Hubbry Logo
PhysisPhysisMain
Open search
Physis
Community hub
Physis
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Physis
Physis
Physis
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Philosophy
Philosophies
By period
By region
By religion
Branches
Philosophers

Physis (/ˈfaɪˈsɪs/; Ancient Greek: φύσις [pʰýsis]; pl. physeis, φύσεις) is a Greek philosophical, theological, and scientific term, usually translated into English—according to its Latin translation "natura"—as "nature". The term originated in ancient Greek philosophy, and was later used in Christian theology and Western philosophy. In pre-Socratic usage, physis was contrasted with νόμος, nomos, "law, human convention".[1] Another opposition, particularly well-known from the works of Aristotle, is that of physis and techne – in this case, what is produced and what is artificial are distinguished from beings that arise spontaneously from their own essence, as do agents such as humans.[2] Further, since Aristotle the physical (the subject matter of physics, properly τὰ φυσικά "natural things") has been juxtaposed to the metaphysical.[3]

Linguistics

[edit]

The Greek word physis can be considered the equivalent of the Latin natura. The abstract term physis is derived from the verb phyesthai/phynai, which means “to grow”, “to develop”, “to become” (Frisk 2006: 1052; Caspers 2010b: 1068). In ancient philosophy one also finds the noun "physis" referring to the growth expressed in the verb phyesthai/phynai and to the origin of development (Plato, Menexenos 237a; Aristotle, Metaphysics 1014b16–17). In terms of linguistic history, this verb is related to forms such as the English “be”, German sein or Latin esse (Lohmann 1960: 174; Pfeifer 1993: 1273; Beekes 2010: 1598). In Greek itself, the aorist (a verbal aspect) of “to be” can be expressed with forms of phynai. With regard to its kinship with “being” and the basic meaning of the verb stem phy- or bhu- (“growing”), there has long been criticism of the conventional translation of the word "physis" with “nature”. With the Latin natura, which for its part goes back to the verb nasci (“to be born”), one transfers the basic word "physis" into a different sphere of association. In this way, the emerging growth (of plants, for instance) is transferred into the realm of being born.[4]

Greek philosophy

[edit]
Main articles: Ancient Greek philosophy and Nature (philosophy)

Pre-Socratic usage

[edit]

The word φύσις is a verbal noun based on φύειν "to grow, to appear" (cognate with English "to be").[5] In Homeric Greek it is used quite literally, of the manner of growth of a particular species of plant.[6]

In pre-Socratic philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus, physis in keeping with its etymology of "growing, becoming" is always used in the sense of the "natural" development, although the focus might lie either with the origin, or the process, or the end result of the process. There is some evidence that by the 6th century BC, beginning with the Ionian School, the word could also be used in the comprehensive sense, as referring to "all things", as it were "Nature" in the sense of "Universe".[7]

In the Sophist tradition, the term stood in opposition to nomos (νόμος), "law" or "custom", in the debate on which parts of human existence are natural, and which are due to convention.[1][8] The contrast of physis vs. nomos could be applied to any subject, much like the modern contrast of "nature vs. nurture".

In Plato's Laws

[edit]

In book 10 of Laws, Plato criticizes those who write works peri physeōs. The criticism is that such authors tend to focus on a purely "naturalistic" explanation of the world, ignoring the role of "intention" or technē, and thus becoming prone to the error of naive atheism. Plato accuses even Hesiod of this, for the reason that the gods in Hesiod "grow" out of primordial entities after the physical universe had been established.[9]

Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turns out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise.

— Plato's Laws, Book 10(892c) – translation by Benjamin Jowett

Aristotle

[edit]
According to Aristotle, "physis" (nature) is dependent on "techne" (art).

Aristotle sought out the definition of "physis" to prove that there was more than one definition of "physis", and more than one way to interpret nature. "Though Aristotle retains the ancient sense of "physis" as growth, he insists that an adequate definition of "physis" requires the different perspectives of the four causes (aitia): material, efficient, formal, and final."[10] Aristotle believed that nature itself contained its own source of matter (material), power/motion (efficiency), form, and end (final). A unique feature about Aristotle's definition of "physis" was his relationship between art and nature. Aristotle said that "physis" (nature) is dependent on techne (art). "The critical distinction between art and nature concerns their different efficient causes: nature is its own source of motion, whereas techne always requires a source of motion outside itself."[10] What Aristotle was trying to bring to light, was that art does not contain within itself its form or source of motion. Consider the process of an acorn becoming an oak tree. This is a natural process that has its own driving force behind it. There is no external force pushing this acorn to its final state, rather it is progressively developing towards one specific end (telos).

Atomists

[edit]

Quite different conceptions of "physis" are to be found in other Greek traditions of thought, e.g. the so-called Atomists, whose thinking found a continuation in the writings of Epicurus. For them, the world that appears is the result of an interplay between the void and the eternal movement of the “indivisible”, the atoms. This doctrine, most often associated with the names Democritus and Leucippus, is known mainly from the critical reactions to it in Aristotelian writings. It was supplemented by Epicurus in the light of developments in philosophy, in order to explain phenomena such as freedom of will. This was done by means of the theory of atoms’ “ability to deviate”, the parenklisis.[11]

Christian theology

[edit]
Main articles: Christian theology and Christology

Though φύσις was often used in Hellenistic philosophy, it is used only 14 times in the New Testament (10 of those in the writings of Paul).[12] Its meaning varies throughout Paul's writings.[13] One usage refers to the established or natural order of things, as in Romans 2:14 where Paul writes "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law."[14][15] Another use of φύσις in the sense of "natural order" is Romans 1:26 where he writes "the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another".[16][17] In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul asks "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?"[18][19]

This use of φύσις as referring to a "natural order" in Romans 1:26 and 1 Corinthians 11:14 may have been influenced by Stoicism.[19] The Greek philosophers, including Aristotle and the Stoics are credited with distinguishing between man-made laws and a natural law of universal validity,[20] but Gerhard Kittel states that the Stoic philosophers were not able to combine the concepts of νόμος (law) and φύσις (nature) to produce the concept of "natural law" in the sense that was made possible by Judeo-Christian theology.[21]

As part of the Pauline theology of salvation by grace, Paul writes in Ephesians 2:3 that "we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. In the next verse he writes, "by grace you have been saved."[22][23]

In patristic theology

[edit]
Main articles: Monophysitism, Miaphysitism, and Dyophysitism

Theologians of the early Christian period differed in the usage of this term. In Antiochene circles, it connoted the humanity or divinity of Christ conceived as a concrete set of characteristics or attributes. In Alexandrine thinking, it meant a concrete individual or independent existent and approximated to hypostasis without being a synonym.[24] While it refers to much the same thing as ousia it is more empirical and descriptive focussing on function while ousia is metaphysical and focuses more on reality.[25] Although found in the context of the Trinitarian debate, it is chiefly important in the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria.[25]

In modern usage

[edit]

The Greek adjective physikos is represented in various forms in modern English: As physics "the study of nature", as physical (via Middle Latin physicalis) referring both to physics (the study of nature, the material universe) and to the human body.[26] The term physiology (physiologia) is of 16th-century coinage (Jean Fernel). The term physique, for "the bodily constitution of a person", is a 19th-century loan from French.

In medicine the suffix -physis occurs in such compounds as symphysis, epiphysis, and a few others, in the sense of "a growth". The physis also refers to the "growth plate", or site of growth at the end of long bones.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Physis

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Physis (: φύσις, from the verb φύω meaning "to grow" or "to bring forth") is a foundational concept in signifying the intrinsic, self-sustaining principle of motion, growth, and change inherent within natural entities, distinguishing them from artifacts produced by external . Emerging in pre-Socratic inquiries, physis represented the originating arche (principle) of the , with thinkers like and Anaximenes positing boundless or elemental substances as its foundational reality capable of generating all phenomena through inherent processes./Lectures/Lecture%2020%20-%20Greek%20Philosophy/20%20Greek%20Philosophy%20%5BCompatibility%20Mode%5D.pdf) Aristotle systematized the notion in his Physics, defining physis as "a source or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily, in virtue of itself and not accidentally," thereby establishing natural beings—such as animals, plants, and simple bodies—as possessing internal capacities for self-motion and stability, in contrast to (art or craft) reliant on extrinsic causes. This emphasis on immanent causation and observable processes in physis underpinned the development of ta physika (), prioritizing empirical patterns of becoming over anthropomorphic or conventional explanations, and influencing subsequent Western scientific methodologies.

Etymology and Linguistic Origins

Core Derivation and Semantic Evolution

The noun phýsis (φύσις) derives from the verb phýein (φύειν) or phúō (φύω), signifying "to grow," "to bring forth," or "to generate," reflecting a core of emergent production and organic development. This etymological root traces to processes of origination, as in the of or the formation of bodily structures, emphasizing self-sustaining generation rather than external imposition. In archaic Greek literature, phýsis initially denoted concrete instances of growth or inherent outgrowth, appearing sparingly; for example, in Homer's Odyssey (ca. 8th century BCE), it describes the intrinsic developmental pattern of a specific plant species at 5.477, without broader cosmological implications. Early uses in poetry and prose, such as those by Hesiod (ca. 700 BCE), extended it to vital essences or lineages, linking it to birth (génesis) and the unfolding of living forms from intrinsic potentials. With the advent of systematic inquiry in Ionian philosophy around the 6th century BCE, phýsis semantically broadened to encompass the originating principle (archḗ) of the observable world, portraying the cosmos as a self-emergent totality governed by internal dynamics rather than divine or chance. This shift marked phýsis as the dynamic substrate of change and stability, evolving from literal growth to an abstract framework for explaining natural phenomena, as seen in Anaximander's conception of the ápeiron (boundless) as the primordial source (ca. 610–546 BCE). By the Classical period, in thinkers like (384–322 BCE), it integrated notions of immanent causation, defining phýsis as the internal source of motion and rest inherent to entities, thus synthesizing material composition with teleological form. Physis (φύσις) derives etymologically from the verb phuō (φύω), meaning "to grow," "to beget," or "to bring forth," which underscores its core association with organic emergence and inherent developmental processes rather than artificial imposition. This verbal root links physis to terms like phyton (φυτόν), denoting a , and physikos (φυσικός), referring to natural phenomena or qualities, emphasizing over crafted artifacts. In philosophical contexts, physis frequently contrasts with nomos (νόμος), , custom, or convention established by human agreement, as seen in debates among the Sophists who questioned whether moral and social orders stem from natural necessity (physis) or arbitrary human invention (nomos). This antithesis, prominent from the 5th century BCE, highlights physis as an autonomous, self-regulating force independent of societal constructs. Physis also interconnects with archē (ἀρχή), the foundational principle or origin sought by pre-Socratic philosophers as the primary substance or cause underlying natural change and cosmic structure, such as water for Thales or air for Anaximenes around 550 BCE. Similarly, it relates to kosmos (κόσμος), implying an ordered universe or harmonious arrangement emerging from natural processes, distinct from primordial chaos (χάος), as articulated in Hesiod's Theogony circa 700 BCE and later cosmological inquiries. These ties position physis as the dynamic essence bridging origin, growth, and ordered reality in early Greek thought.

Physis in

Cosmological Principles in Early Thinkers

The early pre-Socratic philosophers, centered in during the 6th century BCE, pioneered systematic cosmology by seeking a unified arche—the originating principle or substance underlying the cosmos, often equated with physis as the self-generating and transformative essence of reality. This approach marked a departure from mythological explanations, favoring observable natural processes and material substrates as causal foundations for cosmic order. (c. 624–546 BCE), regarded as the inaugural figure, identified as this arche, asserting that all things emerge from it through processes like and , and return to it in dissolution. later rationalized Thales's choice by noting water's role in nutrition across life forms, the apparent flotation of on water, and its prevalence in seminal generation, though these inferences reflect later interpretation rather than direct evidence from Thales's lost works. Anaximander (c. 610–546 BCE), a successor to Thales, advanced abstraction by proposing the —the boundless or indefinite—as the eternal source, eschewing specific elements like to avoid privileging one over others. The encompasses all contraries (hot/cold, wet/dry) and generates the through separation, maintaining equilibrium via a justice-like retribution where extremes compensate each other, as preserved in a surviving fragment: "Whence things have their origin, thence also their destruction happens, according to necessity; for they give and recompense to one another for their in accordance with the ordinance of Time." This principle implies an infinite, ageless reservoir beyond sensory qualities, driving cosmic cycles without anthropomorphic intervention. Anaximenes (c. 585–528 BCE), completing the Milesian triad, refined the model by designating infinite air (aer) as the arche, transformed via (to ) and (to , , , earth, stone), mirroring breathing as a vital process sustaining life and soul. Air's ubiquity and dynamism explained qualitative changes without invoking indeterminate bounds, grounding physis in a tangible, observable medium that underlies both material formation and organic animation. These principles collectively emphasized physis as an immanent, material causality, laying groundwork for later inquiries into and transformation.

