Response to Carlys14's comment on Jacob Wheeler's post on 9/18/11 at 3:04pm

Nature untouched does indeed seem to have tranquil, supernatural properties. You posed your question speculating on the purity of nature. I would have to say no, nature is not pure, even when untouched. Pure, in the case of Plato's model (the thesis we are basing all of our conversations on this week) means "original" as I have discussed in my post before this one. No matter how exceptionally special or unique any natural scene seems to be, there is a model of it in the world of forms. As Mr. Johnson has told my class, nature is on the "craftspersons" level of imitation - it is simply the imitation of the form. Although it is not as far from perfection in Plato's model as art is, nature is still an imitation of its original form. Now, let us consider something Plato doesn't venture to often in his claims - change. Nature does change, through growth and weathering and other circumstances. Do the forms of these objects change as well? If so, what happens to the memories of the old objects, are they pure, or are there forms of all of these memories we hold in our heads in the world of forms as well? Another complication I love to bring up about Plato's model is that it is based on art, yet he himself and us students try to apply it to so many other things - namely, nature, memories, and so on.

What do you think happens when a tornado hits a rosebush? Does the form change, or does the rosebush become "pure" or "perfect" in a sense?