Yuriko Saito 'Appreciating Nature on its Own Terms'

 “Listening to nature as nature, must involve recognizing its own reality apart from us.(…) Appreciating nature on its own terms, therefore, must be based upon listening to a story nature tells of itself through all its perceptual features; that is, a story concerning its origin, make-up, function and working, independent of human presence or involvement” (Yuriko Saito)

Saito (2004) is arguing for an aesthetic appreciation of nature which goes beyond anthropic self-projection, to an appreciation of truly mind-independent nature. Like Carlson (2008), she is a realist who wants to ground the aesthetic appreciation of nature objectively, that is, in mind-independent nature itself. For them both, aeshetic appreciation involves more than just creating aesthetic values, it involves recognising them in the natural world as such. Like Carlson, Saito thinks that we can look to the natural sciences for advice on how to appreciate nature aesthetically; after all, on the typical realist conception, its founding aim is to consider nature on its own terms. Unlike Carlson, however, Saito also accepts the relevance of non-scientific discourses, such as those of folklore and tradition. She is also sympathetic to non-cognitive attempts to enage with nature on its own terms - I take 'all perceptual features' to be suggestive of this broadly permissive view. While Carlson holds a cognitive realist view, Saito is a non-cognitive realist.

Saito's environmental aesthetic seems to be underwritten by a sense of moral obligation to consider nature on its own terms. She writes:

“the appropriate appreciation of nature must include the moral capacity for acknowledging the reality of nature apart from humans and the sensitivity for listening to its own story”

Her view agrees with Leopold's insofar as she is endorsing an ethical relationship with nature 'apart from humans', which I take to mean an ethical relationship with nature as such, rather than a merely anthropocentric ethical relationship with nature (e.g. one in which nature is respected as a communal good for humans).

This makes me wonder about the relationship between an environmental ethic and an environmental aesthetic - might one serve as a ground for the other, or might they at least be mutually reinforcing?  Another second question: is it reasonable to assume that 'nature's story' has an aesthetic value? Nature red in tooth and claw can look rather bleak indeed, as can the cold indifferent material universe. Yet naturalists often talk of 'wonder' at the complexity and diversity of natural processes. I've not considered this topic much, but my immediate response is: 'well, it depends how you look at it.' But this indicates a subjectivism about aesthetic judgements which I do not think either Saito or Carlson would be happy with.

References:
Carlson, A. (2008) "Aesthetic Appreciation of the Natural Environment” in Nature, Aesthetics and Environmentalism. Allen Carlson and Sheila Lintott (eds.) (New York: Columbia University Press)
Saito, Y. (2004) “Appreciating Nature on Its Own Terms” in The Aesthetics of Natural Environments, Berleant & Carlson (eds.) (Broadview Press)