Advertisement

Foundations of Human-Nature Relational Ontology

  • Neil H. Kessler
Chapter
Part of the AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series book series (AESS)

Abstract

When human/nature dualisms are identified and moved aside, ontologically basic relations come to contain both material and more-than-material features. Both posthumanist relationality such as Karen Barad’s, and that which is characterized by Aristotle as being inferior to primary and precedent, metaphysically isolated “substances,” should be rejected. Both position either “relations” or “substances” as primary, when both relations and substances should be taken as primary and wholly, mutually interdependent. In this context, Selves and the relations between them are ontologically basic, just as they are in Noddings’ interhuman care ethics. Part of the underpinning for positioning Selves and their relations thusly also rests in rejecting theories of relations that must always begin with brute material proximity and progress to closer forms. With such human/nature dualist assumptions removed, ontologically basic and irreducible close human-nature relationships can exist between relational Selves.

Keywords

Ontologically basic relations Aristotle’s substantivism Posthumanism Agential realism Pure proximity 

References

  1. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buber, M. (1958). I and thou. (trans: Smith, R. G. ). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. (Original work published 1923).Google Scholar
  3. Buber, M. (1970). I and thou. (trans: Kaufmann, W. ). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. (Original work published 1923).Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, S. M. (2012). Aristotle’s metaphysics. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2012 Ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotles-metaphysics
  5. Exist. (2018, June). Oxford English dictionary online. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com
  6. Fesmire, S. (2004). Dewey and animal ethics. In E. McKenna & A. Light (Eds.), Animal pragmatism: Rethinking human-nonhuman relationships (pp. 43–62). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  7. James, W. (1912). Essays in Radical Empiricism. New York: Longman, Green, and Co..Google Scholar
  8. Lothstein, A. S. (1996). To be is to be relational: Martin Buber and John Dewey. In M. S. Friedman (Ed.), Martin Buber and the human sciences (pp. 33–50). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  9. McDonald, H. P. (2004). John Dewey and environmental philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  10. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics & moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ortigue, S., Bianchi-Demicheli, F., Patel, N., Frum, C., & Lewis, J. W. (2010). Neuroimaging of love: FMRI Meta-Analysis evidence toward new perspectives in sexual medicine. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7(11), 3541–3552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Peirce, C. S. (1960). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, & A. W. Burks, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Pfuetze, P. E. (1967). Martin Buber and American pragmatism. In P. A. Schilpp & M. S. Friedman (Eds.), The philosophy of Martin Buber (pp. 511–542). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Plumwood, V. (1991). Nature, self, and gender: Feminism, environmental philosophy, and the critique of rationalism. Hypatia, 6(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rollin, B. E. (1990). How the animals lost their minds: Animal mentation and scientific ideology. In M. Bekoff & D. Jamieson (Eds.), Interpretation and explanation in the study of animal behavior (pp. 375–393). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, C. (2010). What is a person?: Rethinking humanity, social life, and the moral good from the person up. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Warren, K. J. (1990). The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Whatmore, S. (1997). Dissecting the autonomous self: Hybrid cartographies for a relational ethics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 15(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil H. Kessler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations