I think naturalism is the BEST term we have, because it contrasts with SUPER naturalism correctly. In that context, naturalism can be traced back to the Greeks and their natural philosophy. It also corresponds to the art history record. In other words, you can see that the Greeks had 'naturalism' in the detailed anatomical correctness of their statues. Naturalism in art was largely lost during the dark ages, until it reemerged in the renaissance. This corresponded with the rebirth of natural philosophy (aka science).
Importantly 'super natural' also literally means 'above nature'. When you go back in history and look at Aristotle's philosophy, for example, the 'super natural' realm was the celestial realm (or the realm 'above' nature). Aristotle thought the super natural was governed by different laws than the natural, which is a view that persisted until the renaissance. During the renaissance, however, the super natural (celestial realm) was shown to also be natural (governed by the same set of laws). So in that regard, naturalism is also a very accurate word to use.
As a naturalist myself, I only find myself agreeing with you on the fact that too many people use the term too loosely and often misuse it without understanding it's origins. But for me "Naturalism" means to be based in nature. the idea that the earth itself is the driving force. Naturalism often aligns with science. The reason I, and many others who identify as naturalists, don't believe in the likes of deities, bigfoot, ghosts, etc. is because they cannot be scientifically proven and they have no reason to exist within the observable nature of our planet. That there is a certain natural order to the history of the world. As such, I disagree that "physicalism" is enough of a word to really cover the whole complexity that is naturalism. Do we take more belief in the observable physical? Of course we do. But that is only one side of Naturalism.
It's been my observation that "naturalism" is contrasted with "supernaturalism." So naturalism will be the opposite whatever you mean by the supernatural. For some, "supernatural" is a synonym for "imaginary." And as far as that goes, that's a perfectly fine definition, but you have to be careful that you're not begging the question. "Your gods are just supernatural nonsense" as a synonym for "Your gods are just imaginary nonsense" is insulting, and probably unproven. For some, "supernatural" is a synonym for "unexplained." And again, that's fine. But often it doesn't carry the weight you want it to. Try looking up drugs where the "mechanism of operation is unknown." By this definition, they're all supernatural. And they get prescribed by real doctors and fix real problems every day. So just saying "Your gods are unexplained" shouldn't sting all that much. For some people, "supernatural" is just those things that science doesn't cover. But that's a moving target. 'Twas a time that "real science" didn't propose tiny beasts too small to see with the naked eye to explain what was obviously well handled by miasma theory... Oops. Then, like you mentioned, there's numbers, ethics, aesthetic, and dozens of other subjects that are not handled through experimentation. Are they all supernatural? Then there's people who use it to say "this is a topic that's out-of-bounds for me." And I'm completely in favor of someone setting their own boundaries. If you don't want to talk about bigfoot and your way to communicate that is to say its supernatural, I hear you, and I'll respect that. But if you then go on to say that you don't believe in Bigfoot because he's just supernatural nonsense, then you're setting yourself as the arbiter of reality. I do not grant you that status. Some people refer to metaphysical items as supernatural. And that's fine. I can get behind that. But then you need to remember that it includes numbers and ethics and all that. Originally, it referred to the stars. They thought that the stars (and our souls) were made of ether, which naturally tended above the natural elements of earth, fire, wind, and water. Under current chemical theory, either everything is supernatural (since all the elements are made in the stars) or nothing is (since nothing is trying to float away and join them.) Most often, it's just used as a pejorative term, and if you're actively using a term with the express intention of being insulting to your interlocutor just to gain points with your own crowd, you'll lose points with me.
Sounds good to me! Another use is for philosophical explanations that aren't grounded in the natural world, e.g. positing metaphysically primitive moral properties that don't connect with 'natural' phenomena like human feelings, emotions, wellbeing, etc.
Maybe you can help me clarify, I'm not sure if I am a naturalist. I think everything that exists ontologically exist within nature. I don't think there is anything outside of nature. So I reject the existence of God's because I reject the supernatural. I'm not saying that there couldn't be being that creates life because but humans could potentially create life. But if we could, I don't think that would make us gods. So ontologically I don't believe in things existing outside of nature because for it to even exist it has to be in nature tautologically. Even idealist and platonist. Those concepts would be in nature.
The problem with equating what is natural with what is physical (i.e., by naturalism what we really mean is physicalism), is that what counts as physical is unclear. Are numbers physical? If not, are they supernatural? Is awareness, if it's not physical, unnatural? In other words, what attribute(s) must phenomena possess in common to count as physical? And are those attributes to be known a priori, or a posteriori?
I love philosophy glossary content it's really helpful 😉
Thanks! Glad it’s helpful for you, that’s the idea!