Dynamic Interpretations in Heraclitus

of (c. 535–475 BCE) viewed physis as an intrinsic, dynamic process of perpetual becoming, where the essence of things emerges through measured transformations rather than static existence. In fragment B1, he commits to distinguishing each thing "according to its nature" (kata phusin), underscoring physis as the hidden interconnections that govern cosmic order, accessible only via the logos—the rational structure binding all. This interpretation posits physis not as a fixed substance but as a self-regulating system of flux, exemplified by as the archetypal element that kindles and quenches in proportions, ensuring eternal recurrence without origin or end (B30). Central to this dynamism is the doctrine of flux, where stability arises from constant change: "On those stepping into the same rivers, other and other waters flow" (B12), indicating that identity persists through process, not permanence. Physis conceals its depths, as articulated in B123: phusis kruptesthai philei ("nature loves to hide"), where the true character of entities exceeds their apparent form and demands revelation through strife (polemos), which Heraclitus deems "father of all" and justice itself (B80). This concealment reflects physis's preference for obscurity, greater than surface appearances, fostering a causal realism wherein opposites interdependently generate reality. The further animates Heraclitus's physis: the road is "upward and downward the one and the same" (B60), and the sea remains "purest and most polluted" (B61), illustrating how tension between contraries sustains the whole. symbolizes this equilibrating exchange (B90), transforming into other elements in cycles that preclude mere chaos, instead yielding ordered process under logos. Thus, physis embodies causal emergence from conflict, privileging empirical discernment of underlying patterns over superficial observation.

Static Conceptions in Parmenides and Eleatics

of Elea (c. 515–c. 450 BCE), founder of the school, articulated a static in his hexameter poem On Nature (Περὶ Φύσεως), where he prioritized rational deduction over sensory perception to define the essence of . He posited two paths of inquiry: the "Way of Truth" (alētheia), affirming that "what is" exists eternally and unchangingly, and the "Way of Seeming" (), which he critiqued as deceptive mortal opinions involving multiplicity and change. Being (to eon) is ungenerated, imperishable, indivisible, homogeneous, and motionless—a complete sphere-like whole without void or difference—thus rendering any notion of becoming, perishing, or alteration logically impossible, as non-being cannot exist or interact with being. This framework reinterprets physis not as emergent growth or flux, but as the immutable structure of a singular, self-identical , where motion equates to self-contradiction. Zeno of Elea (c. 490–c. 430 BCE), ' student, bolstered this static view through dialectical paradoxes targeting assumptions of plurality and motion, arguing that spatial division implies (dichotomy paradox) or that faster entities cannot overtake slower ones (Achilles paradox), proving change illusory under Eleatic premises. These demonstrations defended the unity and rest of being against Ionian dynamic cosmologies, implying physis as a logical monad impervious to empirical divisions or temporal processes. (fl. c. 440 BCE), the school's third key figure, refined ' doctrine by emphasizing being's infinity in magnitude and duration—eternal without spatial bounds or internal variation—rejecting any limiting form like a while affirming its uniformity and intangibility, as qualities like would introduce non-being. The ' collective insistence on static being as the true physis stemmed from a commitment to (reason) over aisthesis (senses), critiquing predecessors for conflating apparent phenomena with underlying reality; for instance, ' fragment B8 equates thinking with being's presence, excluding void-driven change as unthinkable. This monistic stasis influenced subsequent by forcing reconceptions of natural principles, though later charged it with neglecting observable generation and corruption, attributing the view to an overly restrictive definition of being that ignored potentiality. Empirical data, such as perpetual cosmic cycles noted in Babylonian records influencing , were dismissed as opinion, prioritizing deductive coherence; modern analyses, including quantum interpretations of indivisibility, occasionally echo this via unity, but Eleatic denial of void contradicts atomic evidence from Rutherford's experiments onward.

Physis in Classical Greek Philosophy

The Physis-Nomos Antithesis in Sophistry

The antithesis between physis (nature, denoting innate, inherent order or impulse) and nomos (law, convention, or custom, denoting human-imposed norms) emerged as a pivotal debate among the Sophists in fifth-century BCE Athens, challenging traditional views of justice, morality, and society as divinely or naturally ordained. Sophists such as Antiphon and, as depicted by Plato, Callicles prioritized physis as the authentic basis for human conduct, portraying nomos as an artificial restraint that contradicts natural self-preservation and hierarchy. This contrast fueled relativism and skepticism toward absolute ethical truths, influencing subsequent philosophy by highlighting contingency in social structures. Antiphon the , active around 480–411 BCE, articulated a stark opposition in his fragmentary On Truth, arguing that nomos enforces behaviors alien to physis, such as ignoring bodily harm for communal rules, while demands prioritizing personal advantage and for all humans born equal. He claimed most laws regulate natural faculties—like sight, hearing, and action—contrary to innate drives, making adherence to nomos a matter of necessity rather than inherent good, though beneficial in public for avoiding penalties but burdensome privately. This view positioned physis as a standard for evaluating nomos, implying conventional justice serves social utility over natural equity. In Plato's (composed circa 380 BCE), the character exemplifies the antithetical extreme, asserting that physis dictates a where the naturally stronger—endowed with greater desires and capacities—rightly rule and appropriate more, unhindered by nomos, which he derides as a weak invention to equalize the inferior with the superior through imposed equality and temperance. Callicles invokes natural analogies, such as larger animals devouring smaller ones, to argue that restraining ambition violates cosmic growth, labeling conventional justice as folly that stifles the soul's expansion toward unlimited acquisition. This advocacy for natural injustice as superior to legal equity underscores Sophistic willingness to subvert democratic norms in favor of inherent power dynamics. Not all Sophists framed the antithesis as irreconcilable; of Abdera (circa 490–420 BCE), in Plato's bearing his name, integrated nomos as an extension of physis by positing that granted humans innate capacities for and , enabling societal laws to cultivate and prevent self-destruction, thus viewing conventions as evolutionary adaptations to natural vulnerabilities rather than oppositions. Surviving fragments and secondary accounts indicate this spectrum within Sophistry, where the physis-nomos tension probed human origins without uniform resolution, often through rhetorical exercises that exposed norms' fragility amid empirical observations of inequality and conflict. Knowledge of these positions relies heavily on doxographical summaries and Plato's adversarial portrayals, which may exaggerate for dialectical effect, though archaeological and textual evidence from the era corroborates the prevalence of such debates in intellectual circles.

