Dogmatism & DiaNat

Filed Under: Essays, Society, Literature, Journal.

Back when I was studying at the Institute for Social Ecology, I stumbled across a rather profound debate over nature philosophy.

Nature philosophy, in general, seeks to define a definition of both humanity and nature and how they relate to each other. A coherent nature philosophy is very important when approaching the implementation of sustainable practices in, say, forestry or agriculture. In many ways, nature philosophy defines cultural-cognitive boundaries which, through both discourse and “social engineering”, become a the means in which future generations will view, and interact with, the world around them.

So, what is the problem? Science, with a little chaos theory thrown in, defines a natural system, like an organism, ecosystem or even the biosphere as a dynamic, ever-changing entity. The changes, of course, are quite chaotic. Being influenced by the an infinite number of factors in transcendent systems, understanding that path of change as a pre-defined path is a bit of a pickle. No single person, and not even the systems themselves will ever know what the future holds. I cannot tell you how a species will evolve over the next thousand years.

If my memory serves me correctly, Dialectical Naturalism, a specific nature philosophy, supposes that while entities or systems change over time, the various number of ways the entity or system can change becomes limited by its current state of being.

Oh wait! I forgot to mention one thing! In the study of Dialectical Naturalism, nothing can be defined as “being.” Systems/entities always change, and even if you may not notice those changes, nothing is static. I change, you change, we all have to adjust to change over time. So, the folks who came up with this nature philosophy always state that systems/entities are in a state of becoming.

So the future development of something is limited by its current state of becoming. Here is the point at which these ideas become confusing for me.

In the study of Dialectical Naturalism, this idea is called “directionality.” Many people don’t like this idea. I suppose that I don’t like this idea either. However, I would like to better understand what it really means. For this reason I will give an example.

Let us say that someone wants to enact a policy change in government. Let us also suppose that this individual is following Dialectical Naturalism as a means to come to the best decision. This may sound a bit strange, but they would ask themselves how the society in which they live has evolved over time. They would also suppose that there exist an entelechy of of human beings.

Simply put, an entelechy is a definition of what something becomes when those criteria required for further growth or development are fulfilled. A house plant needs sun, soil nutrients and water to grow. Growth is a sign of potential in what a house plant (or any plant for that matter) can become. So, the entelechy of the house plant is the definition of what it can become if necessary preconditions (giving it water and such) are fulfilled. The slippery facet of entelechy is the idea that entelechy is always in a state of development itself.

Now, I have an important question to raise. Would a lack of water, sunlight or nutrients be the necessary preconditions for the house plant to become dead? So is death also a facet of the plant’s entelechy? Well, according to Murray Bookchin, a popular nature philosopher, death is not a facet of the plant’s entelechy. Death is the halting of development and growth.

It does seem quite obvious, doesn’t it? However, on a larger scale, death is certainly a precondition for the evolution of species, for instance. The cycle of life and death in populations is an important factor in determining the entelechy of the species (what it is becoming). On top of this, some species rely upon high birth rates and death rates to evolve.

Dialectical Naturalism is, of course, the basis for an ethics. So, because the growth in one species may be halted at a higher rather than another species, does that mean that one species is less ethical than the other?

Of course not. High death rates are a precondition for the continuing development of such a species. The species would no longer grow or develop without such a precondition fulfilled.

However, what if we had, for example a predatory strain of algae which multiplied at an extraordinary rate. After some point, the checks and balances within surrounding ecosystems would bring about the eventual extinction of the species of algae because the source and sink capacities within those ecosystems would be strained beyond the point at which the algae depends upon its survival. Is the strain of algae unethical for bringing about its own extinction? Of course not, because there exists a degree of scalability is how systems of systems develop over time. The ecosystems of which the algae was a member continued its development through the extinction of the algae.

Before I get carried away, I should note that this scalability goes upwards (and downwards) forever. Developing systems and entities cannot be unethical because of the developmental patterns they follow, however puzzling those patterns may be to us. This is called relativism.

Much to the surprise of someone trying to develop new policies on the basis of dialectical naturalism, they may find themselves developing these policies on the basis of relativism.

It may be better to reply upon direct human needs, our instinct for survival and continuing political discourse to make important policy decisions. Human entelechy, is of course, infinitely faceted and in a state of chaotic development. However, we do know what we need in order to survive - and we have plenty of data to back that up. Of course, let us not forget that we also have plenty of theories and hypotheses that are in a state of chaotic development.

We need to pay attention to those preconditions that are fulfilled to bring about further human development in accordance with our own instincts of survival.

By making an infinitely small snapshot of my own identity, I can then claim that I am a social creature by nature, and propose that cooperation and empathy play an important role in fulfilling people’s needs. By putting forth these ideals, I can also propose that we need to continue to re-examine our relationship with nature in the context of humanity’s continuing growth and development. Of course the future is impossible to predict (being infinitely faceted), so I can only base my hopes and ideals from the present - a state that is, in itself, in constant development.

In this short examination of dialectical naturalism. I feel, for myself, that focusing more closely upon human cooperation and discourse may be more important than trying to understand development, entelechy and potentiality.

Published: 5 years ago