I think naturalism is the BEST term we have, because it contrasts with SUPER naturalism correctly. In that context, naturalism can be traced back to the Greeks and their natural philosophy. It also corresponds to the art history record. In other words, you can see that the Greeks had 'naturalism' in the detailed anatomical correctness of their statues. Naturalism in art was largely lost during the dark ages, until it reemerged in the renaissance. This corresponded with the rebirth of natural philosophy (aka science).
Importantly 'super natural' also literally means 'above nature'. When you go back in history and look at Aristotle's philosophy, for example, the 'super natural' realm was the celestial realm (or the realm 'above' nature). Aristotle thought the super natural was governed by different laws than the natural, which is a view that persisted until the renaissance. During the renaissance, however, the super natural (celestial realm) was shown to also be natural (governed by the same set of laws). So in that regard, naturalism is also a very accurate word to use.
Guy spent the entire time NOT defining the term, and ends up saying just not to use the term. Don't subscribe!
As a naturalist myself, I only find myself agreeing with you on the fact that too many people use the term too loosely and often misuse it without understanding it's origins.
But for me "Naturalism" means to be based in nature. the idea that the earth itself is the driving force. Naturalism often aligns with science. The reason I, and many others who identify as naturalists, don't believe in the likes of deities, bigfoot, ghosts, etc. is because they cannot be scientifically proven and they have no reason to exist within the observable nature of our planet. That there is a certain natural order to the history of the world.
As such, I disagree that "physicalism" is enough of a word to really cover the whole complexity that is naturalism. Do we take more belief in the observable physical? Of course we do. But that is only one side of Naturalism.
Numbers are a representation, a measurement not a entity but a representation of a entity.
That's the question being debated!
It's been my observation that "naturalism" is contrasted with "supernaturalism." So naturalism will be the opposite whatever you mean by the supernatural.
For some, "supernatural" is a synonym for "imaginary." And as far as that goes, that's a perfectly fine definition, but you have to be careful that you're not begging the question. "Your gods are just supernatural nonsense" as a synonym for "Your gods are just imaginary nonsense" is insulting, and probably unproven.
For some, "supernatural" is a synonym for "unexplained." And again, that's fine. But often it doesn't carry the weight you want it to. Try looking up drugs where the "mechanism of operation is unknown." By this definition, they're all supernatural. And they get prescribed by real doctors and fix real problems every day. So just saying "Your gods are unexplained" shouldn't sting all that much.
For some people, "supernatural" is just those things that science doesn't cover. But that's a moving target. 'Twas a time that "real science" didn't propose tiny beasts too small to see with the naked eye to explain what was obviously well handled by miasma theory... Oops. Then, like you mentioned, there's numbers, ethics, aesthetic, and dozens of other subjects that are not handled through experimentation. Are they all supernatural?
Then there's people who use it to say "this is a topic that's out-of-bounds for me." And I'm completely in favor of someone setting their own boundaries. If you don't want to talk about bigfoot and your way to communicate that is to say its supernatural, I hear you, and I'll respect that. But if you then go on to say that you don't believe in Bigfoot because he's just supernatural nonsense, then you're setting yourself as the arbiter of reality. I do not grant you that status.
Some people refer to metaphysical items as supernatural. And that's fine. I can get behind that. But then you need to remember that it includes numbers and ethics and all that.
Originally, it referred to the stars. They thought that the stars (and our souls) were made of ether, which naturally tended above the natural elements of earth, fire, wind, and water. Under current chemical theory, either everything is supernatural (since all the elements are made in the stars) or nothing is (since nothing is trying to float away and join them.)
Most often, it's just used as a pejorative term, and if you're actively using a term with the express intention of being insulting to your interlocutor just to gain points with your own crowd, you'll lose points with me.
Sounds good to me! Another use is for philosophical explanations that aren't grounded in the natural world, e.g. positing metaphysically primitive moral properties that don't connect with 'natural' phenomena like human feelings, emotions, wellbeing, etc.
Maybe you can help me clarify, I'm not sure if I am a naturalist. I think everything that exists ontologically exist within nature. I don't think there is anything outside of nature. So I reject the existence of God's because I reject the supernatural. I'm not saying that there couldn't be being that creates life because but humans could potentially create life. But if we could, I don't think that would make us gods. So ontologically I don't believe in things existing outside of nature because for it to even exist it has to be in nature tautologically. Even idealist and platonist. Those concepts would be in nature.
The problem with equating what is natural with what is physical (i.e., by naturalism what we really mean is physicalism), is that what counts as physical is unclear. Are numbers physical? If not, are they supernatural? Is awareness, if it's not physical, unnatural? In other words, what attribute(s) must phenomena possess in common to count as physical? And are those attributes to be known a priori, or a posteriori?