Ecosophy T

Naess’s essay Ecosophy T is supposed to be introducing a philosophy that is inspired by deep ecology known as ecosophy T. The T is meant to identify his specific philosophy because other deep ecologists may develop a different ecosophy more in accordance with their “value priorities, attitudes and opinions.”I understand that this philosophy was inspired by deep ecology but it is not entirely clear whether he considers ecosophy T and deep ecology as one in the same or whether one precedes another. Naess’s philosophy centers around Self-realization of the comprehensive as opposed to the narrow self. He encourages people to define who they are widely. I see this as beneficial; half of the problem with western culture is selfishness. People are often aware of global issues such as pollution and genocide, and though they may condemn them as wrong they typically do not act against the issues. It can be argued that this is because their perception of self is limited to the boundary of their physical bodies. Because this is the case, it is difficult for a person to fight strongly for or against something unless it affects him/her in a direct physical way. If people could expand their concept of “self” and see it as connected to, including, and effected by the global biotic community they may be more likely to work against injustice.
Though I see the benefit of this philosophy and understand Naess’s connection between self-realization and viewing everything as having intrinsic value, I do not think a skeptic or critic of deep ecology would find this piece convincing. He presents a sort of progression through which a person would go in order to view all of nature as having intrinsic value (biocentric equality). Development of maturity breeds identification (when the interests of another being become our own interests) which leads to a widening of the self, which ultimately enables a person to recognize the intrinsic value in the biotic community. Unfortunately, in Naess’s writing this progression is not presented coherently. I don’t think he connects the threads of his philosophy together in a way that is clear enough to convince a skeptic that the environment has intrinsic value. Additionally, I don’t think a person would be even remotely compelled to attempt to expand their “self” as a result of reading this essay.