Man and nature philosophy adhere to the harmonious coexistence of man and nature, embodied in the

It's a two-dimensional problem. Whether the relationship between people and things can be equated with the relationship between people. These two questions can be in the same dimension**, like you said, cutting people and cutting down trees are both killing.

But these two issues can also be discussed in different dimensions. The key to harmony between people and things is to pay attention to balance, which includes balance, and the rational use of trees to maintain life, I think is a kind of balance, which means that you can judge whether it is right or wrong to cut down trees according to the purpose. But there is a high level between people, that is, ethical and moral issues, and people and things basically do not have this problem, but there are these problems between people.

These are all questions to be discussed in biology and do not touch on the level of philosophy.

What is the difference between man and nature? 〞：

In the eyes of observers, man is also a part of nature, all of whom make up the biosphere on Earth. However, life originates from the environment, and life is dependent on the environment (the environment is everything outside the living individual itself. For example, you, him, air, water, and all other living things, dead things are my surroundings), so it is impossible for man to live outside of all things in nature.

While enjoying the earth's resources, human beings must not forget to protect the balance and soundness of the natural ecological environment.

Why can I cut down trees but not people? Since it's all material, why is it wrong for me to cut people? 〞：

In nature, all living things are pursuing survival and the continuation of life activities, in order to meet the ecological balance of the environment, between species; There are means of survival competition within species, each organism must seek or adapt to the space of survival under different conditions to continue life, the law of the jungle is only one of the laws of survival, there is nothing terrible and contemptible, human beings must not forget to protect the balance and soundness of the natural ecological environment while enjoying the earth's resources. Therefore, in terms of the laws of nature, if it is not for its own survival, it is wrong to cut down people and trees. (In terms of the artificial rules of human society, it is legal for soldiers to kill enemies, and it is illegal to kill people by cutting down trees without reason to destroy the environment).

What is the difference between man and nature? There are similarities, but there are also differences.

Why can I cut down trees but not people? You can't just cut down trees. The law prohibits the cutting of people. But there are times when people are cut.

Since it's all material, why is it wrong for me to cut people, it's right to cut down trees (wrong means it's compared to cutting people), what is right and what is wrong? Wrong has nothing to do with right or not being material.

For people and trees, it's just a bunch of atoms, is that true? That's true, but it doesn't make sense. You and Yao Ming are both human, but does it make sense?

In fact, anything can be cut, and the problem is that after you cut it, how to face the cost of the tree and people you have cut down. For example, if you hack to death the riot terror at a critical juncture to prevent him from hurting others again, it's okay, whatever material you cut will bear the mutual consequences, and you will realize the consequences of doing this in advance, so you will make the right choice. Of course, sometimes you don't realize the consequences, or don't care about the consequences at all, that's another way of thinking.

Right or wrong is determined by whether the overall behavior value of the work is meaningful. It's like you're right to hack dangerous terrorists to death.

The unity of opposites must contain two aspects. Meaning: Interdependence, mutual transformation, and mutual struggle The three are indispensable, hereinafter referred to as the three natures.

Man and nature are divisible--- and the three natures are not satisfied. But the front and the back are inseparable, and the front and back are interdependent, transformed, and struggled with each other --- satisfy the three natures.

Man and nature are the material bearers of the two sides of the unity of opposites--- attention is the bearer.

For example, China and the United States have an antagonistic relationship, but 5,000 years ago there was no such antagonism. China and the United States are the material bearers of opposition and unity, embodying the relationship of opposition and reunification between aggression and being invaded, colonization and colonization, economic infiltration and counter-infiltration, political evolution and counter-evolution, military encirclement and counter-encirclement--- and so on.

1.Man is a living being, and there are living things in nature This is the sameness, but man can dominate the creatures in nature, not vice versa, this is difference, that is, struggle. It embodies the unity of opposites between being born and being begotten, and conquering and conquering.

Being born and being born embodies the unity of opposites before and after--- that is the unity of opposites in the category of cause and effect--- satisfying the three natures. Conquest to be conquered embodies the unity of the opposites of the spear and the shield--- satisfies the three natures.

2.Man is the taker of nature, and nature is the taker. The taker and the takee are opposites and unified--- two sides are interdependent, transformed, struggled with each other, --- satisfy the three natures.

3.Man is developing, and nature is also developing, which is the sameness, but the development of man often destroys the development of nature, which is the struggle --- satisfies the three natures.

The concept of harmonious coexistence between man and nature has rich connotations and philosophical implications, and embodies a series of rigorous philosophical thinking such as contradictory thinking, systematic thinking and dialectical thinking.

Ambivalent thinking. Contradictory thinking is the basic thinking to grasp the relationship between man and nature, which embodies the opposition and unity between man and nature. Man and nature are an antithetical unity, existing in an open and dynamic system.

Systems thinking. First of all, the harmonious coexistence of man and nature reflects the unity of man and nature. "The unity of heaven and man" regards heaven, earth and man as interconnected, mutually influential, harmonious and unified whole, and the change and development of any one element will affect the change and development of other elements, which contains the ecological value concept of harmonious coexistence between man and nature.

On the basis of respecting the laws of nature, the rational use and transformation of nature will surely realize the sustainable development of man and nature; On the contrary, against the laws of nature, human beings will eventually hurt themselves if they harm nature. Critical thinking.

Materialist dialectics holds that the world is universally connected and eternally developing, and we must persist in looking at problems from the perspective of connection and development. The relationship between man and nature has gone through a dialectical process of "affirmation-negation-negation of negation" from worship and dependence, exploitation and utilization, to confrontation and conflict, and then to harmonious coexistence.

Rousseau believed that man is a purely natural thing.

