Human nature?
I am initiating this discussion in response to a comment I received in feedback to the thread I created on Jung's idea of the shadow. The writer queried my use of the term human nature, questioning whether it exists. I have to admit that I was making the assumption that however they may conceive it that philosophers begin from certain beliefs about human nature. As far as my current reading of posts on this site there is not much discussion about this area, with the exception of Gus Lamarch's theory of egoism.
As far as I can see it ideas about human nature have always been central to philosophy, ranging from the thinking of Aristotle to the present day. Even the neuroscientists work from assumption about the importance of the brain and the biological thinkers explain behaviour in terms of chemicals, including hormones.
When I think of my lectures I attend as a student I always remember Hobbes' assertion about life being, 'nasty, brutish and short.' In a way, this is a reflection about the human condition but it was written in the context of him drawing up the notion of the human contract and about how human beings behave and the need for regulation as we can be rather nasty if our behaviour is not controlled.
I do come from a particular stance, influenced by the psychoanalytic thinkers, especially Freud and Jung. In this respect I do believe that in subconscious processes which I believe that people often are not always aware.
However, while I am aware that many people reject the psychoanalytic theory, I am left wondering where the idea of human nature stands for philosophical debate. As far as I see human nature is a key element for thinking about human life ranging from writers from ancient thinkers, Christian thinkers to the theory of Darwin.
So, what I am asking is whether there is a human nature? In this sense, I am also asking about whether there is a fixed nature or whether it can be altered. But firstly I am asking is the idea of human nature still a fundamental part of philosophy or has it been superseded by a more important agenda?
As far as I can see it ideas about human nature have always been central to philosophy, ranging from the thinking of Aristotle to the present day. Even the neuroscientists work from assumption about the importance of the brain and the biological thinkers explain behaviour in terms of chemicals, including hormones.
When I think of my lectures I attend as a student I always remember Hobbes' assertion about life being, 'nasty, brutish and short.' In a way, this is a reflection about the human condition but it was written in the context of him drawing up the notion of the human contract and about how human beings behave and the need for regulation as we can be rather nasty if our behaviour is not controlled.
I do come from a particular stance, influenced by the psychoanalytic thinkers, especially Freud and Jung. In this respect I do believe that in subconscious processes which I believe that people often are not always aware.
However, while I am aware that many people reject the psychoanalytic theory, I am left wondering where the idea of human nature stands for philosophical debate. As far as I see human nature is a key element for thinking about human life ranging from writers from ancient thinkers, Christian thinkers to the theory of Darwin.
So, what I am asking is whether there is a human nature? In this sense, I am also asking about whether there is a fixed nature or whether it can be altered. But firstly I am asking is the idea of human nature still a fundamental part of philosophy or has it been superseded by a more important agenda?
Comments (117)
Of course, Human Nature doesn't "exist" in a materialistic concrete sense. It's a generalization, and an abstraction. So, it's not a testable empirical "thing" to be studied by scientists. But it's certainly amenable to philosophical study. "The writer" must be a hard Materialist, who doesn't accept immaterial things, such as Minds, to be Real. For them, the only things that "exist" are Atoms & Void. But Unfortunately, speculations on generalizations & universals are always somebody's Opinion, not hard facts. What's yours? :smile:
According to Aristotle, the philosophical study of human nature itself originated with Socrates, who turned philosophy from study of the heavens to study of the human things. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature
In the first place, I wrote this thread discussion because I was startled when a person queried me using the term human nature in another thread. I had been believing that however they conceived it that all philosophy begins with some premises about human nature. But it appears that the person who made the comment disputed this.
I am interested in the origins, nature and future of humanity. My own philosophical interest is wide, but I have strong leanings towards the overlap between psychology and philosophy in understanding human nature. However, I do have an interest in anthropology, and anthropology does help us consider how there are differences and similarities between different cultures. This is useful for asking how fixed or variable human nature is.
I may be accused of looking at life from too much of a broad angle rather than being more focused. My original degree was in Social Ethics, which was a combination of philosophy, social science and comparative ethical traditions. But I am interested in understanding life and human belief as fully as possible, with a view to how humanity survive in face of an uncertain future.
See if you can spot the implicit contradiction in this paragraph.
