Wisconsin College of the Air; Introduction to the human enterprise; 3; Philosophy and the human enterprise: Concepts of nature

Is the Wisconsin College of the air presents the third in a series of lectures by Professor Max auto recorded during the first semester the introductory lectures were presented as studio broadcast by Professor Otto because the early lectures were not recorded with this discussion on the ideal nature. We begin the lectures recorded in the classroom. Here is Professor Otto. Let's begin this morning with a corporation from law a book that the goodman of the philosophy department gave me not ten days ago. Let me to read because of some discussion we had some time ago. The book is by George Sand the editor and is called The idea of Christ in the Gospels. Or God in the main. And the quotation is from the next to the last chapter right at the beginning of the chapter. And I should think that they could they should be of interest to you we've been reading Dr Meyer. Those of you found materialism. His materialism.

And the materialism not quite satisfactory because you feel that you must respond to the supernatural. There are certain elements of your life certain interests of your life which require the supernatural. I should think that predation would be an interesting view whether you ought also to be interesting should be interesting to the rest of you. This is a good test. Let spiritual minds should appeal to the supernatural is not to be wondered at. Few are courageous enough to accept nature as it is. And to build their spiritual house on the Hard Rock of truth. Moreover tradition has consecrated a superficial and prejudiced view of nature as if it were Wiccan. Or dead. And not the parent of their own spirit. Lesko daish. There are questions about it though

the number of questions right away to me. Is it really true that people who seek solace help in the supernatural do it because they have the courage to face life. That's what's implied. That's what's sad. Is that true. Perhaps they've been conditioned to do that. Perhaps enough thinking about it all and just following the way they've been trained. Or perhaps the conditions of their lives are such that they simply cannot face it without doing that. And a man who talks about their not having courage is a man who in his situation doesn't need courage possible because of two questions at once and then there is this hard rock of truth they refers to. See they do not build their house their spiritual house on the Hard Rock of truth.

Is there a Hard Rock Cafe. Is there a hard rock under truth is that so simple. We're talking about truth. Some of these days. But it isn't nice going into the building for that reason that I call your attention to that quotation. All right and we're asking you to consider that good data. For quite another reason. Perhaps not as good a reason but this is the reason you started to read another book. I started to read it too much. And trying to keep out. As I can. Yesterday that was I found some very interesting things in it. But before that it was pretty hard going. Are you started reading of the book and I hope study another book. And this quotation I'm going to use in order to help clarify a concept of nature which I think underlies this human enterprise. Concept of

nature which isn't talked about very much in there. Or maybe it is but in underlies the whole thing and I want to ask you first of all to consider that that pronoun. Here you. Are courageous enough to accept nature as it is as it is. And then later. The parent or parent of their spirit to think of later as if they have. A unified something as a parent of something as a mother or the parent. I say that's the thing I'd like to talk about because it's in contrast to that I want to suggest another view of nature. Is it proper. To speak of Nature that way. I suppose it must be proper in some sense of this great philosopher wouldn't do it personally.

Personally. This usage. Seems to me unjustified. Except as a as a wedding figure of speech or as a. Practical kind of shorthand. More and more. I've come to believe that it is an era this big of that way and a serious error an error that has bad consequences and many different kinds of bad consequences. It seems to me much truer. And far better. To think of nature. As a vast collection of interrelated somethings instead of thinking of it as a human carry something. To think of it as a collection of interrelated somethings. All kinds of something mental somethings moral somethings aspirational some things physical some yearning some things all kinds of

somethings. In are elated. Love vast collection of that seems to be much better. I think I've come to feel that way more and more and believe that way more and more. But I'm not going to argue the matter I'm not going to argue for that position now. I want to place it side by side. I want to place this collective collective concept side by side with that unitary concept. In the hold to what I can make the collective concept graphic enough and vivid them enough and backed it up on the. Soul that it may win your attention not your acceptance lasts up to you your attention. Because of it wings your attention then I think. You will be impelled to think about.

A concept of yours an idea of yours a belief of yours which you probably have not thought about very much. Namely nature as a Unitarian entity. And if you do that you will have an educational experience. That's what I'm here for. And as I talk to you about it I'll have an educational experience too. Maybe we both get together. Let's consider that question this way. Let me ask you a question you can put it down and think about. I may have a little footnote. To. This. This all seems very far away and strange there from have been written out and piled up in a file away on cards or something like that. It would seem from there but it's you know it's a kind of a discussion you know I

like to describe as fresh I mean don't sit out there in there and consider fresh paint like yeah it seems strange. I'm listening to it myself. When I ask you this question is nature. Nature is nature constitutive of things. Or are things constituted constitutive of nature which. The customary uncertain. On the part of people of every day people I mean there are wonderful people calling every day and then the other sense than that they it's just the next man the next woman you meet every day people would say it's the first scientists would say it's the first philosophers would say it's the first.

