Nature Versus Civilization
In comparing and contrasting Civilization Over Nature by Michael Heiman with Nature Over Civilization by Robert Kuhn McGregor I have discovered that their main themes over lap in one or more ways. They both define “Nature” in totally different aspects. Therefore that is way their main themes appear to be so much different.
Michael Heiman argues that nature was put aside for the capitalistic views of the nineteenth century. This then implies that nature was put aside for the production of civilization. Therefore associating the human race strictly with civilization and not nature. Nature is only made up of the landscape and the animals and plants within it. In Heiman’s example of this he speaks of the exploitation of the Hudson Valley for the transportation of goods across the country. He tells of how the destruction of this area throughout the nineteenth century was overlooked by the artists and tour guides that traveled this route. The viewpoints that Heiman carried throughout his essay had a homocentric orientation towards civilization. As for Heiman’s main theme he proposes that civilization was the ultimate reality.
As for McGregor he proposed to agree wit
As the civilization of humans is growing bigger and bigger Audubon saw that this sport was getting bigger and nature was getting exploited. My question is if everything is a part of nature even our own civilization then what makes up 8220;civilization8221; in his eyes Nature would have to be the ultimate reality because he is not even comparing it to civilization in a sense. Seeing that Heiman sees the human race as a civilization that would explain why humans are the major cause of the exploitation of birds and in that case nature as a whole. The paintings of the Hudson River school show the beauty of the Hudson River and the Catskill areas of New York State and portray nature as being dark, wild, mysterious, and sublime. In order to compare and contrast we have to first see the main part where they clash. Bibliography none needed. As far as McGregor goes he would like these paintings because they imply that nature is getting along with civilization in a great way. In regards to McGregor8217;s essay he would totally disagree with this due to his biocentric theory. Yet they show civilization as being light, calm, and peaceful. This document corresponds better with that of McGregor seeing that nature is a larger part of life and everyone is a part of it. In closing I agree with Heiman because there is no way that our civilization can be anywhere near the civilization of any other living organism. As for the civilization aspect of it all he goes on to explain that animals have their own civilizations in which some of them change the environment in the same ways as our civilization. McGregor on the other hand says that nature has its own civilization just as humans do. So therefore Heiman would totally disagree with what these artists are trying to portray.