I am not sure if I am seeing what you are seeing.
Perhaps it is like looking at one of those magic optical illusion pieces of art.
I can see that I am saying that the various thinkers all begin from different premises about the human being, but the point I was making is that all models begin with a particular view of the human being.
I have wondered if my statement about the neuroscientists and biologists could be the contradiction because neuroscience is a part of biology itself. Perhaps what I said makes it sound like the brain is separated with hormones raging in a course of their own making, although I am aware that they are all interrelated.
Please put me out of my misery and tell me my contradiction.
The biological thinkers? You mean that all others are also biological thinkers, all philosophers, etc.? Becasue they are thinkers based on a biological system or built?
In response to the OP: human nature is manifold, and that is why it appears to be a subject of philosophy: something that humans can't grasp yet, they leave it to be argued by the philosophers. In one way, philosophy is pre-science of the knowledge science has no basis to study with.
But human nature has walked across the floor, so to speak. Pscyhology is the major science that deals with human nature, and secondly, we discovered the extreme importance of mutations and gene theory in the formation of individual's human nature. It is not vogue any more to talk about human nature among philosophers, because there is real, hard evidence out there that describes it supported by more evidence than what philosophy needs, and enough evidence to satisfy the validity of scientific scrutiny.
The point is, human nature is a 'holistic' notion. It is about the human as a whole, what is his/her underlying esse, nature, raison d'etre. Whereas neuroscience, endocronology and so on, are specialist disciplines that concentrate on one part or aspect of the human organism. So endocrinologists and neuroscientists needn't be concerned with 'human nature', although of course there's nothing stopping them from contemplating the question.
A culture's conception of human nature is important in determining how it views the meaning and significance of human life. In many cultures there are mythological accounts of human nature which serve to illustrate some basic point about the human condition and the nature of human existence.
I am not a hard materialist and an obvious example of one would be the behaviourist psychologist B F Skinner.
I am particularly very interested in both Freud and Jung. I am interested in the instinctual drives described by Freud, particularly the life and death instincts. I am not sure that the Oedipus complex is exactly true but I think it is a partial description of deeper archetypal truths. I accept the idea of the collective unconscious described by Jung but not as some supernatural pool but perhaps as a memory inherent in nature, along the lines described by Rupert Sheldrake in his idea of morphic resonance. In fact, I think Sheldrake may be a missing link in connecting psychology and biology.
Human nature is such a vast topic and I would say that not just philosophers but every human being has some view on it because it is part of the way we understand the self and how to live. Of course, views about human nature can be seen as opinion, more especially when they are constructed in terms such as whether people are good or evil. The theories of human nature which are founded in science are grounded in evidence but even scientific models are only models.
Perhaps one fairly good model is the triangle of needs described by Maslow, which starts from the basic survival needs, moving upwards to the social needs, with the need for self-actualization at the top. This model is fairly diverse because it incorporates all the different layers.
I would say that any model of human nature needs to be able to take on board the many facets of the human condition. But my main argument is that however grand or smart a theory is, some kind of view of what a human being is central. In other words, the very concept of human nature in it a fluid but not fixed sense, cannot be redundant.
I am completely in agreement with a holistic picture of human nature of life personally, and in the reply I was just writing I suggested Maslow as being a useful model, but we could also point to the whole systems point of view, such as that put forward by the physicist Fritjof Capra.
As I have just said to Wayfarer I am in favour of a holistic model, or systems view of life.
However, I still believe that the idea of human nature is useful even in the light of scientific developments. I think it is easy for philosophy to get carried away with the scientific discoveries, especially quantum physics, and almost get blinded by the light to the point of missing the shadows. I don't think we can be expected to accept scientific truth as a replacement for the whole concept of human nature, because to do so would be to dismiss the basics of philosophy going back to the ancient thinkers.
I believe it’s me you’re referring to, so I’ll try to explain my thoughts more fully than I did in the other thread. Personally, I want to believe in human nature, emphasis on want, but I’m skeptical. Also, what I mean by human nature would be some trait, or characteristic that all humans share regardless of their environment, culture, sex, etc. I would also consider human nature to be immutable. That said, the issue to me is how you can go about separating nature from nurture, so to speak. Humans necessarily exist within an environment that shapes them. That’s basically the premise of evolution. If human nature existed, then it would imply that there is some part of all of us that our environment does not affect. I fail to see what this part of us is, or even possibly could be, so I doubt it’s existence.
