GENERAL INTRODUCTION
0.1. Background
of the Study
It
is clearly known that Nature is a starting point of man's transformation
because man deals with herself or himself as part of nature, and deals with a
natural world as part of herself or himself. Man's responsibility for his or
her physical body is interrelated to her or his responsibility towards nature.
So, in order for man to accomplish his or her needs he must interact with
nature. For example in order to survive we need to eat food and for this reason
we need to interact with nature in order to get that food. The problem of man
and nature relationship is a philosophical question mainly in our modern societies
and among scholars. We know that it is true that there is a relationship
between man and nature but we do not clearly understand the exact kind
of relationship that exists between man and nature. Meaning that we are not
clear whether the relationship between man and nature is reciprocal
relationship or unequal relationship (unreciprocal) relationship.
 |
| Karl Marx |
This
philosophical problem can be supported by the philosophical arguments, which
have different stands. Some will say that there is unequal relationship between
man nature, and this can also be observed by ourselves how we relate with
nature. And some will say that there is equal relationship between man and
nature for example Rousseau uses the concept of the state of nature through the
traditional method of earlier thinkers like Hobbes and Locke. He used the
concept of state of nature as a means of trying to determine what man was
before he entered society[1].
Odhiambo observes that “To Rousseau, this means that in the state of nature man
directly depends on nature, so, man depended on nature to get his or her needs
but on the contrary we are not sure whether nature also depend on man”[2]
“According to S. Stumpf what we understand from Rousseau is that the state of
nature is treated mainly as the starting point of a long process of human
development which stretches from primitive times to present day.”[3]
So,
for Karl Marx there is equal relationship between man and nature. There we need
to understand the exact relationship between man and nature especially to our
modern societies while referring to our past experience concerning the kind of
relationship man had with nature.
0.2.
Statement
of the Problem
The
anthropological problem concerning the relationship between man and nature is
very important to be clearly understood in our modern societies. Due to the
fact that we live in our natural environment and obtain our needs from nature
we must clearly understand the exactly relationship between man and nature so
as we can understand how nature serves us and how we are supposed to act toward
nature. According to Marx, human beings have certain natural needs (food,
clothing and shelter). To satisfy these needs, man has to depend on nature. And
so between man and nature there is an absolute reciprocity: man depends on nature
and nature depends on man. Nature serves man and man transforms nature. For
this reason, for him there is equal relationship or positive relationship
between man and nature. It is true that there is relationship between man and
nature due to the fact that we satisfy our needs from nature. But in our modern
societies if we refer to what Marx said, it is somehow contradicting. Is it
true that there is absolute reciprocal relationship between man and nature or
is it true that there is only positive relationship between man and nature? How
can we talk of natural phenomena which destroy man? Or man's behavior which
destroys the environment?
0.3. Objectives
of the Study
This
study aims to critically analyze the kind of relationship that exists between
man and nature and to research on the importance we get from nature and how man
acts toward nature.
i)
To analyze man and
nature relationship according to different scholars.
ii) To
analyze man and nature relationship according to Karl Marx.
iii) To
criticize Marx's explanation of man and nature relationship.
0.4. Significance
of the Study
This
research will help people to increase knowledge on the true relationship
between man and nature so as to act positively toward nature.
It
will also help philosophers to understand the reciprocal relationship that
exists between man and nature.
0.5. Methodology
The
study will use analytic and critique methods to bring the study into real
context.
0.6. Limitation
of the Study
This
study does not deal with the study of the relationship between man and nature
in general rather in Karl Marx and other important scholars.
The
accesses to materials which are books by Karl Marx were difficult to get, this
made difficult in my research work.
Financial
limitation was also a problem because stationery costs were highly needed.
0.7. Literature
Review
S.
E. Stumpf observes that according to Ludwig Feuerbach, nature is not an idea, a
universal; it is not the product of abstraction. We must start with the real,
with being, with the concrete, not with idea or thought. The fundamental
reality is nature. Man is the subject who knows nature as his ground: a
sensible reality. Man depends on Nature. In the Essence of Religion, Nature is the ground of religion. “Nature is
the first, the original object of religion”[4].
For
that reason, religion cannot be understood apart from anthropology and natural
sciences. Nature reveals and manifests itself to man and imposes itself on him
as a divine being. As man becomes conscious of his dependence on external
reality, he begins to venerate the forces of nature and natural phenomena, such
as trees, fountains, mountains, the sun, the moon, etc. He does so because
man's desires and fears fashion the gods, for, as he puts it, "Men's
wishes are their god's.”[5]
Also
according to Aristotle nature is an inner principle of change and being at
rest. This means that when an entity moves or is at rest according to its
nature reference to its nature may serve as an explanation of the event.
