from the glacier

Isn't the term "nature" the largest stereotype of man's thought? In a sociological sense, men cannot be categorized by external appearances, for every man is different. Poor social justice and odd political philosophies have been based on this taking of the unessential for true, and necessary. What is the case with nature? "All or for the most part" we have been taught. Is this nothing more than taking that which is unessential - similarity - for necessary? Each thing, each instantiation of sensuous material 'stuff', each incident, each happenstance is different. Categorically, and by this we mean in the mind, we call these differences accidents. But existence in the mind is wildly difference from existence. Shouldn't we perhaps consider these things as essentially different - in themselves? (assuming of course the phrase 'in itself' is not just another stereotype) With this, there is the abolition of nature, the rejection of the "oughts" placed on the outside world, based on the untruthful 'faculty' of man, indiscriminately smearing the dissimilar together. For this is what we mean when we say something "has a nature" - it acts in a way similar to another different thing. So instead of naming everything individually (each blade of grass with its own proper name - etc.) we squish it all into the conceptual category - nature. Nature is in man, not in things.