What you have explained is different to what I thought you meant, but nevertheless my supposition of what you meant lead to a thread in itself. The subject of human nature was due for discussion and what you are saying now adds to the debate.
I thought that you were coming from the point of view of thinking that human nature is an unnecessary construct whereas you think it is immutable, but think that the role of nurture is the main issue. I can see where you are coming from because we are definitely not isolated cells of consciousness. Most of the psychologists do think that the socialisation process of supreme importance. Of course, we could say that genetic factors play a role too.
I think that the nature vs nurture debate is a very important aspect of the debate about human nature, but the topic has many facets because it is central to who we are.
I do have a question about the immutabilty, whether human nature is nature or nurture. If it is part biological or shaped by the environment is it not the case that we are different from people from earliest times. I am not saying that they were less evolved because it may be the case that they were sensitive in ways beyond our capabilities but were they the same or different from us? I suppose I am just wondering about the core constructs of what it means to be a human being and whether this is distinct from the culture in which the person belongs.
Are you familiar with the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico? It's a think-tank and research center for Complex Adaptive Systems. And that includes humans. It consists of a variety of physical scientists, but their common approach to their subjects is Holism, rather than Reductionism. A more technical term for that kind of science is "Systems Theory".
You seem to be familiar with Fritjof Capra, and his book, The Systems View of Life. But a more recent advocate of non-reductive science is Stuart Kaufman. His 2016 book, Humanity in a Creative Universe, may be considered a technical treatise on Human Nature -- covering subjects like Free Will, and the Mind-Body problem. Like Capra, he is not afraid to risk his considerable scientific credentials, on taboo topics for reductive materialistic attitudes. And his book frequently crosses the line between hard science and soft philosophy. So, while it may be interesting for the philosophically inclined, some may criticize its forays into imagination and speculation -- to call it "fact free". And they may complain that Holism opens the door to Mysticsm. But, I'm willing to take that chance, in order to put human nature under the microscope. :smile:
Stuart Kauffman : We really did create a new science. It seems "fact free," as John Maynard Smith said, because we were finding not efficient cause laws, but kinds of what might be called just math or formal cause laws.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scientific-seeker-stuart-kauffman-on-free-will-god-esp-and-other-mysteries/
Thanks for giving me the details because it sounds interesting.
One element in Jung's writings that I haven't seen observed enough is the primacy of personal experience. To hear an agent, you must give them agency. Listening is only possible with respect.
What are the requirements of witnessing?
Just to clarify. I’m skeptical that human nature exists. That is, I’m doubtful that there is some universal trait that we all share, and that is immutable. I think this because nurture seems to affect all traits, thereby making all traits mutable. However, thinking of humans as having a nature may be useful to help us understand ourselves. It may be a useful fiction, at best.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Aren’t our very DNA shaped by evolution as well?
Quoting Jack Cummins
We are certainly different from our ancient ancestors. I think there was a time when humans were not even conscious, for example. Also, I think one thing to keep in mind is that evolution is slow. So, Jung or Freud may be correct about “human nature,” but only during a certain period of time. But I would bet that if they had solely looked at our ancient ancestors, and tried to derive a theory of human nature from them, that their theories would be very different from the ones they came up with. It may very well be that humans currently have a shadow side in the Jungian sense, but perhaps 500,000 years ago they did not.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I think being a human is different for each human. But I would say that the most universal aspect of being human is our ability to adapt. However, I would say that this ability is again determined by our existing in an environment that demands it. Which means that if our ability to adapt was not beneficial for our survival, we would never have developed the ability in the first place.
I remember, vaguely, a forum member stating not that human nature exists/doesn't exist but that the very notion doesn't make sense. Unfortunately, I seem to have forgotten faer argument.
My own beliefs on the issue follow...
It appears that a certain conceptual framework, to wit, a quantitative one, is being applied to humans to give legitimacy to the concept of human nature. For instance, if some one claims that human nature includes characteristics like loving, noble, friendly, discreet, and so on, the implicit assumption is that all these need to be qualified with the adverb "generally" or the phrase "most humans are" i.e. any and all accounts of human nature are statistical arguments, quantitative.