Read more: The Contribution of Religious Institutions to Provision of Secondary Education
Read more: The Contribution of Religious Institutions to Provision of Secondary Education
CHAPTER ONE
Man-Nature Relationship
1.0 Introduction
The
problem of man and nature relationship can be seen in many points of view, and
this is because the understanding of man-nature relationship is of great
importance. For example we can discuss man-nature relationship in geographical,
biological, historical and philosophical points of view. In this research paper
the concentration is on the man-nature relationship in the philosophical point
of view, though we can also draw evidences and examples from other points of
view like historical, biological, and geographical. This is because this
research paper aims to discuss man-nature relationship from philosophical point
of view in our current situation.
Before
the 19th Century, individuals who studied the natural world were
called natural philosophers. To explore and understand the inner working of
nature and humanity, natural philosophers used different modes of thinking such
as logic, mathematics, physics, and metaphysics, or the science that studied
“being as such.”[6]
The
incorporation of these varied concepts brought about a comprehensive
understanding of nature and how humans relate to nature. For this reason we can
say that theories were devised from the incorporeal ideas, data were gathered
from the human senses, and concrete evidence was pursued to support philosophy.
This
chapter will concentrate on the relationship of man and nature according to
different scholars.
1.1 Man-Nature
Relationship in the Ancient Greece
We
normally say that, “Old is Gold” meaning that old things are very useful in
most cases. In this case we mean that Ancient Greek philosophy is the
foundation of many topics we discuss in our daily life. The anthropological
problem concerning the relationship between man and nature was also discussed
by the Ancient Greek philosophers. Due to the limitation of this paper we will
concentrate on ideas from Plato and Aristotle.
1.2.1 Plato
“Nature
and natural things are not among the objects that concern Plato in his earlier
and middle philosophical investigations. This is because in the Republic he does not include the study
of the visible heaven.”[7]
So, for this reason we can say that Plato is critical of natural science and
this is because of its empirical approach.
Plato mainly explains the principle of goodness. He suggests that, the good is the
intelligent inner principle that determines the nature of every object capable
of goodness, and goodness works in all things. He was thinking of an internal
“binding force”. However in book of Republic
in the elucidation of the ontological differences between forms as the products
of a divine maker, their earthly copies, and the limitation of these copies by
an artist. There Plato explains that in each case it is the use or function
that determines what it is to be good. “Aren`t the virtue or excellence, the
correctness of each manufactured item, living creature, and action related to
nothing but the use for which each is made or naturally adapted?”[8]
Here Plato does not limit this account to instruments, but explicitly includes
living things and human actions in it.
A
similar thought is expressed in the Republic
Book I when Socrates in his refutation of Thrasymachus employs the argument
that the ability to fulfill one`s own task well constitutes the excellence of
each object. In case of human beings this means “doing well” and “doing
well” means “living well”
and “living well” means “living happily.”[9] This
means that Plato saw an intimate connection between the nature, the function,
and the well being of all thing including human beings.
Here Plato concerned with the structure of visible world as a model for the human
soul, and also with the material conditions of human physiology or in other
words we can say that nature is very important for the human soul and also for
the material conditions of human condition.
Aristotle illustrates in his Physics, that
nature has purpose and works in much the same way as that of human being
through his explanation of causes.So here it is where shows how nature
corresponds with human person and in the explanation of the four causes are
where it discloses the works of nature as that of the human person.
According
to Aristotle, nature “belongs primarily in virtue of itself and not in virtue
of a concomitant attribute”[10].
That is to say nature clearly exists because humans are able to interact with
it. However, a human person is able to interact with nature, due to the fact
that a human person has ability or rather potentiality of exploring the nature.
A human person as human person has a thinking capacity which helps him to work
on nature, or, in other words, to operate on nature, that is to say to act by
doing different things with reference to nature. This means that nature occurs
naturally and operates in the physical world.
“For Aristotle, nature is an internal
principle of motion and rest. Aristotle supplements the differentiation of the existent things which are the subject
matter of natural sciences from other non-physical existent things, by
differentiating the methods of the physicist from those of the mathematician
and metaphysician. Causes are distinguished in many ways, not only the four
causes material, formal and moving or efficient and final but the operation of
causes, plurality of causes, contrary results, and models of causation.Changes
and occurrences have other causes than nature: there are external as well as
internal essential causes and also incidental or accidental causes, both
internal and external”[11]
Having
set forth the principles, causes, and kinds motions, Aristotle proceeds in the
third and fourth books of the physics to determine the nature of motion and to
examine fundamental concepts like infinity, place, void and time associated
with motion. Inquiry in to motions and changes in the last four books runs
through motion and rest, the analysis of concepts related to succession, contiguity,
and continuity, the investigation of mover and moved and the demonstration of a
first mover.
