Carlson postulates that the correct appreciation of nature stems from our engagement in nature and our scientific knowledge. He highlights that the more we know about the environment of which we are trying to gain an aesthetic appreciation for, the more intense and satisfying that appreciation will be. I argue that this method of appreciation of nature is a relative one. Firstly, not everyone has access to educational materials, whether by location or finances, to retrieve the knowledge that Carlson says we nee to appreciate nature. Does that mean that the poor who have little to know access to technology or education will never get a full appreciation of nature? Or can a tribe in a rural area in the South Americas that does not have the institutional education about an area find it aesthetically pleasing? Additionally, note that our educational knowledge can also hinder how appreciation of nature. Based off all the methods of appreciating nature, I can argue that no method will allow for everyone to appreciated nature. That is, there is no correct method of appreciating nature. This is because everyone has preferences and those help to determine what one considers beautiful.
No comments:
Post a Comment