Platonic Critiques and Alternatives

Plato, departing from the pre-Socratic focus on physis as the self-generating principle of the cosmos, critiqued such naturalistic explanations for their inability to account for order, purpose, and true causation beyond material processes. In the Phaedo (97b–99d), Socrates rejects the methods of earlier natural philosophers like Anaxagoras, who posited nous (mind) as a cosmic force but ultimately resorted to mechanical explanations involving physical rearrangements, such as flesh causing bones to support the body, rather than teleological ends like locomotion for the sake of life. This approach, Plato argued, confuses efficient causes with final causes, failing to explain why things exist for the sake of the good. Similarly, in the Republic (Books VI–VII), the sensible world of becoming—governed by physis in pre-Socratic terms—is demoted to mere opinion (doxa), shadowed by the intelligible realm of Forms, where genuine knowledge resides. As an alternative, introduced the (eidē), positing eternal, unchanging paradigms that constitute the true essence or "nature" of particulars, transcending the flux of physical physis. These Forms, such as the , serve as the ultimate explanatory principles, with physical objects participating in them imperfectly; for example, a particular circle derives its circularity from the Form of Circle, not from material composition alone. This dualism resolves the pre-Socratic tensions between flux () and permanence () by locating stability in the noetic realm, while physis governs only the derivative, sensible domain subject to necessity (anankē). In the Timaeus (c. 360 BCE), Plato further elaborates a cosmology where physis is not autonomous but subordinated to intelligent design by the demiurge, a benevolent craftsman who imposes mathematical order on pre-existing chaotic receptacle (chōra) to approximate the Forms. The demiurge, motivated by goodness, arranges the four elements (fire, air, water, earth) proportionally—e.g., fire to air as air to water—ensuring the cosmos's harmony and eternity as a living being with soul. Here, physis emerges as a secondary, imitative principle, blending necessity with intellect (nous), rather than the primary, self-sufficient force of pre-Socratic accounts. This framework influenced later Platonism by integrating natural processes within a teleological hierarchy, prioritizing rational causation over blind emergence.

Aristotle's Systematic Framework

Aristotle develops physis as the intrinsic source of motion, change, and stability inherent to natural entities, distinguishing them from artifacts produced by external craft (techne). In Physics Book II, Chapter 1, he states that natural things—such as animals, plants, and the simple bodies of earth, fire, air, and water—contain within themselves a principle of motion and rest "in virtue of their own constitution," unlike beds or flutes, which derive no such principle from their artificial form but only potentially from their material substrate, such as wood. This definition positions physis as an active, self-sustaining power, not reducible to passive matter or imposed design, emphasizing the self-movement observed in living organisms and elemental transformations. Central to Aristotle's framework is the integration of physis with his doctrine of the , where it particularly aligns with the formal and final causes in natural processes. The material cause provides the substrate, the efficient cause the initiating motion, but physis embodies the formal cause—the essence or eidos—that actualizes potentialities, and the final cause—the —that orients development toward an end immanent to the thing's . For instance, in Physics II.8, Aristotle argues that nature operates purposefully, "doing nothing in vain," as seen in the growth of an into an , where physis directs material changes teleologically rather than randomly. This teleological aspect counters mechanistic views, asserting that natural motion seeks fulfillment of inherent potentials, evident in empirical observations of and in Generation of Animals. In his biological works, Aristotle applies physis to explain the functional organization of living beings, viewing organs and faculties as products of necessity subordinated to purpose. In Parts of Animals I.1, he describes physis as both a material-efficient cause—providing the "matter and the source of motion"—and an intelligent-like directive force that arranges parts for the sake of the whole, such as the heart's centrality for vitality or feathers' utility for flight. This systematic embedding of physis within hylomorphism—matter informed by form—underpins Aristotle's rejection of purely materialist cosmologies, as in Metaphysics Book Theta, where natural change involves the actualization of form from potency, sustaining the cosmos through eternal, self-moving spheres. Empirical dissection and classification in works like History of Animals validate this, revealing patterns of utility that physis imposes, such as the spleen's role in balancing blood, without invoking external design. Aristotle's framework thus unifies physics, , and metaphysics under physis as the domain of immanent , contrasting with Platonic forms as transcendent ideals. While allowing for chance deviations () in sublunary realms, as discussed in Physics II.4-6, physis generally prevails through regular, goal-directed patterns, observable in seasonal cycles and generational continuity. This emphasis on verifiable, hierarchical order in — from elements to nous-governed souls—establishes physis as foundational to scientific inquiry, influencing subsequent by prioritizing observation of intrinsic principles over abstract speculation.

Physis in Hellenistic and Roman Thought

Materialist Views in Atomism

, active in the mid-5th century BCE, and his associate (c. 460–370 BCE) developed as a materialist explanation of physis, positing that the natural world arises from the eternal motion and collisions of indivisible particles, termed atoms (from a-tomoi, meaning "uncuttable"), within an infinite void. These atoms possess only quantitative properties—shape, size, order, and position—while qualities such as color or taste emerge from their arrangements and interactions, eliminating the need for qualitative essences or teleological causes in natural processes. emphasized that all changes in physis, including the formation of compounds and organisms, result from mechanical necessity (anankē), rejecting explanations involving purpose or divine agency, as "everything happens by necessity and according to proportion." This framework portrayed physis as a self-sustaining system of atomic recombinations, where even and thought stem from atomic impacts on the soul-atoms. In the Hellenistic era, Epicurus (341–270 BCE) revived and systematized atomist materialism, maintaining that physis comprises solely atoms and void, with no incorporeal elements or overarching design. He introduced the concept of atomic clinamen or slight swerve to account for uncaused deviations in atomic paths, enabling spontaneous aggregations that form complex structures like worlds and living beings without invoking fate or gods' intervention in natural causation. Epicurean physiologia (study of nature) thus framed physis as a boundless, cyclical process of atomic dissolution and regeneration, where phenomena such as growth or decay follow from probabilistic collisions rather than inherent tendencies toward ends. The human soul, integral to physis, consists of fine, spherical atoms dispersed at death, underscoring the material unity of mind and body. Roman adoption of , particularly through Titus Lucretius Carus (c. 99–55 BCE), reinforced these materialist views in , a poem expounding Epicurean principles. Lucretius depicted physis as emergent from atomic unions (concreti), where the void enables motion and diversity arises from differing atomic configurations, explicitly countering fears of forces by attributing cosmic order to chance and necessity alone. He illustrated natural generation—such as the seeding of life from atomic "seeds" (semina)—as void-mediated processes, free from , thereby popularizing physis as an immanent, mechanistic reality accessible to empirical observation. This materialist persisted as a counter-narrative to teleological philosophies, influencing later mechanistic interpretations of despite episodic suppression in antiquity.