To
understand Aristotle`s definition of nature, he introduces his ideas of
“substances” to describe what exists. Aristotle and Plato both believe that there
are forces beyond physical matter at work in nature.This is an important distinction between
the natural sciences during ancient times and science in modernity.
In
conclusion through their writings Plato and Aristotle show the ways humans live
inside of nature.Plato gives an account for how and why humans identify
themselves with the world through his forms and Aristotle gives meaning and
purpose to nature through his four causes specifically through the formal and
final causes.
1.3.1 Man-Nature
Relationship according to Medieval Philosophers
In
the medieval period most philosophers tried to explain nature in relation to
God. They mostly used the Ancient Greek ideas to elaborate the relationship
between man, nature and God under the umbrella of Christianity. In other words
we can say that most of the medieval philosophers like the Greek philosophers
make the connection between the physical world and the divine.
Nature,
according to early Christians, is simply the physical world, and much like in
Greek philosophy there is a connection between the physical world and the divine.
Therefore, Augustine has changed the focus of natural philosophy to the search
for God through the natural world, instead of the universal quest for
understanding how humans relate to nature. “For Augustine, God is the Form of
the good, everything is created by God, and God`s creation are any shadows of
his goodness. Nature and human kind spring forth God`s design.”[12]
Generally
we can say that, Augustine uses the physical world to search for God rather
than concentrating on how man relate to nature.
1.3.3 Thomas Aquinas
He
ties humanity to both God and Nature. All the laws of nature, all the laws of
morality or of society ought to be considered as so many particular cases of
one single law, divine law. Now, God’s rule for the government of the universe
is, like God Himself necessarily eternal. Thus the name eternal law is given to
this first law, source of all others.
“Man,
as a rational creature, has the strict duty of knowing what eternal law exacts
of him and of conforming to it. This might be an insoluble problem where this
law not in some way written in his very substance so that he has only to
observe himself so attentively in order to discover it there. In us, as
everything, the inclination which draws us towards certain ends in the
unmistakable mark of what eternal law that makes us what we are, we have only
to yield to the legitimate inclinations of our nature in order to obey it. Eternal
law, thus shared by each one of us, and which we find written in our own
nature, is called natural law”[13]
The
first and most universal of all is that which all living beings, in yielding to
it declare: do good and avoid evil. This almost seems to be a truism but it
records the least contestable and most universal experience. It is a fact that
every living being movers under the impulse of its desires or its aversions.
What we call good is really only the object of the desire, and what we call
evil the object of an aversion. If we suppose an object which all desire, it would
be by definition absolute good taken in itself. To say that we must do good and
avoid evil is not arbitrarily to decree a moral law; it is merely to read a
natural law which is written in a very substance of beings and to bring to
light the hidden spring of all their operations. We have to do it, because it
is our nature to do it.
In
conclusion Aquinas has explained about humanity to both God and nature by
explaining the laws that govern them.
1.4 Man-Nature
Relationship according to Modern Philosophers
1.4.1 Francis Bacon
While
Descartes seeks to separate the material world to justify his method to the
church, Francis Bacon is politically motivated and proclaims that humans have
domination over nature. Bacon asserts that “the rightful place for humans is
above, and thus in control of the physical world.”[14]
“Bacon
who believe that humans should have complete dominion, or control over nature.
Bacon is perhaps best known for his view on nature and humanity`s role in
nature. “Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is
not known the effect cannot be product. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed;
and that which in contemplation is as the cause in operation as the rule”[15]
Here Bacon means that nature was created by
God for humans to command. But also he means that first the law of nature must
be understood. So for this understanding we can say that for Bacon man has the
responsibility to dominate nature and command it. But for him is very important
before commanding nature, first the laws of nature must be understood and this
is because of a simple reason that in a normal situation we cannot command
things without knowing their laws or principles. “For this reason human beings
must be adapt themselves to nature, submit to its commands, and assisting in
developing its operations.By doing this Bacon claims that human beings gain
mastery over nature because in order to dominate nature, human beings must become
its servant and interpreter”[16]
Generally
we can say that for Bacon nature is there so as to be dominated by man, so it
is man`s responsibility to dominate nature.
