The Atlantic. said:
Nature is essentially "human nature"—that’s what you get when you look at the ideas of Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx.
We can't really experience nature as it actually is out there. We only ever experience our own version of it—how we’re wired to perceive it.
It’s not that man is just some product of nature. It's actually more like nature is a product of man—or at least, our perception of it is. And honestly? We're also products of ourselves. We’re constantly in the process of building who we are.
We’re looking at this from two completely different angles here. I can think of a certain idea—I believe it was David Hume who touched on it—suggesting that if you turn away from a chair in the room, you can’t actually prove it still exists since you aren't perceiving it anymore. It leads down those rabbit holes about how humans are the measure of all things, and so on. But I just can't get on board with the idea that nature is a product of humanity. To me, that feels pretty baseless. Based on everything we've learned through scientific progress, it's clear that humans are a product of nature, shaped by evolution. We didn't engineer the universe or its physical laws; we simply exist within them, having emerged according to the rules they set for us.
Here. There’s this fundamental equality between the universe and nature. Our entire existence is synced up with it, whether we actually notice it or not. We’re constantly trying to crack the code, figuring out those laws in varying degrees of success. Of course, humans always view things through a very narrow, human lens. But there’s something profound that happens when we use our reason to pinpoint the laws and phenomena that existed long before we were even a thought—the very things that made our existence possible in the first place. When we can prove those truths, we’re essentially uncovering a reality that existed before us and will continue long after we’re gone. To argue that we can't be certain about these things just because we weren't around to witness them is, honestly, nothing more than a sophism. It feels like a way to dodge the conclusions our own logic allows us to reach. To me, leaning on that excuse feels pretty selfish.
The Atlantic. said:Everything a person learns or creates comes from their own direct or indirect experience, but... Always. It all comes down to human experience.
It wasn’t that Albert Einstein just stumbled upon the theory of relativity—he actually built it from the ground up.
It’s almost funny to think that she exists independently of us—unless, I guess, you believe she lives somewhere in the mind of God. 😕)
It’s a human theory, plain and simple. It works for people.
Look, if we set aside things like the Big Bang or those weird quantum phenomena—the stuff where we’re still trying to bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity—then the theory of relativity isn't just some human invention. Honestly, claiming it doesn't exist without us is pretty ridiculous. It’s that classic, ego-driven, anthropocentric way of thinking. We tend to act like we're the center of everything. But when you look at how this theory fits into the broader synthesis of scientific laws and knowledge, it’s clear these principles were functioning long before humans ever showed up. If you follow the logic that Albert Einstein "created" relativity, then you’d have to argue he was basically a god who dictated how the universe should behave since the beginning of time. By that reasoning, Einstein would have had to exist at the very dawn of creation. Because if he hadn't established that fundamental law, the entire structure of the universe—and by extension, us—wouldn't even be here. It's a flawed way to view reality.
Relativity theory is such a trip. It’s one of those things that sounds like pure science fiction until you actually start digging into how it works. It basically flips everything we think we know about time and space on its head. Instead of being these fixed, unchangeable stages where life happens, they're more like a flexible fabric that stretches and bends depending on how much mass or speed you're throwing at it. It's wild to think about.
Basically. It doesn't really matter to us on a human level. It’s basically irrelevant to our daily lives because its significance only kicks in at cosmic scales—scales we can't even touch yet. We're talking about distances and speeds approaching the speed of light, which is still way out of our reach. Right now, its impact on people is pretty marginal, mostly limited to advancing theoretical physics or sparking some deep philosophical debates. In a sense, you could say that while it matters to the universe, its value to us on Earth is more about understanding than experiencing. We can grasp the implications intellectually, even if we can't actually feel them.
Just saying, there’s absolutely zero room to move in here.
The Atlantic. said:The fundamental starting point for any thinking being is always the same: I AM.
One way to put it is through that old classic, "I think, therefore I am."
That's a given, but it’s also a bit of a toss-up.
How am I doing?
How much of me is actually left?
Why am I like this?
It’s kind of impossible to be "human" in a vacuum. We aren't born fully formed; we actually become people through our connections to others. You can't really develop a sense of self or even a basic understanding of reality if you're completely isolated from society. It’s like trying to learn a language without anyone ever speaking to you—there's just no foundation to build on. Being part of a community isn't just something we do; it's how we actually exist.
That’s exactly why his findings and breakthroughs have to be intersubjective. It doesn't mean they're objective or absolute truths, either. At the end of the day, Albert Einstein couldn't have just cooked up his theory in a vacuum by ignoring everyone else. Science isn't a solo act.
I don't really buy that either. As a species, sure, we’re wired to seek out community and live in groups. It's in our DNA. But a person can still exist in isolation from society. We've seen cases where individuals, almost by pure chance right after birth, managed to survive entirely on their own. At the end of the day, a human being is still a human being regardless of their surroundings. Environment definitely shapes you, but saying that someone's very essence vanishes just because you strip away the community? I think that's just wrong.
The Atlantic? It’s just too vast. Sometimes you need something more intimate, like sitting by the Gulf Coast, where you can actually feel the connection to the water without feeling swallowed up by the horizon. There's a certain scale to things that changes how you experience them. kaže:
Everything about being human feels fundamentally unnatural. We can only really survive within the framework of culture and society. Other creatures we know can actually exist in "nature"—even if that means the version of nature we've already messed with and reshaped in countless ways—but so far, we haven't encountered any other being that is as "unnatural" as us.
The way we live now feels totally unnatural. If you look back ten thousand years, you’d see humans living in complete harmony with the environment that actually shaped us. To claim that we can't survive out in the wild without our modern gadgets, technology, or social structures is just ignoring the whole evolutionary process. It goes against everything we know. We are built to endure; we’ve seen plenty of examples of people surviving entirely on their own, stripped of all their tools and communities. We are incredibly well-equipped for life in nature. In fact, you could say we are the ultimate product of nature—its most refined masterpiece. Just because we’ve drifted away from that lifestyle doesn't mean we've lost the ability to live it.