Immanent Rationality in Stoicism

In Stoic , physis represents the immanent rational structure of the , manifested through logos, the active principle of reason that permeates and organizes passive matter into a coherent, providential whole. (c. 334–262 BCE), who established the Stoic school in around 300 BCE following his exposure to Socratic dialogues and Cynic teachings, identified physis with divine reason, equating it to or god as an intelligent, designing fire that sustains cosmic order. This view materializes rationality within the physical world, rejecting Platonic transcendence in favor of an embedded that governs all phenomena through causal necessity. Central to this framework is , a corporeal blend of and air serving as the vehicle of , which infuses bodies with graduated qualities—from basic cohesion in inanimate objects to and in living beings—thus rendering physis dynamically rational at every level. of Soli (c. 279–206 BCE), who systematized early Stoic doctrine, elaborated that pneuma operates as the world's , ensuring the unity and teleological purpose of , where growth (phyein, the of physis) reflects inherent rational processes rather than external . The seminal aspect of logos spermatikos further embodies this , as generative rational seeds embedded in unfold predetermined forms and events, linking individual natures to the cosmic whole. This immanent rationality implies strict , with fate as the inexorable chain of causes originating from , yet it affirms human agency through rational assent to natural order, distinguishing from mechanistic by emphasizing providential intelligence within physis. Later Stoics like (c. 50–135 CE) reinforced this by portraying alignment with physis as ethical , where discerning the rational of enables resilience amid inevitable change. Empirical observations of natural regularities, such as seasonal cycles and biological adaptations, were invoked to support the coherence of this embedded reason, though fragmented evidence from (3rd century CE) preserves these tenets amid doctrinal evolution.

Physis in Late Antiquity and Early Christian Theology

Neoplatonic Transcendence

In Neoplatonism, physis denotes the formative principle governing the generation and organization of the sensible world, yet it occupies the lowest rung in a hierarchical emanation from the transcendent One, emphasizing the subordination of material nature to immaterial realities. Plotinus (c. 204–270 AD), the foundational figure of the school, articulates this in his Enneads, particularly in Ennead III.8, where physis is portrayed as the vegetative, contemplative activity of the World Soul's lower aspect, silently producing natural forms through logoi (rational principles) imprinted on indeterminate matter. This process of emanation begins with the One—ineffable, beyond being, and utterly transcendent—overflowing into Nous (Intellect), then Psyche (Soul), culminating in physis as a derived, immanent power that shapes bodies without deliberate intellection. Transcendence in this framework manifests as an ontological ascent, reversing the downward : the , ensnared in physis, achieves union with higher hypostases through philosophical and purification, recognizing the sensible realm's contingency upon eternal archetypes. Physis, while endowed with a rudimentary akin to inner speech, lacks the self-reflective unity of Nous, rendering it prone to multiplicity and privation; true resides in the intelligible order, where forms preexist independently of instantiation. thus critiques Aristotelian by positing physis not as self-sufficient arche (origin) but as a "trace" of divine productivity, sustained by continuous causal influx from above. Later Neoplatonists, such as Proclus (412–485 AD) in his Elements of Theology (c. 450 AD), refine this by integrating physis into a providential chain of henads (divine unities), where natural necessity (heimarmene) operates as a subordinate causality under transcendent intellects, ensuring cosmic harmony without compromising the One's simplicity. Iamblichus (c. 245–325 AD) extends this theurgic dimension, viewing rituals as means to elevate the soul beyond physis toward divine participation, though physis retains efficacy as a "living image" of higher powers. This transcendent orientation influenced subsequent thought, prioritizing metaphysical escape from natural flux over empirical mastery of physis.

Patristic Reconciliations with Divine Order

Early Christian theologians, known as the Patristic Fathers, reconciled the Greek philosophical concept of physis—understood as the intrinsic principles of growth, change, and —with divine order by asserting creation ex nihilo and subordinating natural processes to God's sovereign providence and . Unlike pagan views positing physis as self-originating or eternal, figures such as and Athanasius emphasized nature's contingency upon the Creator, where observable regularities in reflect divine wisdom rather than autonomous necessity. This integration preserved empirical observations of natural patterns while critiquing their pagan deification, aligning physis with scriptural revelation that posits God as the ultimate cause of order and . Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–253 AD), in his allegorical exegesis, viewed bodily physis as a temporary encumbrance on rational souls, yet inseparably linked to form and matter under divine governance, serving as a pedagogical tool for ascent to spiritual realities. He adapted Platonic elements of physis but prioritized scriptural authority, arguing that natural phenomena symbolize eternal truths ordained by God, thus reconciling empirical nature with transcendent causality without granting it independence. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373 AD), in works like Against the Heathen, furthered this by detailing how creation emerged from divine will alone, with physis's ordered beauty—such as the harmony of elements—evidencing God's goodness, though corrupted by sin; redemption through the Incarnation restores this divine imprint on nature. The Cappadocian Fathers—Basil of Caesarea (c. 330–379 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390 AD), and Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395 AD)—elaborated this synthesis through cosmological reflections, portraying the universe's physis as a personal creation originating from the Triune God and designed for communion with Him. Basil's Hexaemeron interprets Genesis to show natural processes, like the progression from chaos to ordered cosmos over six days, as manifestations of divine reason (logos), where species' adaptations and ecological balances demonstrate purposeful intelligence rather than chance. Gregory of Nyssa extended this to human physis, viewing it as participatory in divine infinity, with natural motion toward perfection mirroring eschatological restoration under God's economy. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) complemented these Greek-oriented views with a Latin emphasis on physis as imprinted by , the rational order of divine mind governing creation's stability and mutability. In De Ordine and Confessions, he argued that natural laws—such as planetary motions or biological reproduction—derive from God's unchanging providence, enabling rational inquiry while warning against pagan that elevates physis over its Creator; true knowledge of nature thus requires humility before divine causality. This Patristic framework established physis as a contingent, teleologically ordered domain, harmonizing empirical realism with theological primacy and influencing subsequent medieval syntheses.