1.4.2 Jean-Jacques
Rousseau
He
uses his concept of the state of nature to explain the relationship between man
and nature. He uses the concept of state of nature as a means of trying to
determine how man was before he entered society.
Odhiambo
observes that “to Rousseau in the state of nature man directly depends on
nature,”[17]
so, man depended on nature to get his or her needs. “According to Stumpf, what
we understand fromRousseau is that, the state of nature is treated mainly as
the starting point of a long process of human development which stretches from
primitive times to present day.”[18]
Generally,
we can say that for Rousseau man depends on nature to fulfill his/her needs.
Read more: The Contribution of Religious Institutions to Provision of Secondary Education
Read more: The Contribution of Religious Institutions to Provision of Secondary Education
CHAPTER TWO
Relationship between
Man and Nature According to Karl Marx
2.1 Introduction
In
chapter one, Anthropological problem “Man and Nature” relationship was
explained and discussed in different ways from the Ancient Greek philosophers; Plato and Aristotle. Plato, mostly uses his ideas of the forms to discuss human
nature and to some extent how man is according to nature and how he must be
according to nature. On the other hand Aristotle uses his ideas of ‘substances’
to explain the nature of human being and how man relate with nature.
Also
we looked and discussed about the medieval philosophers understanding about the
relationship between man and nature and we saw that, the medieval philosophers
especially Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did not concentrate on how man relate
with nature rather they
put
emphasis on nature in relation to God or divine.
In
the modern philosophy we deal with Francis Bacon`s understandings of man-nature
relationship and Jean Jacques Rousseau philosophy concerning man and nature
relationship. In this chapter our discussion is about the anthropological
problem: man and nature according to Karl Marx. We are going to see how Marx uses his historical Materialist Dialects Process to explain man-nature
relationship.
2.1. Marx’s Understanding of Man
Marxbelieves that, there are many aspects that human person can be treated that are
historical, religious, political, economic, social, and materialistic. But Marx
studies man in relation to the economic and social relation in which he lives. For
that Marx says “The way man produces determines his thinking and his desires. “According
to Marx’s as explained by Louis Dupre there are two elements that can be used
to explain man”[19]
i)
Labor
Labor is conceived of as the activity through which
man realizes his own essence. Through this Marx says “Labor is man’s coming to
be for himself.”
ii)
Oneself
Man’s oneself
is realized within alienation; labor itself constitutes this alienation.
Marx also believes that man is complete when he interacts with nature as part of the
world. Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being, he is on the one
hand furnished with natural powers of life. He is an active natural being. This
force exists in him as tendencies and abilities as impulses. On the other hand
as natural corporal, sensuous, objective being he is a suffering, conditioned
and limited creatures like animals and plants.
Since
labor is man’s proper channel of expressing his real life by contact with
natural objects for the satisfaction of his needs, labor as an essential
property of man such that if it is taken away from man he would be in a state
of bankruptcy and needs. “Marx says ,Physically man lives only on these
products of nature, whether they appear in the form of food, heating ,clothes
,or whatever it maybe”.
Also
the worker depends on nature so that he can live and obtain his basic needs, Marx claims that “,The worker can create nothing without nature ”As the products of
the workers labor are expropriated ,nature is reduced to mere means of subsistence
.In physical sense man lives only from these natural products whether in the
form of nourishment, heating ,clothing, and shelter. Nature is man’s inorganic
body ,that is to say nature in so far as it is not the human body.
2.3. Marx Understanding
of Nature
There
is no specific, “Marxist philosophy of nature” as Karl Marx did not conceive of
as separate form society. The basic Marxist idea is that everything can be
explained by one thing, matter. Matter is the total explanation for space,
nature, man and every other aspect of existence. In the explanation of nature
Marx and Engels developed three laws that are: the law of opposites, the law of
negation and the law of transformation.
2.1.1 The law of
opposites
Marx and angles started with the observation that everything in existence is a
combination or unity of opposites. The
basic concept being that this unity of opposites in nature is the thing that
makes each entity auto-dynamic and provides this constant motivation for movement
and change.
2.1.2. Law of negation
This
law was created to account for the tendency in nature to constantly increase
the numerical quantity of all things. Marx and Engels decided that each entity
tends to negate itself in order to reproduce itself in higher quantity. They
explain that all nature is constantly expanding through dying. The elements of
opposition which produce conflict in each thing and give it motion also tend to
negate the thing itself; but out of this dynamic process of dying the energy is
released to expand and produce many more entities of the same kind.
