Our definition of nature is wrong

Nature encompasses everything, yet nothing. In this week’s reading we read the “Twenty-Two Theses on Nature” by Shaviro. This reading discussed how we misinterpret our own relations with nature, as well as how we have lost touch with what nature really is. In each of the 22 theses, Nature was defined in a new way, or interpreted in a different perspective. The first 3 theses draw in the audience by addressing how our normal views of nature are actually incorrect. 

For example, in the second thesis the first sentence states, “We must think of nature without any residual anthropocentrism: that is to say, without exempting ourselves from it , and also without remaking it in our own image.” This quote alone already addresses how our values on nature are incorrect. Many of us, especially those who believe in global warming, already associate anthropocentrism with nature. We are quick to associate nature with our own values. And according to the 22 theses if we think this way we are already wrong. Nature itself is its own being, but it is also what we make of it. In Thesis 16, Shaviro discusses how important perception is in nature. 

Perception in and of its own is one topic. The way we perceive things is just as important as the way we act to things. In regards to nature, our perception is important when it comes to the definition of what is a living organism. This reading has helped me realize how perception can totally change your opinions on a topic. In regards to nature, The way we define a living organism determines how we treat nature. Shaviro even goes so far to compare nature to a thermostat. Which evidently proves that if we can associate nature with a thermostat, then is our perception of nature really correct?