naturalistic view on the nature of the universe?

Question

i have to discuss this in class for my philosophy class and im not sure what it is.

we have three views on the nature of the universe, 1 is organic, which is that the universe is like an animal, 2 is mechanical, which is that the universe is more like a watch or machine, and the third one is Naturalistic.

i have no idea what the naturalistic view on the nature of the universe would be because i dont even fully understand the meaning of 'naturalistic'

could someone please help me think of what a 'naturalistic' view on the nature of the universe could be?

...and yes, i said naturalistic. im not saying that the universe IS naturalistic. im saying i need an example of what someone might say if they had a naturalistic view on the universe

this is for me to write in a paper, not a personal question. i dont need convincing in how i should view the universe, i just need to discuss how someone might view the universe in a naturalistic way and i need an example.

if anyone tries to argue and persuade me into believing a certain way or saying naturalistic is wrong or right, then you have not read the question i am asking and i WILL REPORT YOU

ignorance and stupidity extremely annoys me on this site

...you see, i already had to report the third guy who responded. people need to read the question before they answer.

...also, the second response didnt exactly answer the question either. but there was a lot of copy and pasting, kudos to that i guess

Answer 1

I spend a lot of time in the religion and spiritualilty section and many questions and comments come up there. From what I understand a naturalistic view of the universe is that from the beginning of time the universe has been expanding from a tiny, but dense formation of gases. As it exploded out in every direction nature immediately began to take it's course. Space expanded at an extremely fast pace. Gases formed matter. More explosions occurred as certain gases came into contact with others. Out of this came stars and planets; eventually solar systems and galaxies.

So, as each step took place in the growth of the universe, the next step was a natural progression, i.e., the naturalistic view.

Answer 2

The Universe is all three.. but 'Naturalistic' would be my view. The word comes from Nature which is The manifestation of the Universe. All of our five senses point to a Naturalistic Universe--. Explaining what it means, that's a tuffie. I do know that everything contains Carbon. If you look up the word Carbon in Wikipedia, it tells alot about it. Good luck.

Answer 3

naturalistic????????
the universe is unfolding as it should..
its like God..its beyond our eyes can see..beyond our imagination...that's it...

Answer 4

I am not writing your efing paper for you. 'Naturalistic' is an adjective. Nothing exists outside of nature, see? Any other philosophy or 'view' that has something other than nature as the totality of existence is not naturalistic. That's my opinion.

Everything is as it is, and what is, is its *own* metaphor. Some sources for reading:


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slidea.htm#SL244


§ 244

The Idea which is independent or for itself, when viewed on the point of this unity with itself, is Perception or Intuition, and the percipient Idea is Nature. But as intuition the idea is, through an external ‘reflection’, invested with the one-sided characteristic of immediacy, or of negation. Enjoying however an absolute liberty, the Idea does not merely pass over into life, or as finite cognition allow life to show in it: in its own absolute truth it resolves to let the ‘moment’ of its particularity, or of the first characterisation and other-being, the immediate idea, as its reflected image, go forth freely as Nature.

We have now returned to the notion of the Idea with which we began. This return to the beginning is also an advance. We began with Being, abstract Being: where we now are we also have the Idea as Being: but this Idea which has Being is Nature.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slidea.htm#SL244





http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phc3a.htm

The Phenomenology of Mind

C: Free Concrete Mind

(CC) VII. RELIGION
A. Natural Religion (1)
Φ 684. SPIRIT knowing spirit is consciousness of itself; and is to itself in the form of objectivity. It is; and is at the same time self-existence (Fürsichsein). It is for itself; it is the aspect of self-consciousness, and is so in contrast to the aspect of its consciousness, the aspect by which it relates itself to itself as object. In its consciousness there is the opposition and in consequence the determinateness of the form in which it appears to itself and knows itself. It is with this determinateness of shape that we have alone to do in considering religion; for its essential unembodied principle, its pure notion, has already come to light. The distinction of consciousness and self-consciousness, however, falls at the same time within this notion. The form or shape of religion does not contain the existence of spirit in the sense of its being nature detached and free from thought, nor in the sense of its being thought detached from existence. The shape assumed by religion is existence contained and preserved in thought as well as a something thought which is consciously existent.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/na/nature.htm

PART II of Hegel’s
Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences.

The Philosophy of Nature
Preliminary Concepts
§ 192.

Nature has presented itself as the idea in the form of otherness.

Since in nature the idea is as the negative of itself or is external to itself nature is not merely external in relation to this idea, but the externality constitutes the determination in which nature as nature exists.

§ 193.

In this externality the determinations of the concept have the appearance of an indifferent subsistence and isolation in regards to each other. The concept therefore exists as an inward entity. Hence nature exhibits no freedom in its existence, but only necessity and contingency.

For this reason nature, in the determinate existence, which makes it nature, is not to be deified, nor are the sun, moon, animals, plants, and so on, to be regarded and adduced as the works of God, more excellent than human actions and events. Nature in itself in the idea, is divine, but in the specific mode by which it is nature it is suspended. As it is, the being of nature does not correspond to its concept; its existing actuality therefore has no truth; its abstract essence is the negative, as the ancients conceived of matter in general as the non-ens. But because, even in this element, nature is a representation of the idea, one may very well admire in it the wisdom of God. If however, as Vanini said, a stalk of straw suffices to demonstrate God's being, then every representation of the spirit, the slightest fancy of the mind, the play of its most capricious whim, every word, offers a ground for the knowledge of God's being that is superior to any single object of nature. In nature, not only is the play of forms unbound and unchecked in contingency, but each figure for itself lacks the concept of itself. The highest level to which nature drives its existence is life, but as only a natural idea this is at the mercy of the unreason of externality, and individual vitality is in each moment of its existence entangled with an individuality which is other to it, whereas in every expression of the spirit is contained the moment of free, universal self-relation. - Nature in general is justly determined as the decline of the idea from itself because in the element of externality it has the determination of the inappropriateness of itself with itself.-A similar misunderstanding is to regard human works of art as inferior to natural things, on the grounds that works of art must take their material from outside, and that they are not alive.-It is as if the spiritual form did not contain a higher level of life, and were not more worthy of the spirit than the natural form, and as if in all ethical things what can be called matter did not belong solely to the spirit -


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slintro.htm#SL6