2.1.3 Law of
transformation
This
law states that a continuous quantities development by a particular class often
results in a "leap" in nature whereby a completely new form or entity
is produced. This theory draws many parallels to the theory of Evolution. The
Marxist philosophers concluded that matter is not only auto-dynamic and
inclined to increase itself numerically, but through quantitative accumulations
it is also inherently capable of "leaps" to new forms and levels of
reality. Marx and Engels saw these laws as the discovery of the greatest
mystery of all: What is life?
From
the above explanations on the laws of nature, Marx and Engels have explained the
laws of nature.
2.2 Marx`s Theory of
Alienation
We
live in a world where technological achievements unimaginable in previous
societies are within our grasps: this is the age of space travel, of the internet,
of genetic engineering. Yet never before have had we felt so helpless in the
favor of the forces we ourselves have created. This means that the result of
our labor threatened our very existence in this world. And if we refer to Marx this is alienation because the fruit of our own labor threatened our very existence:
this is also the age of nuclear disasters, global warming, and the arms race.
For the first time in history we can produce enough to satisfy the needs of
everyone on the planet. Despite our power to control the nature world, our
society is dominated by insecurity, as economic grow and military conflict makes
life irresistible. In short development which is a result of transforming
nature make our lives threatened. Marx noted that:-
“On
the one hand, there have started into life industrial and scientific forces,
which no epoch of the former human history had ever suspected. On the other
hand, there exist symptoms of decay, for surpassing the horrors of the Roman
Empire. In our days everything seems pregnant with its contrary. Machinery,
gifted with the wonderful power of shortening and fructifying human labor, we
behold starring and overworking it. The new-fangled sources of wealth by some
strange weird spell are turned into sources of want. The victories of art seem
bought by loss of character”[20]
Marx developed his theory of alienation to reveal the human activity that lies
behind the seemingly impersonal forces dominating society. We live in appear
natural and independent of us, they are the results of past human actions. Marx
showed that human action could shape a future world free from the
contradictions of capitalism. Marx developed a materialist theory of how human
beings were shaped by the society they lived in, also how people are both
‘world determined’ and ‘world producing’ For Marx, alienation was not rooted in
the mind or in religion, as it was for his predecessors Hegel and Feuerbach. Instead
Marx understood alienation as something rooted in the material world. “Alienation
meant loss of control, especially the loss of control over labor. To understand
why labor played such a central role in Marx`s theory of alienation, we have to
look first at Marx`s ideas about human nature.”[21]
2.5 What is Alienation
according to Karl Marx
For
Marx, alienation may be described as a condition in which men are dominated by
forces of their own creation, which confront them as alien powers. The history
of mankind had a double aspect: It was a history of increasing control of man
over nature at the same time as it was a history of the increasing alienation
of man. The notion is central to all of Marx's earlier philosophical writings
and still informs his later work, although no longer as a philosophical issue
but as a social phenomenon. Man should establish the right relationship with
nature. And this can be through planting of plenty of trees, in order to
attract source of rain, though avoiding soil erosion and cultivating by using
good methods, such as use of manure, strip farming, and following the seasons
of rain.
2.3 Human Nature
according to Karl Marx
Marx
opposed the common senses ideas that human have a fixed nature which exists
independently of the society they live in. He demonstrated that many of the features
attributed to unchanging human nature in fact vary enormously in different
societies. However, Marx did not reject the idea of human nature itself. He
argued:“that the need to labor on nature to satisfy human needs was only the
consistent features of all human societies, the everlasting nature-imposed
condition of human existence.”[22]
This
means that human beings, like all other animals, must work on nature to
survive. The labor of humans, however, was distinguished from that of animals
because human beings developed consciousness. Marx gave a famous description of
this at the beginning of capital:-
“A
spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a been puts to
shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what
distinguishes the worst architect raises his structure in imagination before he
erects it in reality. At the end of every labor-process, we get a result that
already existed in the imagination of the laborer at its commencement”[23]
What
we understand from Marx’s explanation is that, human beings are different from
other animal and this is because we act on nature consciously, and we are
capable of developing new ways of producing things we need. This also means
that we have history, whereas animals do not.
“… The species-nature of animal is an eternal repetition that of animal
is eternal repetition that of man is transformation, development and change” [24]
From
the explanation we learnt from Marx we can say that it is the human nature to
work on the world so as to fulfill his or her needs. Man has the ability to
work on nature according to his needs. So, if is the man`s nature to work, then
we can say that work is the part of man.