If so, let's do what should be obvious viz. look at human nature from a qualitative perspective. When we do this, we see that for every possible characteristic present there's an opposite of that characteristic present too. If there are humans who are loving there are humans that are hateful, for those who are noble there are the ignoble, friendly people are offset by hostiles, the discreet have to put up with the rash, and so on. To make the long story short, human nature, from a qualitative standpoint, doesn't make sense for every trait seems to be paired with an anti-trait and these cancel each other out leaving nothing by way of a residual trait/anti-trait, of this interplay of opposites, that we can then call human nature. The bottom line is that, qualitatively, there's no such thing as human nature.
I don't know if you were replying to what I said or someone else's comment on this thread because you did not address anyone. I don't think I or the other people writing are actually saying that human nature is unalterable. If you were going by the last comment I made I was merely addressing this part of the debate as expressed by Pinprick's comment about the nature vs nurture debate. If you look at the thread discussion in full you will see that it is looking at the whole question about whether the use of the term human nature is helpful.
Well said. I've always wanted to, when and If I get the time and provided I still feel as enthusiastic as I was on the day the idea popped into my mind, categorize philosophy, among other things, into dynamic and static.
If a philosophy is dynamic then its constructed in way that it changes, adapts rather, to what time and the world throws at it. Dynamic philosophy keeps up with the latest fashion trends in philosophy, never becoming outmoded, forever relevant so to speak.
A static philosphy would be one that's insensitive to changing times, it's rigid and inflexible, it lacks any adaptive features, its liable to lose its relevance in a couple of years and decades, and some timespans may involve even thousands of years. The point is, it's not a question of if but when they join the club of dead and buried ideas.
I may be mistaken, but it sounds like your leaning towards the idea of memetics i.e the idea that there are codified memories passed on within the gene pool. I have often considered the idea that various primal instincts displayed in our species such as the fight or flight response are a memetic memory inherited through our ancestry to serve as an aid for survival.
If by human nature we aim to look at the behavioural characteristics which are shared by the species then we could argue that it is our primal instincts and urges which we recognise as being present in the entire species, such as the fight or flight response that make up our nature and everything else about an individual is a result of how we are nurtured.
Regarding psychology: it is one of many of the newer sciences that developed out of philosophy and its origin can perhaps be traced back to Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) with his pragmatic approach to human behaviour / conduct viewing it as a phenomenon which can be objectively measured.
However, in an attempt to comment on some of the aspects raised in your question on human nature, I will have to refer to anthropology, and more specifically philosophical anthropology. In this branch of philosophy the emphasis is not on empirical-factual scientific data about certain aspects of a human being, eg medical science, specific social customs of various groups of people, but rather on trying to understand man as man in distinction of other existing things.
Let's take a few examples from the history of philosophy where attempts were made to answer this fundamental question about man. Please take note that this is nothing more than a superficial attempt to point out certain different positions - of course it does not pretend to be anything more.
1) Naturalism: man is nothing more than a segment of nature, a highly developed animal in spite of the fact that he is intellectually so much more/higher developed than the highest developed animals.
2) Idealism: man is a conscious thinking being, essentially rational.
3) Existentialism: a being caught up in a never ending "religious" struggle in freely choosing and becoming what he can be. Related key themes: anxiety, subjectivity, alienation, absurdity, authenticity.
4) Marxism: man is primarily a labourer: physical labour being the only way leading to the fulfillment of his physical needs with all other needs being denied or rated as inferior.
I think you were probably replying to what I wrote on the thread on Jung's shadow.
I do agree that Jung does not write much based on his personal experience, except in his autobiography, Memories, Dreams and Reflections. I think that his rather detached style of writing was the fashion of the time and I would prefer the role of witness to be included.
However, I am sure that some people have written from the witness stance in response to his writings, or we can do it ourselves. Anyway, I am not sure it would give more credibility to his argument because hard, quantitative evidence is the preferred trend in psychology today.
I am glad that you can see that we are probably a bit different from our earliest ancestors. But of course, it is hard to know how much because as you point out evolution is a slow process.
The question is how will we evolve in the future?