Physis in Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy

Scholastic Synthesis with Theology

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the preeminent Scholastic thinker, integrated Aristotle's physis—rendered as natura in Latin—as the intrinsic principle of motion, generation, and teleological order in created beings with the Christian doctrine of divine creation and providence. In Summa Theologica I, q. 29, Aquinas adopts Aristotle's etymology from Metaphysics V, 5, defining natura as originating from "nativity" or birth, denoting the essential form (forma substantialis) that directs a thing's operations toward its proper end, but subordinates this to God's eternal law as the ultimate source of all natural inclinations. This synthesis posits nature not as autonomous or self-sufficient, as in pagan Aristotelianism, but as a participatory reflection of divine reason, where natural teleology manifests God's purposeful design without implying pantheism or emanationism. Aquinas's natural theology employs to demonstrate 's existence, as in the First Way from motion (ex motu), where physis provides the observed principles of change in sublunary bodies—prime matter informed by substantial forms—but traces efficient upward to an , reconciling empirical natural processes with transcendent causation. Secondary causes, including natural powers, operate reliably under divine concurrence, ensuring that miracles transcend rather than violate 's order, as "what God does beyond the order of nature is not contrary to nature" but fulfills its potentialities supernaturally. (c. 1193–1280), Aquinas's , advanced this integration by commenting extensively on Aristotle's Physics and Meteorologica, treating as a tool for unveiling divine artistry in creation, thus bridging empirical inquiry with theological of Genesis. In ethics and law, this synthesis culminates in Aquinas's theory of natural law (lex naturalis), articulated in Summa Theologica I-II, q. 94, as humanity's rational share in eternal law through synderesis—the innate habit grasping first principles like self-preservation and sociality—drawn from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics II, 5, but grounded in the imago Dei ordering human natura toward beatitude. Human laws derive validity only insofar as they conform to this natural order, rejecting arbitrary conventions that contravene it, as "every human law has just so much of the nature of law as it is derived from the law of nature." This framework elevates reason's role in theology, affirming harmony between nature and grace: grace perfects, rather than destroys, nature's capacities, enabling virtues like prudence to align created inclinations with supernatural ends. Scholastic successors, such as (1266–1308), refined this by emphasizing God's absolute will in ordaining nature's essences, yet retained the core hylomorphic —matter and form as constituents of natural substances—subordinated to voluntarist theology, ensuring physis remains a stable, intelligible domain for demonstrating divine attributes like unity and immutability. By the , this synthesis influenced natural law theorists like (1548–1617), who systematized natura as rationally discernible obligations binding even non-Christians, preserving the medieval insight that observable natural regularities evince a rational Creator amid debates over nominalism's erosion of universals.

Humanistic Revivals and Natural Law

Renaissance humanists, through their movement, revived direct engagement with texts on physis, particularly Aristotle's Physics and related works, which describe as of motion and intrinsic potentiality in beings. This effort, spearheaded by scholars like (1433–1499) and Aldo Manuzio (1449–1515), involved translating and commenting on original Greek manuscripts recovered from Byzantine sources, emphasizing physis as self-generated order and teleological growth rather than medieval scholastic reductions to divine artifacts. Such revivals countered overly theocentric interpretations, highlighting empirical observation of natural processes—such as organic development and cosmic regularity—as accessible via human reason. This humanistic reclamation of physis extended to ethical and political domains, informing a view of as inherently rational and social, with capacities for aligned to natural ends. Pomponazzi (1462–1525), in works like De Immortalitate Animae (1516), defended an Aristotelian naturalism where human physis limits to the active intellect's persistence, prioritizing observable natural causality over theological fiat. Humanists such as (1407–1457) critiqued nominalist distortions of natural order, advocating a return to Ciceronian-Stoic synthesis where physis embodies rational harmony, influencing early modern conceptions of human dignity and agency. The linkage to (ius naturale) crystallized in jurisprudence, where physis supplied the ontological basis for universal norms discernible by unaided reason. Drawing from Cicero's (c. 51 BCE), revived through humanistic editions, natural law was framed as "right reason in agreement with " (recta ratio naturae congruens), extending Stoic physis as cosmic to human affairs. Figures like (1483–1546) integrated Aristotelian physis—human toward communal good—with Thomistic synthesis, arguing in Relectio de Indis (1539) that possess natural rights to dominion and trade by virtue of shared rational , independent of Christian . This approach, echoed by (1548–1617) in (1612), posited as participatory in yet grounded in physis's observable inclinations, such as and sociability, fostering applications to just war and . Such developments preserved physis as a causal realist foundation against voluntarist extremes, prioritizing evidence-based universals over .

Modern and Contemporary Interpretations

Heidegger's Ontological Retrieval

Martin Heidegger's ontological retrieval of physis seeks to recover the pre-Socratic Greeks' primordial understanding of this term as the self-emerging and abiding sway of Being, countering its reduction in Western metaphysics to mere "nature" as objectified matter or mechanistic processes. In his 1935 lecture course, later published as Introduction to Metaphysics in 1953, Heidegger explicates physis not as a static totality of beings but as the dynamic event (Ereignis) whereby beings arise from concealment into unconcealment (aletheia) and persist in presence while simultaneously withdrawing. This retrieval, or Destruktion of the tradition, uncovers physis as Being itself—"by virtue of which beings first become and remain observable"—thus addressing the oblivion of Being (Seinsvergessenheit) that dominates post-Greek philosophy. Central to Heidegger's interpretation is the twofold character of physis: it denotes both the totality of beings in their emerging and the prevailing of Being as presencing, grounded in the ontological difference between beings and their Being. Drawing on pre-Socratics like , he rethinks fragments such as DK 123, conventionally "Nature loves to hide," as "'Being (emerging appearance) intrinsically inclines towards self-concealment,'" emphasizing physis' inherent strife between disclosure and reserve rather than mere empirical concealment. Unlike Aristotle's analysis in Physics, which Heidegger views as already metaphysical—treating physis as the internal arche (origin) of motion and rest in natural beings (Physik-entities distinguished from artifacts)—Heidegger prioritizes the earlier, non-ontic sense where physis is the originating power of all presencing, not confined to "natural" versus "artificial" distinctions. This retrieval serves Heidegger's broader task of fundamental , initiated in (1927) but deepened post-Kehre (turn), by restoring wonder (thaumazein) at physis as the Greeks experienced it, prior to the subject-object of . Modern science and technology, in Heidegger's , further obscure this by enframing () beings as calculable resources, severing them from the self-secluding essence of physis. Through such retrieval, Heidegger aims to reawaken attunement to Being's sway, fostering a thinking attuned to the event of appropriation rather than representational mastery.