2.4 Man and Nature: The
Relationship between Man and Nature according to Karl Marx
We
already see the human nature according to Marx that man is the working animal,
meaning that work is the part of man, but we may still have more questions like
why man needs to work? And how man relates with nature in the process of
working, and this is simply because man works on nature (world) and not in the
vacuum.
According
to Marx, human beings have contain natural needs (food, clothing and shelter).
To satisfy these needs, man has to depend on nature. And so between man and
nature there is an absolute reciprocity: man depends on nature and nature
depend on man. Nature serves man and man transform nature. For that reason man
is aworking animal. Human work invents and creates means of production or
instrument. Through his intelligent labour man is able to put his mark on
nature and express himself in his work.
For
Marx the essence of man is work. Man is work. Man is that being who works; is
that being who by his work makes himself. Man, through his work, becomes the
creator of himself. But in the process of the relationship between man and
nature, as man tries to satisfy his needs, new relative needs come up.
Therefore,
from Marx`s explanation of man-nature relationship we understand that, there is
and must be reciprocal relation between man and nature. Because for Marx,
between man and nature there is an absolute reciprocity, there is reciprocal
dependence.
This
understanding is very important to understand how man must act towards nature
and how nature serves man .Maxs says
that ,for us mind has nature for its premise, being natures truth and for that
reason nature has vanished ,and mind has resulted as the idea arrived at
being-for-itself,the object of which as
well as the subject ,is the concept.
Conclusion
Karl Marx has
shown the reciprocity that lies between man and nature. He explains that, man
is the working animal, meaning that work is part of man, hence nature serves
man and man transforms nature.
Read more: The Contribution of Religious Institutions to Provision of Secondary Education
Read more: The Contribution of Religious Institutions to Provision of Secondary Education
CHAPTER THREE
Strengths and Criticism
of Man-Nature Relationship
3.0. Introduction
KarlMarx`s understanding of Man-Nature relationship is of great importance. For
this reason in this chapter it is very important to discuss strengths of his
understanding and we shall go father to criticize him to some extent.
3.1. Strengths of Marx`s Understanding of Man Nature Relationship
It
is true that man depend on nature to obtain his needs and also nature depend on
man to be transformed. So, we can say that Marx is right to claim that there is
interdependence between man and nature. Man needs nature to survive, meaning
that man obtains his food, shelter, clothes and other needs from nature. Nature
is very important for man`s survival. To some extent, from our normal
experience we can say that no nature, no life.
Another
strength we observe from Marx`s understanding of man-nature relationship is
that, nature needs man for it to be transformed. This means that, we can
imagine ourselves, without man, how nature would be? So, it is true that
without man, nature would have remained stagnant, because man is the one who
works on nature to fulfill his needs, and by so doing he transforms on nature.
For example Marx says: “The producer can work only as nature does, that is by
changing the matter: in this work of changing the form he is constantly helped
by natural forces”[25]
Apart
from the relationship between man and nature, another strength from Marx`s
explanation on man-nature is that, it is true that man is the working animal,
that man must work on nature so as he can be able to obtain his needs. Here we
can also refer to the holy Bible “The one who is unwilling to work shall not
eat”[26]
This statement from the holy bible support Marx`s words that “…man is the
working animal…” This understanding is very important to our daily life,
especially to the young generation, because people, especially the young
generation they don’t want to work, they need good things but they don’t want
to work. So is a very important person to know that working is their character
and responsibility.
So,
if we take Marx`s understanding of man-nature relationship to our current
situation is of great value especially on the matter of interdependence
relationship that exists between man and nature. It is very important for man
to know how he relates with nature in order for him to act correctly towards
nature or in order for man to transform nature in the right way. We can ask
ourselves how we act toward nature in the process of transforming nature and
how nature serves us. “In so far labor produces useful things that fulfill
needs, it is an external nature imposed necessity, without which there can be
no material exchange between man and nature and therefore no life”[27].
So,
from that understanding, we can say that Marx needs us to understand that, it
is very important to take that kind of relationship into consideration, because
if we don’t, we can destroy that kind of relationship. To avoid destroying the
good relation man has with nature, Marx suggests that “…man must establish the
right relationship with nature…”
Therefore
we can say that, Marx`s understanding of man-nature relationship is of great
value for us today, especially on the question of how man transform nature in the
process of obtaining his needs and how nature serves man. “Changes the forms of
the materials furnished by nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him.
