AMosquera, Response to tallest cloud

  My first reaction to the question, “Consider two human encounters with clouds,” I was stumped because how do you have two separate interactions with clouds? Are they not just water, meaning one could not truly interact with the cloud? It relates to Kant who describes “nature in order to come to an elevated experience of the self.” He is saying that when someone experiences something they are doing it to elevate themselves. It is an experience of the I, and not between the You and I, in this case, the clouds experience is irrelevant. Kant uses nature as an abstraction, meaning it prevents individuals from truly encountering the tangible manifestations of nature and can not have actual encounters with the natural world. As a side note, it reminds me of the discussion that nothing is real. In Feud’s view, humans tend to project their desires and fears onto the abstract concept of god. There are only their projections and preconceived notions. The conceptions of the beautiful and the sublime, concerning human experiences with nature relate to climate change and more disastous issues. Its concept is not a category of reason but they are experiences with objects in nature that appeal to the senses and stir emotions. Burk talks about an emotional impact when encountering natural phenomena, that is both awe and terrifying. It then talks about a painting by an artist named Johnson; it portrays the threat of a storm cloud to humanity’s relationship with nature, in the Anthropocene era. It is of Atlas holding up the sky and the inability of humans to understand or technologically master a disastrous world fully. I do not think I understand this paper.