This latest issue of "Sun" magazine
had an interesting article about Kathleen Moore.
One idea really grabbed me. It goes like this:
One way to determine what is important in life
is too look at those who are enjoying life and
stable. People who seek answers in philosophy
or abstract reasoning do not appear to be
finding answers that lead to enjoyment and
stability.
This comment is from Moore who teaches philosophy.
Her belief is that we need to connect to daily life
and our local ecology. Only by being part of the
natural world will be be fully alive.
This idea is her justification and philosophy for
trying to protect the environment.
I don't totally understand Kathleen Moore's logic
although it feels close to the truth. Another reason
i've encountered is that we need nature to
help produce our food and materials. We simply
can't survive long term without protecting nature.
Possibly, both answers are converging on the truth?
jeff
