The Benwoodpost
Image default
Essays

Men versus Nature

Are men free in the natural milieu?

A straightforward answer to the above question is no. Men are never free to be whenever or however they want in the natural. Men are prisoners of their nature. However, men, in their most ignorant state or in their most absurd sense of self, would beg to differ.

Rationality is the notion that men know when to be; they know when not to be in the natural. Based on that understanding, we could say that, at least on the outset, every man is free. Put differently, men are not tied up to their nature. But this would be a misguided understanding of the reality of men in nature. Only the opposite is clear.

Anchored in nature

Men are anchored in their nature. Whether men are consciously aware of their reality is irrelevant. Men are the captive of their world. They are the captive of their nature.

Yes, men are attuned to the natural. But whatever they do or omit from doing [in nature] is a response to nature itself. Their actions are predicated on how nature prompted them to respond or not to respond. From here, men are emotional beings. Otherwise, they could not be in nature. Thus, men would be alien beings from afar.

Nature takes precedence over everything

Nature predisposes who men are, where they are, how they are, when they are, and the reason they are the manner in which they are. Everything a man does [or anything he omits from doing] is a reaction to the natural milieu itself. But that reaction, I would argue, is intrinsically emotional. To that extent, everything a man does is emotional at its core.

In sum, there is no way for men to be free in a world where they are [at first] captive of their [own] nature. The term rationality implies men are without wires in nature. As a result, a man could distinguish between himself and the self itself. This is not the case under any circumstance.

Men are wired in nature

To echo a previous inference, men are wired in the natural. They have no way to go but downward. Every attempt a man does to go upward is rebuffed by the natural.

Do men control their destiny at all times and in all places? I would say not at all. I understand that most observers would argue to the contrary. Here is why I see the world of men from such a prism.

Men are an element of the natural. They could only be so long as their nature would allow it. Stating that men are free to be whenever, wherever, and however they want is absurd.

The implication here is that a man is the master of his domain. He is free to be; he is free not to be a certain way. This understanding implicates the idea that men are free of constraints in nature. That idea is the intellectual foundation of notions about human freedom.

Human Freedom

The notion of human freedom is a fallacy. The implication here is that a man gets to be according to his own gospel. Since a man is without wires in the natural, he could remove himself from the self or even from the natural milieu itself. The man could remove himself from nature. But that appreciation of a man’s reality is illogical.

The presupposition is that the man could be not according to his nature. Instead, the man could react under his [own] appreciation of the natural. But he would do so according to his understanding of his world. That is what rationality implies. I would argue that this view of a man’s world is absurd beyond absurdism itself.

Related Articles

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. By browsing the site, we assume you're ok with this. However, you may opt-out, if you wish, by exiting the site. Got it! Read More