The form of wood, for instance, is altered, by marketing a table out of it. Yet
for all that, the table continues to be that common”[28]
So
man has a big responsibility to transform nature so as he can meet his basic
needs and other development in his environment. Thus, man not only has a
responsibility of transforming nature for his basic needs but also he has
responsibility to conserve it. And this is because of the reciprocal
relationship that exists between man and nature. So for this reason Marx was
right to say that in order for man to have good life in this world or in his
environment he must establish the right relationship with nature.
As
we have seen Marx`s understanding of man-nature relationship is of great
importance to us. It is true that there is interdependent relationship between
man and nature. Also, is true that nature serves man and man transforms nature
in the process of obtaining his needs. But Marx introduces something new to us,
and that is the reciprocal relationship between man and nature. Marx says that
there is “reciprocity” or there is reciprocal relationship between man and
nature, here is where the question comes in: is it true that there is
reciprocal relationship between man and nature? If there is that kind of
relationship which Marx calls reciprocal, how can we talk about the natural
phenomena which destroy man`s life? Again, how can we talk about the environmental
destruction and pollution done by man on the environment? There are many things
and evidences in our lives which show that there is no reciprocal relationship
between man and nature or we can say that may be there some element of
reciprocity but Marx does not specify to us that kind of reciprocity. Marx may
go further to explain the kind of reciprocity exists between man and nature:
meaning that Marx should have explore to us what is the exactly reciprocal
relationship exists between man and nature. Marx fails to tell us whether the
reciprocity is only in the positive way or in the negative ways. This is
because when we talk of reciprocity relationship we may refer to both positive
and negative, therefore Marx did not explain further to us about the kind of
reciprocal relationship existing between man and nature. So up to this point we
don’t understand whether the reciprocity between man and is either positive or
negative. It is true the is true that there is interdependence relationship
between man and nature but in a real sense, the relationship is not
reciprocal as Marx claims, this is
because sometime nature can serve man but man cannot serve nature. Also
sometime man can transform nature but nature may fail to serve man.
3.3.1 Evidences to show
that there is no Reciprocal Relationship between Man and Nature
It
is true that there are many evidences which show that there is no reciprocal
relationship between man and nature. These evidences are from both sides,
meaning that there are natural phenomena which happened and still happening in
the world. These natural phenomena destroy man`s life and properties, for
example floods destroy life and properties in many parts of the world: in
Japan, Tanzania (Dar es salaam 2015), Kilosa,
Mabatini Mwanza and many parts of the world floods made very big destruction of properties and took
lives of many people.
Apart
from floods, there is Tsunami together with Earthquake, which killed
many people; survivors were left homeless and orphaned. For example in the Phil
pines, Indonesia and its parts such as Sri Lanka, Thailand, and India,
Malaysia, Bangladesh, South Africa, Madagascar, Kenya, and Somalia. It destructed up to five millions of
people.
Again
natural phenomena like drought and global warming is currently threatening the
world today, all these natural phenomena show that there is no reciprocal
relationship between man and nature or
if there is some extent of reciprocity that reciprocity both positive and
negative relationship.
On
the other hand, we have many evidences which show that man in a very great rate
destroys nature. For example:-industrial activities destroy nature (ozone
layer), deforestation, bush fire and many other human activities destroy nature
in a great rate.
Therefore,
all these, natural phenomena destroy man and man’s activities destroy nature.
That is true that, there is interdependence relationship between man and nature
but in a real sense the relationship it is not always positive as Marx said.
There
is no reciprocal relationship between man and nature all the time (always) rather;
there is both, positive and negative relationship between man and nature. But
in a real sense, the existence of the positive relationship man and nature is
very important because the positive relation between man and nature may create
a harmonious relationship between man and nature.
3.3.2. What should be
done so as to Create Positive Relationship between Man and Nature
Man
should create a right relationship between man and nature. And this is because
it is believed that, man is the one who
started to go against the laws of nature that is why big number of natural
phenomena like floods and droughts are caused by human activities which destroy
the laws of nature and changes the natural systems.
So,
man, has to reduce or stop activities which are destructive to our natural
environment and establish activities which obey the laws of nature such as
planting trees, conserving the environment, cultivating using good methods. For
example man has to reduce or stop deforestation, reduce industrial activities
which produce greenhouse gases which destroy the ozone layer and cause pollution;
instead man has to establish friendly activities to our natural environment
which obey the laws of nature. By so doing, nature will serve man and man will transform
nature in the right way.