Nietzschean Vitalism and Will to Power

reconceived physis, the ancient Greek notion of nature's self-emergent growth and order, through his doctrine of the , positing it as the intrinsic, dynamic principle driving all existence rather than a harmonious or teleological structure. In his unpublished notes compiled as The Will to Power (1901), asserts that "this world is the —and nothing besides," framing it as the fundamental ontological force manifesting in physiological processes, instincts, and cosmic striving, where entities expand, overcome resistance, and interpret their environment to augment their power. This interpretation echoes presocratic thinkers like , whom admired for viewing physis as perpetual and conflict, but naturalizes it by rooting it in empirical observations of life's aggression and creativity, rejecting metaphysical dualisms in favor of a monistic, immanent drive. The operates not as conscious intention but as a perspectival, interpretive activity: organs form, instincts evolve, and values arise through provisional "experiments" that enhance potency against , as Nietzsche elaborates in (1886, §36), where he critiques mechanistic physics for masking this underlying vitality with atomistic illusions. Unlike strict 's positing of a non-physical life force, Nietzsche's version avoids supernaturalism, deriving from influences like Boscovich's dynamic and , yet it emphasizes life's anti-entropic overflow—growth through conflict and dissolution—aligning physis with eternal recurrence as a test of affirmative power. Scholars note this as a "philosophic vitalism," where nature's creativity defies reduction to inert matter, though it lacks the of traditional vitalists like , grounding instead in causal chains of drive hierarchies. In Nietzsche's framework, human culture and morality distort physis by imposing slave-like resentiment, suppressing the noble evident in aristocratic instincts and artistic sublimation; true affirmation restores physis by embracing nature's amoral cruelty and exuberance, as in (1883–1885), where the embodies physis unbound by decadence. This vitalistic reinterpretation critiques modern scientism's desiccated view of nature, advocating a return to physis as willed becoming, though posthumous editing of his notes has sparked debate over whether the was intended as exhaustive metaphysics or heuristic psychology. Empirical parallels appear in observations of biological and dominance hierarchies, supporting Nietzsche's causal realism of power as life's essence over egalitarian illusions.

Scientific Reductionism and Ecological Extensions

In the modern scientific framework, reductionism interprets physis primarily through mechanistic explanations that decompose natural phenomena into fundamental physical laws and entities, diverging from Aristotle's view of physis as an immanent principle of self-motion and teleological development. This approach gained prominence with the mechanistic philosophy of the , exemplified by published in 1687, which describe natural change as deterministic interactions of matter under universal forces, eliminating appeals to inherent purposes or forms. By the , and relativity further entrenched this by modeling physis at subatomic scales via probabilistic wave functions and spacetime curvature, as formalized in Schrödinger's equation (1926) and Einstein's field equations (1915), where emergent properties arise from lower-level dynamics without invoking Aristotelian capacities. Critiques of strict reductionism highlight its limitations in capturing the holistic aspects of physis, particularly in biology and complex systems, where neo-Aristotelian perspectives revive notions of dispositional properties and directedness. Philosophers such as William M. R. Simpson argue that contemporary science accommodates "active powers" in natural kinds—intrinsic tendencies akin to physis—evident in chemical affinities or biological functions, as opposed to purely passive particles. Carlo Rovelli has demonstrated that Aristotle's kinematics, when mathematized, aligns empirically with inertial motion in certain contexts, suggesting reductionism overlooks context-dependent regularities that prefigure modern relativity. These views posit that while physics reduces physis to efficient causes, formal and final causes persist explanatorily in higher-level sciences, countering ontological reduction to bare matter. Ecological extensions reinterpret physis as the self-organizing dynamics of interconnected systems, bridging reductionist foundations with emergent holism in environmental contexts. In , developed by in the –1970s, ecosystems function through energy hierarchies and feedback loops that maintain balance, mirroring Aristotle's emphasis on natural in communal wholes like the extended to biotic communities. The , proposed by in 1972 and refined through Daisyworld models in 1983, portrays Earth as a cybernetic entity with self-regulating driven by biological-physical feedbacks, evoking physis as an autonomous, motion-generating order rather than isolated parts. This framework critiques anthropocentric while integrating reductionist data—such as biogeochemical cycles measured via isotopic tracing since the —into a causal realism where physis manifests as resilient, goal-oriented processes amid perturbations like climate variability. Such extensions inform by privileging empirical observations of natural resilience over relativist constructs, as in Aristotle's biological that prefigures ecological fieldwork. Studies of trophic cascades, quantified in Paine's keystone predator experiments (1966–1969), reveal how physis-like principles of form and purpose stabilize communities, challenging purely bottom-up with top-down regulative roles. Nonetheless, tensions persist, as ecological models often rely on computational simulations grounded in physical laws, blending physis's vitality with modern .

