

12

İnsan ideal haline geliyor, ideali oluyor; idealini içinde hissediyor, içinde barındırıyor. İdeal somutlaşarak canlanıyor. "Ayrık dünyaların birleşmesi."

İradenin, kendini ideal idealine dönüştürmesi.

13

Duvarı itmeye çalışıp da itemediğimden dolayı yoruluyorum.

14

Hepimiz yeterince yorulmadık mı? Ancak mecburuz bu yola. Yaşamımızı devam ettiremeyeceğiz sona ulaşmazsak.

15

Bundan sonra insanların adalet gibi yüksek ideallerden önce gelen sorunları var. Artık yüce değerler değil, insan olmak baş sıkıntımız. Bu yükü kim yüklenecek? Ya insan olalım ya insan olmaktan kurtulalım.

16

Zihnim durmaz bir savaş alanıdır.

17

Bazen inanmak zorunda olduğumuz için inanıyoruz.

Comparing Two Opposing Thoughts from Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" and Camus' "The Fall"

    Since the protagonists and writers are strongly correlated, I will consider them interchangeably. Kierkegaard describes the spiritual journey of a man in three stages: aesthetical, morality, religious. Man discovers the love, lives in the state of melancholy, and begins to search for happiness. He finds a way of reaching to eternity by resigning finite. Then in the second stage of morality, he learns to be master upon his fate by making rational choices and become a part of universal unity. Kierkegaard defines morality as general; namely, it concerns the community and rules it as a whole. Then, he compares the tragic hero and knight of faith; he emphasizes harmony between morality and religion in the case of a tragic hero. Therefore, it is easier to sacrifice for society's sake compare to Abraham's instance. Because Abraham confronts the dilemma of the conflict between faith(religion) and morality. To transfer the third "religious" stage, he claims, one should first resign. However, faith is a compeller, and everybody cannot accomplish it since it requires resolution and devotion. Both Camus and Kierkegaard approve that the world comprises anguish and indifference despite the profound starvation of human towards meaning, as Berthold mentions. However, the same manner ends with seemingly very different reactions: revolt and faith. There are differences between the two perspectives. Camus defines broad sense absurdity unexpectedly arise from seeking for meaning, the empty and indifferent universe, and the existence of death. But he criticizes the Kierkegaard's solution of fate. He says that faith is an escape from the necessity of being human and feeling the anguish, but one should accept the absurd and revolt because searching help is inadmissible weakness, on the contrary, creating own values and accomplishing to live on one's own is only admirable behavior. Hoping for another world and promises, and escape from reality is philosophical suicide. However, from Kierkegaard's side, it is the total opposite. Man believes because of this world, other world is something Christianity promise but uncertain (Berthold). Most people live with morality as a herd, which they are happy and safe. If one wants to achieve his individuality, he should strive to be a person, which requires to lean one's own self and brings anguish. In order to succeed in the religious stage, one must have faith, which is a paradoxical situation. The only way not to declare Abraham as a murderer is to accept it above morality. Equalizing God's order and morality might conflict in person, as Hegelian view promote, since morality consists of various components that can differentiate, such as history, norms of society, and person. If there is something above the morality, Abraham behaves to seek for higher meaning. His belief requires him not to tell the dilemma, anyone. Because like truth is subjectivity Kierkegaard says, belief, in other words, relation with God needs to be subjective as each person has a different relationship which should be concerned. This is the true knight of faith, while the "sectarian" type imposes his ideas and force others. Kierkegaard's absurdity is distinct and increases with the tension between finite and infinite, and as it can be examined in the example of Abraham, and faith is a tough choice. He should love his son in order to make the sacrifice acceptable. Then he journeys long with inner conflicts and ends with his act of sacrifice against his own thoughts and emotions. Furthermore, it is entirely unsupported; there is no moral evidence that behavior is right. Despite all distress and oppression, Abraham hopes not just for the infinite world but also for this world and takes his son back, which is not the case for tragic heroes. He suppresses the reality, expands morality further, and go into absurdity with faith. Johannes highlight, one can resign, but faith is not under control. Camus' revolt is a nihilistic form of solution for overcoming despair. Affirmation of life solely attached to the person, not afterlife, nor a hope given by others. It continues to exist against death, void, and godlessness. Life is like a factory that produces its energy and creates a self-contained ecosystem. Kierkegaard opposes that, without God, it has to end with despair. Most Christians are not actual believers, because faith is gaining priority of individual over common. Clemence admits, the man should rely on something, earlier times it was God, now it changed. Camus puts emphasis on the irrationality of dignifying morality. Like Abraham, Clemence continues his life without concern of evaluation from other people; he acts individualistic. Reality comes with its laws, for living existence most destructive attitude is despair, so Camus discovered that it is a sin independent from God. (Berthold) Both religion and rebellion are a form of maintaining and intensifying absurdity. So, we can conclude although they seem like the antithesis of each other, Camus and Kierkegaard did not result in very different points. Acceptance of absurdity might be seen as a type of resignation, and faith is an act of revolt.

References

Berthold, D. Kierkegaard and Camus: either/or?. Int J Philos Relig 73, 137–150 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-013-9400-y