Man and nature: Toward a middle path of survival
Environmental Ethics 8 (4):371-380 (1986)
| Abstract | I highlight the philosophical standpoints of two traditions, one from the East and the other from the West, that seem to avoid any form of reductionism resulting from the search for ultimate objectivity in human knowledge and understanding. I compare the pragmatic teachings of the Buddha and William James in order to show how both accommodate the human perspective as an inalienable part of the philosophical enterprise, and, further, how these perspectives contribute to their humanistic approaches and to the valuing of the environment in a way that is essential for human survival | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDavid J. Kalupahana (1980). The Early Buddhist Notion of the Middle Path. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 7 (1):73-90.
Michael Smithurst (1990). The Elusiveness of Human Nature. Inquiry 33 (4):433 – 445.
Eric Manton (2007). Patočka on Ideology and the Politics of Human Freedom. Studia Phaenomenologica 7:465-474.
Svitlana V. Pustovit & Erin D. Williams (2010). Philosophical Aspects of Dual Use Technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1).
Jerzy Wroblewski (1987). Nature and Man: Dilemma of the Present and the Future. Theoria 2 (2):309-322.
Herman Tennessen (1973). Knowledge Versus Survival. Inquiry 16 (1-4):407 – 414.
John Herz (2003). On Human Survival: Reflections on Survival Research and Survival Policies. World Futures 59 (3 & 4):135 – 143.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads2 ( #232,684 of 549,663 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,663 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