Debates on Natural Order versus Relativism

In , debates on physis often center on whether an objective governs and , or if norms are merely relative to cultural or individual frameworks. Proponents of , drawing from Aristotelian conceptions of physis as inherent principles directing entities toward their ends, argue that imposes universal constraints and goods discoverable through reason and empirical observation. This view posits that undermines the possibility of rational critique across societies, as it denies fixed standards against which practices can be evaluated. Critics of highlight its logical inconsistencies, such as the self-undermining claim that all truths are relative, which precludes asserting relativism's own validity without contradiction. Empirical evidence from reveals cross-cultural universals, including prohibitions against unprovoked harm and taboos, suggesting an underlying natural order rather than pure cultural invention. Natural law theorists like contend that physis manifests in basic human goods—such as , , and sociability—that are self-evident and not reducible to subjective preference, providing a foundation for independent of convention. Relativists, influenced by postmodern thought, counter that apparent universals mask power dynamics or historical contingencies, rendering physis a constructed ideal rather than an objective reality. However, this position struggles to account for biological imperatives, such as and reproductive drives, which persist across cultures and resist social reconfiguration without empirical costs, as evidenced by studies in . Defenders of maintain that 's tolerance of practices like honor killings or female genital mutilation, if culturally endorsed, erodes human flourishing, prioritizing causal realities of over ideological constructs. These debates extend to contemporary issues, where informs arguments for biologically informed policies on and structures, contrasting with relativist for identities detached from physis. While academia often amplifies relativist views, rigorous favors for its alignment with verifiable patterns in , , and , avoiding the nihilistic implications of denying inherent .

References

  1. https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=phil
  2. https://www.academia.edu/40278810/physis
  3. https://philpapers.org/rec/GONADO-2
  4. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mqr/act2080.0038.205/--on-nature-and-theory-a-discourse-with-the-ancient-greeks?rgn=main%3Bview=fulltext
  5. https://www.etymonline.com/word/physic
  6. https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/nomos-and-phusis
  7. https://www.hellenicgods.org/nature---physis
  8. https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1066
  9. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/herodotus-and-the-presocratics/history-peri-physeos/22A48EEE6967C4C83573824C0481B2B8
  10. https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/115891/1/2018YunlongGuoPhD.pdf
  11. https://iep.utm.edu/sophists/
  12. https://www.artandpopularculture.com/%25CE%25A6%25CF%258D%25CF%2583%25CE%25B9%25CF%2582
  13. https://sites.units.it/etica/2021_2/CHRISTODOULIDIS.pdf
  14. https://people.bath.ac.uk/mnspwr/doc_theses_links/pdf/dt_ds_chapter2.pdf
  15. https://medium.com/predict/how-the-greeks-invented-the-cosmos-00f2fef00ddb
  16. https://www.thoughtco.com/physics-of-the-greeks-2699229
  17. https://iep.utm.edu/thales/
  18. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presocratics/
  19. https://iep.utm.edu/anaximander/
  20. https://iep.utm.edu/anaximenes/
  21. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/
  22. https://iep.utm.edu/heraclit/
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48563632
  24. https://iep.utm.edu/parmenid/
  25. https://philarchive.org/archive/BACBIA-5
  26. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/history-of-greek-philosophy/nomos-physis-antithesis-in-morals-and-politics/E5A9958C7AA51ED550B066066146DE61
  27. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/m10h-ng38/download
  28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4544926
  29. https://sites.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/callicles.pdf
  30. https://e-revistas.uc3m.es/index.php/FONS/article/download/5502/5700/
  31. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2c84/cebfc8f02bd6bd2a7253be1eda7e1f9dbee7.pdf
  32. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-metaphysics/
  33. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/
  34. https://iep.utm.edu/timaeus/
  35. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/
  36. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/
  37. https://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/democ.htm
  38. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/
  39. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34518/chapter/292869978
  40. https://www.aaas.org/news/lucretius-science-verse
  41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2935899
  42. https://antigonejournal.com/2025/10/atomic-physics-lucretius/
  43. https://www.worldhistory.org/Zeno_of_Citium/
  44. https://cestoicism.neocities.org/Logos
  45. https://research-bulletin.chs.harvard.edu/2021/08/02/the-foundations-of-stoic-physics/
  46. https://www.athensjournals.gr/humanities/2017-4-4-2-Scalenghe.pdf
  47. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plotinus/
  48. https://iep.utm.edu/plotinus/
  49. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proclus/
  50. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010.12.57/
  51. https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/st-athanasius-the-nothingness-of-the-world/
  52. https://ojs.library.dal.ca/dionysius/article/view/8806/7592
  53. https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2753&context=faithandphilosophy
  54. http://lexchristianorum.blogspot.com/2010/03/st-augustine-of-hippo-on-natural-law.html
  55. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-later-greek-and-early-medieval-philosophy/augustine-god-and-nature/A055FE1E7A9A63623B294D1BECB713F3
  56. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm
  57. https://ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/gentiles/gentiles.vi.lxxviii.html
  58. https://earthwormexpress.com/about-eben/k-b/sacred-salt-and-the-northern-gods/holisticus-index-page/bridge-between-philosophy-science-and-faith-albertus-magnus/
  59. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm
  60. https://catholicinsight.com/2024/04/12/thomas-aquinas-and-natural-law-theory/
  61. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotelianism-renaissance/
  62. https://iep.utm.edu/renaissa/
  63. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=ndlr
  64. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hittinger-the-natural-law-a-study-in-legal-and-social-history-and-philosophy
  65. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=naturallaw_proceedings&type=additional
  66. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5921&context=open_access_etds
  67. https://www.beyng.com/docs/Schoenbohm-fysis.html
  68. https://www.beyng.com/docs/EmilyHughes-UnderstandingFysis.html
  69. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/users/philosophy/awaymave/408new/wk9.htm
  70. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52915/52915-h/52915-h.htm
  71. https://philpapers.org/rec/MCWNWT
  72. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/nietzsches-naturalism/living-things-and-the-will-to-power/466AD8B84AC8FD4D050AFB9F1756FC86
  73. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0969725X.2024.2430900
  74. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789401206846/B9789401206846-s020.pdf
  75. https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/aristotle-and-ecology
  76. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10964/4/Aristotele.pdf
  77. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/neo-aristotelian-perspectives-on-contemporary-science/
  78. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-024-04507-0
  79. https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/pandpr/index.php/pandpr/article/viewFile/19830/15348
  80. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ecology/
  81. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199830060/obo-9780199830060-0249.xml
  82. https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
  83. https://thomisticinstitute.org/sed-contra/moral-relativism-and-the-natural-law
  84. https://blog.apaonline.org/2021/07/29/why-relativism-is-the-worst-idea-ever/
  85. https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9662135/
  87. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
  88. https://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/post-modernism/relativism-and-the-limits-of-rationality
  89. https://dukecrux.org/2022/07/13/the-debate-of-natural-law/
  90. https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3066&context=lawreview
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.