I Wrote This For an Essay on Frankenstein

...which I'm proofreading right now:

Heidegger’s whole argument is devoted to showing how being is not presence. An environment is precisely something one is unable to point to, yet is strangely there nonetheless. When you look for the environment, you find things that are in it: a hammer, a smartphone, some rusty nails, a shed, a spider, some grass, a tree. So there is a big difference between environmentality and Nature. Nature is definitely something you can point to: it is ‘over yonder’ in the mountains, in my DNA, under the pavement. Nature is what is constantly present despite . . . (fill in the blank). But constant presence is just what environmentality is not.