Almost everybody says it's the first. I want to say it's the second. Instead of saying that nature it constitutes things I want to say things constitute nature. But go read a very nice quotation. Came upon with an accent that went. From Clarence Darrow. Room I've Margrave you know. This is the general opinion your good shade came out of it. Once in a while. What ought I to do with three year of black and he was right in it again. For after all. Maryland Animal Farm I feel like and they sure love them Ball them love them all and send them forth to drive the lowlier along your and takes them back into our loving breast. Just Lee. He like to think that nature logged everything and

then one of the ones would love this or love that but nature love everything brought it all Forth took it all back. That's the usual YOU. Against that. I want to put this. You. Were really through this LOL. Literally no old referred to designate the whole collection of interrelated and interacting particulars. Quick when they are considered separately or call things. When you're saying Major I'm saying that I'm saying that's what you mean to of course you can deny it and you have perfect right to than not and to defend your denial. I say when you say nature there you are talking about a whole collection of

interrelated particulars. If you think you're doing something else. I say that's what you're doing. You're talking about a collection of interrelated particulars which way and they are considered by you by anybody else separately. I call things orders Dave again I'm not there in the word. Thing you know or designate or referred to bowl as separate particulars. Where as a collection is related and interacting is are called need. I like the. Good work. I will have a new order me all. Nature is the name for all things taken together.

Nature is not the name of the thing or the name of all things in there that relate to. All. The time together. Yeah. They thing. Are the elements that make up the whole of which they are. One. Let me go on. Very good question and that. Office long enough. To look at it again. The left corner of that no. I say I like that. And one reason I like it. Hard to explain though is that it seems to me that old philosopher the very man who. Probably found the ILO referred Parklife had a view which is very like that of thought a good deal of the last few days when it's just like it is not like at first I thought it was just like Hitler and I made up my mind wasn't like you know what carrot fly the

set is there is no one capital one life you know. Great Britain was for 80 on the whole I think or care allied to us when really. There is no one without. Look there is no one without the money and there is no money without the one. That's why I don't like to play golf. Once in a while. When the other reading on a boring whiny whodunnit are very charming. Plato comes to my rescue I don't know who comes to your rescue. Plato. Mounted file. And so I looked up. Laid hold. Of a little exciting reading and usually I find that in the one of the minor dialog not in one of the great dialogues

the Republic for example which is the which is the great woman everybody read. Will. Soften. The Tigris the softer some of those are much more and this time I read the softest end and all of a sudden he said which Plato very rarely does he very rarely talks about any other philosophers. These dialogues simply go on he said. But certain Ionian and certain Sicilian merely the certain Ionian that's how it lives. Certain assisted in. Muses. Remarked that it was safest to unite these two things of one of the many and to say that reality is many and one and is kept together by hate and love. Let me reword that now in our own language. And then to see how near it comes to what I've been saying to reality. Or take as you're taking things down take this down. It's so barbarous

that it ought to try him. Reality is a one in this meaning that. Reality is a one of many in this. Fear is made so where can you when you fall. Through the operation of two forces. One a uniting force and one a dividing force. I wanted to put that down because as I go on I would try to give a better and better statement of what I'm driving at. You can then compare it with this and see if those two views are the same. If they are the same. I will be very pleasant to have that great all drive and. I would fly this. To back up this view. I wish we had more

of what he wrote. But you know of. A great many things were destroyed because people didn't like them in his writings. I suppose when one. Come down to our time away from her. Everybody stay with us I said before to believe that nature is the one that reality is one and that everything lies in that nature. Good Emerson. All things are all of one pattern maybe bird beast or flower. Song picture forms based thought and character. They all deceive us. Seeming to be many things and are but one. Reason is always finding one thing really. The other thing apparition apparition that was different but in reality it was the

same. It hear the wind in that part. He'd hear the rain the swish of the rain he'd hear the roar. Gentle rolling of the water the sea on the beach and he'd listen for the slain. Long as the slain. Other people are different but that's where he was. And so there are says that the first man whoever he was who could look out on all the differences and draw a circle around them and say in effect what that other great great. So I call him philosophers and often he said The ball is was I was experiencing the greatest intellectual thief that up to the moment had been experienced by anyone. Up to this moment. Take this statement by a scientist Lee up Leopold Infeld a very

sweeping statement. I hope you believe. He is writing. I believe an interpretation of Einstein. I took this note down and then lost the reference to the book. But I remember I think that was an interpretation of Einstein and he said of the startling thing. I say I hope you believe it. I think you do believe it every wink of an eyelid. Many of us. Produces an effect on even the most distant star. That's how interrelated things are. That's how one they are. Every wink of an eyelid. How many of us produces an effect on even the most distant star with a sweeping character of that. This is the generally accepted world there was a lot of science. Reality is a huge interlock with Tiriel home with.