I have read that many children being born now do not have their original set of wisdom teeth and have an extra artery in the arm. I am not sure how much difference that will make. But I have also read, but not sure of the evidence, that children born now have more junk DNA activated. That may make some difference as some scientists have suggested that what was thought to be junk DNA may contain content for the development of psychological and emotional life.
I definitely think that too much generalisations about 'human nature' are not particularly helpful. There are many differences between individuals. When I argue that the concept of human nature is still important I am looking more at basic model structure, like the instinctual drives and, dare I say it, basic archetypes, which I am sure that many hard materialists would dismiss as fantasies. But even the materialist have their fantasies, though they may think them to be unreal.
I most certainly agree with you that a static philosophy would be unhelpful for 'changing times' as you say. Perhaps the art is to be able to blend the truths of past ages with contemporary knowledge and insight. Hopefully we do not have to wait until the philosophers are dead to buried to be able to acknowledge their value.
I am afraid that I am not a biologist so cannot really explain how instincts and drives work. Even Freud had a conflict about whether instincts and drives are different. And, as one writer commenting on the thread I started on Freud, his whole theory of sexuality was a bit limited by him not having the knowledge about hormones which we have acquired.
I think that from a the standpoint of philosophy it is important for us to become as knowledgeable as possible about recent scientific studies. However, I do not think philosophy should be just demoted as an unnecessary body part to thought, like an appendix which can be removed.
Anyway, I have never seen any comments by you on this website so far, so my guess is that you are new, so I hope that you find interesting discussions and of course you can initiate ones of your own.
I like your little sketch of the various positions of philosophy. I hope that other people see it, so it might be helpful for you to squeeze it into another thread at some point, because you may capture a wider audience than those who have read this particular thread.
I find the whole area of philosophical anthropology fascinating and I do hope to read more, although I already spend so much time reading. I would encourage you to contribute this perspective as it has been sadly lacking in many areas of recent debate and I am sure it could be extremely valuable.
There may have been Marxists who believed this, but Marx certainly did not. "Marx held a consistent view that our human nature was expressed in a drive to spontaneously and creatively produce products in a manner that is conducive to social and individual satisfaction."
Marx's view of human nature
Marx's theory of human nature
Asking such a question is indicative of perceptual consideration. My choice in verbiage of stating “Your view...” does possess a nature of linearity. As such, the confusion I perceive you had experienced was understandable.
It’s amazing how common past perceptions become skewed in time to the point of sometimes entirely misrepresenting the very basis of the original concepts. Communism being a prime example.
Quoting Jack Cummins
The human mind instinctively looks for common features (general traits) in its environment, as an aid to categorizing the relationships of parts to wholes. Without the short-cut of "chunking" categories, we would have to deal with each new person or thing like babies, who have never seen anything "like" it before. But, like all shortcuts, Generalizing from a few individuals to a whole group, can lead to Stereotyping (over-generalization). Classification allows us to pre-judge based on past experience. But, that same prejudice can lead us astray, if our sample is too small or biased by unique circumstances.
Assigning common traits to a class, based on limited experience with individuals, is a "useful fiction" for most purposes. But it can also result in Racism or Speciesism. So we probably should put our "Types" in quotes, to remind us that the rule-of-thumb may or may not apply in this particular case. Generalizations are always Approximations. The science of Sociology has a broader scope than Psychology, in that it attempts to understand Human-Nature-in-general rather than the peculiarities of individual humans. Hence, there is no need to deny the existence of "Human Nature", or "Race", as a crude concept, as long as we don't apply that abbreviated understanding in critical situations, where inaccuracies in prejudices can mislead us. Skepticism toward our own "truths" can help us avoid leaping to erroneous conclusions. :smile:
Generalizations and Stereotypes : When do generalizations move into stereotypes? Stereotypes are overgeneralizations; they often involve assuming a person has certain characteristics based on unfounded assumptions..
https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2012/05/understanding-generalizations-and-stereotypes.html
You are raising a good question. To what extent should we be trying to change our nature? Of course we do try and change our nature to some extent by medication: antidepressants, antipsychotics, hormone replacement, and many other chemicals.
Of course the other possibility is bioengineering. The ideas of the transhumanist writers, such as Ruth Chadwick are interesting in this respect.