3.4. General Conclusion
Generally,
critical analysis of man and nature as it is exhausted it can be understood
that Man transforms nature, and man
conserves and maintains nature. There are both strengths and criticisms of
man and nature relationship. As I have explained in
chapter three all the factors that determine what kind of relationship that man
has either positive or negative. Marx have tried to explain what type of
relationship that man has with nature, though the relationship is not clearly
shown whether the relationship is reciprocal or not. There are evidences that
shows what type of relationship exists between man and nature, for example when
man fails to follow the laws of nature and go against them. Hence as a result
nature does not show mutual relation that has with man and causes man with
natural disasters such as earthquake, Tsunami, floods, and other natural
phenomena that destroys man’s life. By these reasons man should establish the
right relationship with nature so that he can leave a harmoniously life, also
in relation to our current situation people should get education about the
environment and about nature in general so that they can know how to relate
with nature .By doing so they will at least
control ,or avoid with natural
hazards such as ,earthquake ,floods ,and Tsunami.
Read more: The Contribution of Religious Institutions to Provision of Secondary Education
Read more: The Contribution of Religious Institutions to Provision of Secondary Education
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Marx,
K Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts.
Trans by Martin Milligan. Moscow 1932.
Marx,
K Wage – Labor and capital.1847.
Marx, K
Capital Vol 1, Trans Ben Fowkes. New
York 1977
Marx, K
An illustrated History, Trans Douglas
Scott.Verso 1962.
Stumpf,
S.E., Philosophy History and Problems. McGraw Hill, Inc. New
York;1994
Marx,
K and Engels F. The Communist Manifesto. Trans by Samuel Moore. New York: Penguin Books ltd,1888.
Jaspers.
Karl. The Great Philosophers. New York; Harcout, Brace and World, Inc., 1962.
Van,
P. I., “Metaphysics”, In the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy
2012 Edition.
McKeon,
R., “Introduction to Aristotle”, The
University of Chicago Press Chicago and London, 1947.
Aristotle,
Physics, 192, b21-24
Aristotle,
Physics, 192, b21-24
McKeon,
R., “Introduction to Aristotle 2nd
Edition-Revised and Enlarged with a New General Introduction and New
Introductions to the Particular Works”, USA: The University of Chicago
Press, 1973.
Augustine,
The Confessions, Trans Henry
Chachwick, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Etiene,
G., “The Christian Phylosophy of St.
Thomas”, Toronto with a Catalogue of St. Thomas’ trans by L. K. Shook,
Random House-New York.
Bacon,
F., “The Complete Works”, Nook
Edition, 2012.
Othiambo,
F. O., “Handbook on Some Social Political
Philosophers”, Consolata Institute of Philosophy, 1998.
[1]Refer S. E. Stumpf, Philosophy: History and Problems, 5th
Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994, 295-296
[2]F.O. Odhiambo, Handbook
on Some Social Political Philosophers, Nairobi: Consolata Institute
of Philosophy, 1998, 47.
[3] S. E. Stumpf, Philosophy: History and Problems, New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.,
1994, 403.
[4]Stumpf, S.E.Afistory and
Problems, 5'1' edition, New York: Mc Graw Hill, Inc., 1994,
pg. 404.
[6]P. I. Van, Metaphysics, In
the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy
2012 Edition
[13]G. Etiene, “The Christian
Phylosophy of St. Thomas”, Toronto with a Catalogue of St. Thomas’ trans by
L. K. Shook, Random House-New York
[14]F. Bacon, The Complete Works, Nook Edition,2012,44
[15]Ibid, 46
[16]F.O. Othiambo, Handbook on
Some Social Political Philosophers, Consolata Institute of Philosophy,
1998, 36
[17]. F.O.Odhiambo, Handbook on
Some Social Political Philosophers,Consolata Institute of Philosophy, 1998,
49
[18]. S.E. Stumpf,History and
Problems, New York: Mc Graw Hill, Inc., 1994, 50
[19]E. Samuel, Philosophy History
and Problems McGraw -Hill, United
States of America, 1994, 55
[20].Karl Marx Speech at the Anniversary of the People` paper quoted in
E Lunn, Marxism and Modernism, University of Califonia Press,1984,p 31.
[21]. A Collinicos, The
Revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx, Bookmarks, 1996, chapter 3.
[22]. E Fischer, How to Read Karl
Marx, Monthly Review Press, 1996, p 53
[23]. Ibid, 53 [23]. E
Fischer, How to Read Karl Marx,
Monthly Review Press, 1996, p 53
[24]. Ibid,51
[25]K. Marx, Grundrise, London: Allen Lane, 1861, 370
[26]2 Thessalonians 3:10-12New
International Version (NIV)
[27]Ibid, 371
[28] Ibid, 375
No comments:
Post a Comment