Which every creature and every event every particle in every process. All of it is completely subject and nature acts throughout with gun deviating and irresistible force and everything all and everything that is or curved. Everything under it's absolute sway. I think that's the concept of science or not. And that's a concept you and I have accepted from science. It's against that concept I am trying to place this view. I come back to it again no this connection say not that that's wrong and that this other view is right. I wouldn't resent it if I didn't think it's right but I may be dead wrong. But I want to play side by side. Who actually knows that there is this sort of oneness as

anybody ever demonstrated. No one ever had. Was Has anyone ever really made it conceivable really conceivable really graphically conceivable so that we understand what it means. I think not. Suppose him supposed him. We think of the unity of the universe. As analogous to the various unit is we are actually concretely specifically acquainted with everyday life. We have plenty of you know it is an every day life. We're quit with them. Suppose we use them as analogies instead of this. Well I've just referred to. I was going to say a few just logistic words. What's the use of name calling. Let's just look at this one.

Let's think of those we actually are acquainted with in everyday life. The unification we know as nation. As as club as organic and inorganic bodies as this class. Unification certain sort what kind of unification is that in every case. As to character. It's one in which the constituent members have an identity a function and a radius of effect of influence. Which is their own. Not derived it's their own. And in the second place in their mutually interdependent and in her eyes. They constitute the whole. Without which they could not exist.

And I'm asking you now may not a unity some such soul be assigned to nature. Through the universe of the cosmos to the world whatever you want to call it. A unity which occurs occurs keeps occurring because its components constantly come into relation and interaction with one another. Rather than a unity which preexists and always has preexisted and produces the relations and interactions used daily. One is a society can take this class. This class had no existence until certain things happened and we came together and when. The end of the semester comes this class will disappear will be gone.

But it has a kind of unity. By virtue of our coming together. And my talking to you and you talking to me in your writing papers know how to get a kind of a unification. Why not use that kind of a unification in thinking of the great world in which we are a unification that comes about. In the stead of the unification of exists and brings about a comes about. Well I. Wish that I said once before only once before. You could see how you look. You look say and back almost into unconscious so simple you relax a moment and we'll go on. Ward so terrible about this must be must be something I'm

doing because the view itself is exciting very. Where you could go without I'm worried and I'm going to I think I have five. Well five things I want to talk about in particular the moment for you to go with it. Well boy I relax a little of right to a little. What I was saying was how about taking the unification that we actually are equated in thinking of nature as being an example an exemplification of the same kind of unification. And I are now saying that's the kind of reality. Of which I'm speaking.

A kind of collection of things which is for ever successively happening. In place of a oneness. Which eternally exists and his place gives rise to everything that successively happens and I want to break just this down into particulars and see if it has any meaning. When we do that. First. In this view things each day particular things everything has an integrity. In the context of our experience. Or has an integrity in the nature that it has in the context of our experience. Take a no trade. If you're going to take an oak tree take out

four. That's a lot of interesting. There is that's a lot of have a very rough bark. And has a very characteristic leaf and go to leaves on them. Were all kind of the same and yet I list takeable no one who knows anything about Opus whatever mistake a burl leaf or any other Oak Leaf was taken oh a good sized hundred fifty years old let's say. Let's imagine that a solvent which will dissolve away everything that holds it to the ground. And then let's have a big jerry can and left the tree in front of us. Let's have a lot of room by here and a lot of I. Have a diary lifted right up. Until we can see that massive trunk and those great limbs and those numberless branches and twigs

and that root system with its thousands of little Rick let's let's hang it there and take what he had. And let's have it speak to us and say I care. Where they are. I am what I am I'm not a red oak I'm not of like oh no I'm not as rebel I am more or less have I'd sink into it. And then let's think of everything being like that every grain of sand every leaf on that tree every thing being a thing in its own right. It is itself. That's what this view does. You don't misunderstand me now because I'm going right on to the second point. No thing.

Is independent of other things in this view any more than the other view in this view. Everything is an independent thing but is not an independence of other things. What interdependent and cooperatively interdependent with other things. Take the old tree again. Forget the one that we grew up with the big Derrick Derrick and look that. It's so. Intertwined so interlock so interrelated that after a little while doesn't have to be very large very young. After a very little while you cannot possibly get it as it is out because it's all interrelated with the rest of nature around not only spatially but vitally interested and so again of every thing.

