Abstract
Nature has always been a source of inspiration for artists, prophets, thinkers and all who are sensitive enough to feel a deep connection with all living things. Even the inanimate parts of nature have been seen in certain traditions as part of God's grace.
Francis of Assisi was convinced that God's will could be understood through the study of Scripture and also through a meaningful relationship with the natural environment. Some areas of contemporary environmental aesthetics are very close to this conception of nature as something sacred and holy, an approach that is humanistic yet not anthropocentric.
Seeing nature as a source of inspiration is not a new idea. We often identify two dichotomous approaches, one that sees nature as a soulful transcendent unity of which we are a part and whose essence can only be described by art and religion, or one that sees nature itself as merely a resource to be harnessed in the pursuit of human flourishing and happiness.
The second approach views nature as an object and does not seek satisfaction and meaning in a simple appreciation of nature as the finished and mysterious work of God. We encounter these dichotomies in environmental aesthetics today in the controversy between scientific cognitivism and non-cognitive approaches to the natural environment.
I would like to look at this dichotomy in light of the humanistic psychology of Abraham H. Maslow, who identified a special capacity in humans to have transcendent peak experiences associated with nature and the divine.
He believed that our ability to have these experiences is a key element of human thriving and happiness.