King Lear

In King Lear, Nature is a huge theme. I think the most significant use of the word nature is as Edmund is dying. He admits that his nature is evil, but that he will still try to do good. This separates his choices from his natural tendencies. I think Shakespeare does this because he feels that human's nature is changeable. Although this form of nature is not physical which is what I was originally analyzing, I think it applies very well to my question. I think the same reason explains both separations. I think that humanity as a whole believes, or wants to believe that we are more than just animals, that we are more than just impulse and response. We feel we have the agency to choose actions that go against our impulses. This is what allows for us to have morals. Our ability to think through choices and then choose an action that does not just help our self, but helps others. This seems to be a major theme of King Lear. So many characters choose to desire self gratification and success rather than caring for others.But the two characters who remain loyal to others even through being banished, and the two that remain alive at the end of the story. This shows that Shakespeare values selflessness. Selflessness is the ability that we have beyond our nature.
"Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life’s as cheap as beast’s"
"Nature thou art my Goddess"

"some good I mean to do, Despite of mine own nature:"

Wuthering Heights Applied

The moors are one symbol of nature. I think it is interesting how as young children, both Heathcliffe and Catherine love playing in the moors. Heathcliffe I don't think ever looses that desire to be in the moors. When Heathcliffe has young Catherine meat, Linton, they meet on the moors. He goes on walks away from society. I think this is important, because Heathcliffe becomes the "nature" character. He is also the most evil character. So if he is the nature character in Bronte's mind, then she may think that nature is evil. She then would think that Heathcliffe's rival, Edgar Linton who stays on his property more, and remains in the confines of society symbolizes humanity as a whole. I don't think Bronte is completely one sided on the issue. She doesn't seem to love Edgar or Heathcliffe much. Catherine who is struggling between these two chooses society and humanity if you will, but she is not completely happy (although  I think there are other forces at play.) She seems to desire to return to nature her whole life after marrying Edgar. We do not know what would have happened, if she married Heathcliffe, but I don't think most readers believe it would have worked out.

I think Bronte believes in some balance between nature and society. Edgars seems with much passion or guts at times. Perhaps combining the passion of Heathcliffe with the logic and morals of Edgar brings a good balance. I don't know. I think finding a balance between nature and society/humanity is a hard thing to do. If one is not superior, finding a balance is hard. I don't see a simple way to argue in the middle, though I would love to here that argument.If Heathcliffe's raw passion is good, I think it inherently comes with some of the negative aspects of Heathcliffe.  And if Edgar like civility is good, then I think you lose some of the raw passion. Overall, right now I think there has to be one answer to this. I am leaning towards saying humanity, or at least the ideals of humanity and society, are superior.

Good Quotes "I wish I were out of doors--I wish I were a girl again, half savage and hardy, and free... and laughing at injuries, not maddening under them! Why am I so changed? why does my blood rush into a hell of tumult at a few words? I'm sure I should be myself were I once among the heather on those hills..." (12.46)

Oedipus Rex Applied

I think Oedipus Rex applies to my big question because fate could easily be viewed as nature, or what should happen (though the Greek Gods do complicate this fact.) Beyond this fact, Oedipus has wounded feet, becomes blind, and has he genetics of his parents. So one view of this novel could be that fate wins. It is more powerful than the human trying to escape it's grasp. Fate is all powerful in the story (or at least to the point that Oedipus kills his father and marries his mother.) He can do nothing to go against his nature. Another view would be that his parents trying to survive (survival of the fittest) do all  that they can to hinder him from succeeding. They wound his feet and send him off to be killed. Here another two opinions could separate. Some could feel that Oedipus is the fittest where as others could feel his parents are. Nonetheless, he survives when in nature he should not do so. This could be as Sophocles arguing that he overcomes nature which would imply that he may be better than nature. I don't love this book for the question but I don't think it gives a definitive side to my quesiton.

Why do we separate humanity from nature?
What is nature? This question may seem fairly simple, but I believe it has a lot to do with so much in the modern world. Google defined nature as "the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations." I think it is very interesting that humanity separates itself from nature, but most feel we are animals with animal tendencies. So should we not consider human impact on earth nature? Assuming we are not animals but something more, which could easily be argued, the effects we have on earth are attempts to improve nature. Air conditioning fixes weather, we stop fires from burning, and if we could, we would stop natural disasters. More importantly, we let children with issues like blindness and down syndrome survive. If we are in fact better than nature, is it not our obligation to improve it? Those that use the modern sentiment that says people are born that way, or in other words, let nature take it's course as an argument seem to forget that nature itself would reject so many people we are arguing about. I think this question could provide a lot of answers when thought through and discussed. Right now I tend to think we are some mix of animals and something more. I am interested in all these questions I have asked and think literature includes human nature (including if it is better than nature itself) and just nature as a very common theme. I think this will keep me interested and provide answers to me about much of modern sentiments. I think many books relate to this, but one is Lord of the Flies, which comments on nature's power over man and man's nature in and of itself.