Humans readily love the other humans around them, but struggle to love humanity as a whole, particularly those who are far away and have different beliefs/cultures. Similarly, It's easier to love your local creek or grove of trees than it is to love nature as an abstract whole.
The ancient Stoics used their circle of concern idea to close the distance between humanity and the humans they loved, and something similar might work for closing the distance between nature as a whole and the individual bits of local nature we love.
The Stoics considered each person a limb of the same being, so harming another was like chopping off one of your limbs. Either extending this to nature or anthropomorphizing nature into something like the Gaia Hypothesis, while perhaps not factually accurate, does seem to allow this "closing of the distance."
Thank you, I'm glad you agree that the process of loving nature can be similar to that of loving other people. I would love to hear more suggestions for "closing the distance" if you have any!
I do, but the utility of the recommendation depends on how much one buys into various underlying beliefs. Most modern people, and most modern Stoics, don't buy Stoic physics and the idea of a providential universe.
But a wider circle of concern for humans and nature gets easier to inculcate if you do. Similarly, if you believe the Gaia hypothesis is correct (scientists argue about it), it gets easier to be good to the natural world as a whole because creating harm globally become quite similar to creating harm in that tiny local pocket of nature you care about.
You mention the streams/trees in your backyard, which I grew up with too. Undoubtedly they impacted me. But my "formative," environmental experience was hiking the Shawangunk mountains alone when I was in college. They imprinted themselves on me in a way I can't quite explain. To this day, thinking about them is thrilling and elevating. They're like a cathedral. I'd take a bullet for them.
Whenever I think of an "abstract," amount of harm I might do to the environment, I think of how it's no different than me dumping garbage in the Shawangunks. Of burning down its trees and polluting its glacial lakes. The thought fills me with revulsion. Nothing would more readily undermine my self regard/eudaimonic feelings.
There's enough of a spillover into the abstract to get me to try to live up to the virtues of moderation and justice and really consider what those virtues look like in the broader context I'm contemplating. Because to do otherwise is to destroy that thing I love, even though I'm nowhere near the Shawangunks and there's not actual connection.
So my recommendation for closing the distance is to simply consider what it would be like to destroy that local grove of trees or backyard stream with your own actions. You would hate yourself. But that connection might only work if you actually have some underlying beliefs many people lack.
Powerful and beautiful example. I actually think people who hold a wide range of beliefs would feel the same as you once they build a strong connection with a natural place. Based on the readings I cited in the post, most people react similarly, regardless of their spiritual background. Anyway, I'd love to see an article from you on this topic.
I love this! My whole approach to photography and writing is with the idea of inspiring a sense of awe for nature that will hopefully lead to preservation and conservation. Your emphasis on starting locally is a great point!
Great piece. As I’ve gotten older I’ve realized more how much I love being in nature. It’s important for wellbeing and reflection! 😊
Thank you, I completely agree!
Great read! One thing I'd like to add. Don't forget to look up: https://open.substack.com/pub/theeclecticstoic/p/light-pollution-a-blight-on-spirituality?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=tb7zr
Nice email :)
I love the parallel Brittany created here.
Humans readily love the other humans around them, but struggle to love humanity as a whole, particularly those who are far away and have different beliefs/cultures. Similarly, It's easier to love your local creek or grove of trees than it is to love nature as an abstract whole.
The ancient Stoics used their circle of concern idea to close the distance between humanity and the humans they loved, and something similar might work for closing the distance between nature as a whole and the individual bits of local nature we love.
The Stoics considered each person a limb of the same being, so harming another was like chopping off one of your limbs. Either extending this to nature or anthropomorphizing nature into something like the Gaia Hypothesis, while perhaps not factually accurate, does seem to allow this "closing of the distance."
Thank you, I'm glad you agree that the process of loving nature can be similar to that of loving other people. I would love to hear more suggestions for "closing the distance" if you have any!
I do, but the utility of the recommendation depends on how much one buys into various underlying beliefs. Most modern people, and most modern Stoics, don't buy Stoic physics and the idea of a providential universe.
But a wider circle of concern for humans and nature gets easier to inculcate if you do. Similarly, if you believe the Gaia hypothesis is correct (scientists argue about it), it gets easier to be good to the natural world as a whole because creating harm globally become quite similar to creating harm in that tiny local pocket of nature you care about.
You mention the streams/trees in your backyard, which I grew up with too. Undoubtedly they impacted me. But my "formative," environmental experience was hiking the Shawangunk mountains alone when I was in college. They imprinted themselves on me in a way I can't quite explain. To this day, thinking about them is thrilling and elevating. They're like a cathedral. I'd take a bullet for them.
Whenever I think of an "abstract," amount of harm I might do to the environment, I think of how it's no different than me dumping garbage in the Shawangunks. Of burning down its trees and polluting its glacial lakes. The thought fills me with revulsion. Nothing would more readily undermine my self regard/eudaimonic feelings.
There's enough of a spillover into the abstract to get me to try to live up to the virtues of moderation and justice and really consider what those virtues look like in the broader context I'm contemplating. Because to do otherwise is to destroy that thing I love, even though I'm nowhere near the Shawangunks and there's not actual connection.
So my recommendation for closing the distance is to simply consider what it would be like to destroy that local grove of trees or backyard stream with your own actions. You would hate yourself. But that connection might only work if you actually have some underlying beliefs many people lack.
Powerful and beautiful example. I actually think people who hold a wide range of beliefs would feel the same as you once they build a strong connection with a natural place. Based on the readings I cited in the post, most people react similarly, regardless of their spiritual background. Anyway, I'd love to see an article from you on this topic.
I love this! My whole approach to photography and writing is with the idea of inspiring a sense of awe for nature that will hopefully lead to preservation and conservation. Your emphasis on starting locally is a great point!