Rousseau was a philosopher and statesman in 18th-century Europe, and his ideas had an important influence on the French Revolution. In his book The Social Contract, he argues that human beings in their primitive state are natural, free, and egalitarian, societies free of private property and political power. He objected to Locke's view that human beings were not born with certain natural rights, but that they were acquired in society.

Therefore, he believed that political power should come from the people, not from the divine mandate of God or the monarch.

In Rousseau's view, human beings are pure natural objects in their primitive state, unbound by external cultural and social systems. He believed that the natural state of human beings is good, but social injustice and moral corruption have caused people to lose their original good state. Therefore, he advocated for a people-centered political system that would protect the freedom and equality of the people.

In conclusion, Rousseau believed that man is a purely natural object and should be respected and protected. His ideas have had a profound impact on modern political philosophy and sociology.

Rousseau was the philosopher's view that man is a purely natural thing, and this view is embodied in his On the Origin and Basis of Human Inequality.

Rousseau believed that human beings are peaceful, free and equal beings in the state of nature, but the development of the social system and the emergence of private property have broken this state of nature and caused the problem of human inequality. He advocated the restoration of people's natural state to solve this problem.

According to Lu Hanmaisuo, man is a part of the natural world, an existence governed by nature like other animals. He believes that human nature is good, but under the influence of the social system, people become selfish and independent. Therefore, Rousseau advocated the restoration of the natural state of man, freed from the shackles of the social system, and the realization of true freedom and equality.

Rousseau's view has certain implications for contemporary anthropology, sociology and political science. It reminds us that in modern society, we should pay more attention to the value of human beings in their natural state, re-understand the nature and essence of human beings, and thus carry out more profound thinking and reform of the social and political systems.

The great French philosopher Descartes believed that man is a purely natural object. Descartes' philosophical ideas can be called "speculatives", arguing that human knowledge should be based on objective and verifiable foundations, rather than on tradition or macro-cosmic beliefs. In his thought, man is made up of two parts, the body and the mind, and the body is material and can be studied and understood; The mind, on the other hand, is immaterial and is the source of human thought, consciousness, and perception.

In Cartesian philosophy, man's free will and reason are the most important features, and these characteristics are independent of the laws of nature and mechanical physics. Thus, Descartes believed that human beings were purely natural creatures, but that the human mind and reason were what made them different from other species in nature.

Rousseau was the representative of philosophers who considered man to be a purely natural object.

Rousseau believed that human beings are free and equal in the state of nature. He believed that human nature is good, but in society it is polluted by squires. Therefore, he stressed the importance of individual freedom and the social contract, and advocated the establishment of a democratic society that would guarantee the freedom and equality of the people.

This view of Rousseau influenced the later Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and also had a profound impact on the establishment of modern democratic societies. His ideas have inspired people's pursuit of democracy, freedom and human rights, and have become an important part of the laughter of modern human social values.

Thus, Rousseau is the representative of philosophers who considered man to be a purely natural object. His theories provide us with important ideological inspiration and encourage us to reflect on the development of human society and our understanding of nature.

Rousseau believed that man is a purely natural thing.

Rousseau was a famous French philosopher, politician, educator and writer in the 18th century. His book The Social Contract is a classic work of political philosophy. According to Rousseau, human beings are free and equal in the state of nature, without the constraints of private property and social institutions.

It is only through the social contract that a rational political order and social system can be established. Therefore, Rousseau believed that human beings are purely natural objects, without innate social attributes and identities, and that only through social contracts can they be endowed with social status and roles.

Rousseau's ideas had a profound impact on the development of human society and the establishment of political systems. His ideas were widely disseminated by later Enlightenment thinkers and revolutionaries, and became one of the theoretical foundations of modern democracy and human rights protection.

The Dutch philosopher Spinoza believed that man is a purely natural object. In his book Ethics, he pointed out that all things operate according to the inevitable laws of nature, and man is no exception. He believes that human thoughts, emotions, consciousness, etc. are all products of the laws of nature, but they are more complex and advanced expressions.

He denied the existence of souls, gods, and other imaginary beings, and also denied the possibility that human beings could transcend the natural world with supernatural wisdom. This view of Spinoza is known as "physicalism" and is also regarded as one of the important intellectual legacies in the history of Western philosophy.

That philosopher was Rousseau.

Rousseau believed that man was a purely natural object, and his view was embodied in his work "The Social Contract". Rousseau believed that in the state of nature, human beings are free and equal. He believed that a social contract was an agreement voluntarily reached by people to protect the freedoms and rights of individuals.

This view differed from that of the vast majority of philosophers of the time, who believed that people are inherently social and need society to regulate and guide their behavior.

Rousseau's ideas have had a profound impact on modern political philosophy and democracy. His views emphasize the importance of individual freedoms and rights, which are one of the core values of modern democracy.

The Dutch philosopher Spinoza was one of the philosophers who asserted that man is a purely natural object. Spinoza believed that man is the same as other substances in nature, and that human thoughts and actions are also the result of natural mechanics. He believed that the human soul and body are one, that there is no supernatural soul, and that the thoughts and feelings of the people are all produced by the nervous system of the body.

Spinoza's naturalistic thought emphasizes the close connection between man and nature, and believes that man should follow the laws of nature and pursue truth and freedom. His ideas had an important influence on the later Enlightenment and the development of modern natural sciences among the Enlightenment.

Nietzsche believed that man is a purely natural object. He believed that human beings were not special creatures created by God, but rather creatures that had disappeared with a higher level of intelligence and consciousness. Nietzsche objected to the unnatural interpretation and evaluation of human mills.

He believes that we should accept ourselves as natural beings and explore our own humanity, including our unique human desires, habits, and behaviors. In Nietzsche's philosophy, human beings and the natural environment are interdependent, and he emphasizes the harmonious relationship between man and nature, advocating the maintenance of this harmonious state.