This piece of string and this month's Rawson here that stares at me all the time and almost speaks. And when it's big. All is profane. This book everything interrelated with everything else. Then third things act in two ways and that's the important aspect of what I'm talking about not that act in two ways towards things. Everything I want to weigh in stored things and things like the need to wade in stories that. They attract and they repel. I. Recall what they were at light as he spoke of two forces which he called Love and hate or strife personalized in this way. His thought may be

unpalatable to monitor. But one of his thinking og. Should not be unpalatable it's a very profound insight. He was talking of this attraction and repulsion that knows our profile as I said you know all the world's bond born. Parents like us thought of love and hate or strife as separate forces. Over and above what he regarded as the elemental stuff of which nature was made. I'm talking about them in a different way. I'm suggesting that there is no elemental stuff. There are some offs there are always things specific things that the love and the hate or strife which we thought of as separate

that dollars are operating characteristics of each thing. Part of the thing itself. In virtual what to do with your free and virtual want to did everything a virtual one of the Is have these kind of risky operating characteristics. It's attracted or repelled by other thing was in virtue of what it is and like the other thing is and the other things are reacting to it in the same manner. And that because of this not because there is a force the true forces but because of the nature of what each thing is the world is prevented from running wild into anarchy of diversity as it

would if Dr had its way. You know on the other hand it prevented from becoming all one thing as it would if love had its way. We have the world within world. Every thing is a world cooperating with other world cooperating world devouring world. They realize the world is integrating world and I have a lot of illustration but I'm afraid of getting hired. I'll leave along just what I will remember of being in the hemlock for one. The place called Laughing fish point in the period where they call him the laughing fish for it I don't know. No fish ever lived there. Wouldn't even scholar wouldn't come

near anybody. What a great hemlock fart you know I'm with him a lot. Certain kind of trees. The War of the war of that world. I've never seen a new life for before on. The floor. The inflight. The bird everything cure your world a world within Michigan United States one of peculiar kind of world left there by the people that cut down trees everywhere else because of the difficulty of getting at the take the redwoods of California which I've always wanted to see the given hope given the hope of seeing the mesas of New Mexico which I've seen and with your worldly fellow and that little spot on the way to San Diego in California up on a bluff overlooking the Grand Pacific sweeping away from it

where there is a Whitney pine. I understand there's no party like that anywhere in the world and never has been that so little. World within the world of pines which is the Jr to itself. And never occurred elsewhere. And then there's this class. The world of the world and here are you. You're a world in the fourth place so far as this concept of nature has any validity. It has validity without beginning and without end things or IOA forming and re forming and I'm forming and forming again and will continue to be forming and reforming and form in again. Star of the galaxy and world than rocks and

more sisters and soil and life and less and less. And if I begin with stardust. I think I do it because I like the sound of it. That's one reason and the other reason is that maybe you don't have that experience but I have it so often that it's getting to be a war. I want to go a little way and I want to end ignorance and I can't go any further than stardust That's all I know. Stardust galaxies planets and so on on and off. I begin with Stardust because that's as far as I can go but it went on long before that forever and that's why I think I can understand what some of you find it very difficult to understand. Dr. Mayer said the world had therefore no need of.

Being created. I understand what it means. The world's here is action and interaction is always taking place. We don't know of anything else. But. Why should we think the world had to be created since it's going on and has been going on just like that forever. Finally in all this prepares us for what we're going to talk about often doesn't end and of course. This bumping up things and do our thing. Things being what they are. Reacting to other things as they do. When they bump into one another thing. That's the beginning of what. Many. Millions of years later in the human brain or in the human thought

appeared as what we call obj.. Fact. Lead in the beginning. Just bumping into something. What is a fact. Lou talk about that a little later on to what is a 5. What is a thing. What is an object. What. What you been told. And in this process I'm talking to you about. You have the beginning. Of that which when developed on and on and on finally reaches the stage that we refer to as fact. And then the sort of thing that we're nothing but instead to another. Being the kind of thing it is and the other thing being the kind of. Thing it is. Appropriating that thing sidling up to it

or pushing it away. That's the beginning of. Many many millenniums later. Came to be what we know as liking. Or disliking out of which now we've all that the various theories we have of God is that of moral or religious value and the rest. That'll do for Monday. Let's talk a little. Before we get to this book about evolution and the way people have interpreted evolution. Let me tell you if you have to learn when you read chapter three in this book if you're reading and try to relate to what I've been saying to the people you've heard the third in a selected series of lectures by Professor Max auto recorded during his first semester course

philosophy and the human enterprise in this series we are omitting the Monday lecture to which he referred. It dealt with a century of debate on the theory of special creation versus the theory of evolution. Five early naturalists were considered the NASB form Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck and PVA and the conflicting views of these men were discussed. This debate ended approximately in 1830 with a complete victory for the creationists. The case seemed to be completely closed but about the same time a young man who wants to reopen the whole question was entering upon his career with his next lecture Professor Hotta will turn to the story of Charles Darwin and the Origin of Species.