"There is only nature" means nothing at all, unless you have previously defined what "nature" is. Shane is presumably using it to mean "matter" (whatever that is) or "things that aren't supernatural" (think, for a second, about what a meaningless concept that is. Presumably it means "things that are real" -- as opposed to gods and demons -- and so is totally empty. Nobody has anywhere deliberately set up a system consciously based on "things that aren't real"). "Nature" is a historically mediated concept corresponding to nothing directly, or intuitively obvious, in the world. Shane can't just pull his favorite meaning out of his butt.
"Nature" means, in contemporary discourse, several things, including at least:
1) Everything. 2) Everything that is not supernatural (circular concept). 3) Everything that exists external to human beings (problematic concept). 4) That which is nondeliberative. E.g., a child's desire to suckle is natural; building a bridge is not. A dog's desire to eat meat is natural; its ability to learn to open doors is not. 5) That which is "normal," which corresponds to some essential pattern (kindly note that this is the ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE WORD*). "This is not natural behavior;" "things do not do this naturally."
* "Nature" in the ancient world meant "that which is produced by itself according to its internal law," phusis (in fact, change "internal law" to "external law" and this is still the standard scientific understanding of "nature"). "Nature" in the Middle Ages meant "that which follows the laws laid down by God," i.e., everything except those actions performed by human beings (and demons) out of their own free will (ok, demons don't have free will, but you get the idea) that violate God's law, in other words, sinful actions. (Please note that the concept of "supernatural" is meaningless in the Medieval worldview.)
Lecture now ends.
--- On Thu, 5/7/09, ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
> From: ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Y'all Yeti for This (was: How many earths)
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 11:31 PM
> On May 7, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Chris
> Doss wrote:
> >
> > Since the term "nature" is said in many ways, Shane's
> comment is as meaningless as it is pompous. As usual.
> >
>
> Dude, check it. Shane made it clear what he is referring to
> as to the way in which the term "nature" is said:
>
> >>> The premise of the scientific naturalist
> (sometimes called
> >>> "materialist") world view is that "there is
> *only* Nature."
> >>> Shane Mage.
>
> Seems pretty clear to me. You must remember that scientific
> naturalists are fairly simple (note: I didn't say simple
> minded) creatures. That's demarcation enough.
>
> --ravi
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>