The difference between planting a seed and conception?

In philosophy you are taught the rather distinct difference between human acts and acts of man, that human acts require the consent and decision from man while acts of man do not like say breathing.
So let’s say we call all works of man art like the Greek philosopher Aristotle, and then we assume that man cannot create per se not by himself of course because he requires materials that are never ultimately his creation. Then let us also say that art can never be as a product of an act of man it must be as a result of a human act for example making art by respiring is not possible.
And we obviously know that human art has gradation levels because technique produces more refined art for example a carpenter’s chair is better than what I’ll produce with some wood and a saw. Then we should also assume that art can also be as a result of natural acts such as the Niagara falls, the fourteen falls and all that and also its perfection is always of the utmost technique therefore natural art as a result of pure natural acts is always at the topmost level of art . And lastly let us also assume that natural art can also be a result of the combination of a human act and a natural actsuch as the Aswan dam and Panama canal but since natural art by natural acts entirely is quite literally always the work of the Higher being or God (whichever you prefer) and thus never in vain then its perfection is always higher than that of natural art as a form of human acts combined with natural acts.
Then comes the question isn’t conception natural art as a result of human acts as much as natural acts because humans must copulate but the literal process of conception is a natural act because it just doesn’t take intercourse alone to conceive, nature must be a signatory, a sad truth.
And isn’t a plant a form of natural art of either fully fromnatural acts(growing naturally) or the combination of natural and human acts(humans planting seeds) and because more often than not even probabilistically the plants are more products of natural acts solely rather than the combo. And due to the elevated level of art by natural acts solely as opposed to the combined natural and human acts’ art there are more plants than humans because there is a vast portion of planting that is natural and thus highly successful (as I said nature is never in vain).
So why is planting a seed not regarded equal to conception or even more severe and sublime a process because a part of its Venn diagram consists of pure natural actions that are more perfect than a natural act combined with a human act philosophically?
feel free to critique and add commentary this is really a gray area for me


5 thoughts on “The difference between planting a seed and conception?

  1. Are you simply tying yourself up with definitions? Firstly you are drawing out acts of man as distinct from natural acts. If man is natural – part of nature – why does such a distinction exist? Surely the distinction is between intentional acts and unintentional acts. Seeds naturally sow themselves unintentionally all the time. Sometimes man plants seeds for a particular purpose – whether for food or for art is perhaps debatable. If the seeds are planted in a neat row and produce a pleasing result, perhaps this is art as much as for food. Is the gardener an artist or a workman?

    Finally you come to the question – why is planting a seed not regarded equal to conception? Well, who is doing this regarding? Biologically they are equivalent acts for different species. Their nature is different, but the outcome is rather similar. Obviously conception of a baby has more immediate relevance to us, since we are humans. I think that is the source of the value judgement.


    1. oh, i see,in regard to your earlier question i separated man’s acts from nature’s acts because i am assuming the actor of the ‘art’ is different for both ‘natural art’ and ‘human art’ for example the act of say a storm starting is different from the act of me deciding to pursue a career.In the former the actor is ‘the gods/God/Nature’ whichever you prefer and in the latter the actor is ‘man’ who despite being natural art himself i presumed he has ‘free will’ and thus can act per se just like nature can(as in nature has the capacity to freely act just like man but with differing magnitude).I don’t know if that suffices as an explanation.
      And actually the answer you give is pretty much why i asked the question in the first place i’ve always assumed that obviously since we are human and not vegetative matter it is only logical that human conception will be a topic of more relevance and gravitas to us as opposed to say germination but according to the philosophy i’ve read (mostly Aristotelian) conception is not just more important to us because of its immediacy but rather they regard it as a more profound act all together as opposed to germination therefore their value judgement of this gradation is clearly different from the one you have presented as a possible reason and that is what i sought to ask or understand when i posted this question. Thank-you for reading and commenting.


be sure to purge (thoughts,ideas,complaints) if at all you feel the nudge

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s