Right now, I would like some chemicals to improve my functioning because we need to be smart and tough to survive these times. 2020 is worse than the rough tumbles in the playground and it is a struggle, but perhaps we will evolve and change through the rough times naturally.
Yeah, that’s an interesting question. I really have no idea, but I think to make an educated guess you would need to analyze what traits are most necessary for us to survive and reproduce. In this modern world this is difficult to determine, because with advances in things like healthcare and fertility, almost anyone is capable of surviving long enough to reproduce. To take a very rough view though, it seems like physical traits like strength are becoming less important for survival, whereas emotional/psychological traits like compassion, or mental health in general, are becoming more important. We’re less likely to have to rely on things like strength to survive, but our ability to navigate the world mentally without falling victim to incapacitating mental illnesses, or becoming suicidal, seems like a real challenge in today’s world.
Yes, I was aware of that, but it’s good that you stated this explicitly. I agree completely.
You suggest that the main point is to survive and reproduce. I am not denying the importance of future generations but I think we may need to adapt not just in the future but now, in order to survive in the gateway of the future.
Many are suffering now, not just in a remote future, from poverty, unemployment, depression and suicidal ideas . Human nature in the sense of the limits of human potential is critical right now.
Of course, many might argue that there have been critical periods in history and the majority survive, but surely that is simply a means of negating the critical factors of our own time.
Many writers have got themselves in a deep mess by assigning characteristics to a particular race, gender or group of people. Even though I see a lot of strengths in Jung's writings, his enormous weakness, or shadow was the way he made generalisations about racial groups, in particular about the Jewish and German nation, and at a critical time in history.
Certainly, any use of the term human nature needs to go beyond stereotypes. If the term is used it is about understanding the basics of the human condition and nothing more.
I was just speaking in evolutionary terms. That’s all that matters from an evolutionary perspective.
Quoting Jack Cummins
However you personally adapt in your lifetime makes no difference if your DNA isn’t passed on. People who have more adaptive traits, and pass on those traits to future generations, are the only ones that cause evolution to occur.
I haven't read your thread yet on Jung's shadow. I will check it out.
In my remarks, I was considering your question: "is the idea of human nature still a fundamental part of philosophy or has it been superseded by a more important agenda?" Jung is cartographer of that nature as well a healer who wants to promote the end of the civil war we find ourselves in. This work is philosophical in that we have to improve our conditions to understand them. The effort to know oneself and be honest with your self and others is an activity that involves its own end and purposes.
The call to lead an examined life is either about this energy or it is not. I read the following from Jung's On the Nature of the Psyche (108) as a vote for the energy existing:
I am sure that the whole way in which I am influenced by Jung permeates my thinking and probably even influenced the way in which I wrote the start of this thread. I do regard Jung is my important mentor and even though I come to philosophy in search of truth I am concerned about healing. I think that both are of supreme importance.
I am interested in spirituality in the sense in which your Nietzsche's quote says, a 'consuming fire'. I also love his writings, especially Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I think his writing is spiritual in the truest sense, separated from the dogmatic framework of conventional religious frameworks.
The difference between them as sets of experiences is large. Jung was a doctor who treated people as well he could imagine was possible. Nietzsche was knight errant who often misplaced his horse.
Human nature keeps returning like a pesky relative.
I think there is a basis for what we call "human nature." In my opinion, it is based on two things:
1. We generally share the same aversion to unnecessary pain and suffering.
2. We are group oriented - we generally rely on the protection/services of the group to survive.
Those two things require the constant re-calibration of our needs with regards to the group we belong to but ultimately, we are doing it out of self-interest.
regards,
8
I think that the couple of points you make are important as they speak about the human condition in a broad sense. Also, you don't make any generalisations about certain groups, which can be dangerous, but simply frame the individual within a group context.
I think science is full of materialistic explanations of our human nature and it most certainly is testable and empirical. Take for example what we know of hormones. Hormones strongly effect how we feel and what we do.
Then there is brain imaging and we know we share in common empathy with other primates.
Anthropology gives us lots of information about social animals and humans are a social animal.
Then there are biological studies of the brain and this is very informative when the brain has been damaged and we can look at the damaged area and study the effect of that damage.
Yes. Materialistic Science has learned a lot about human physiology, much of which which we share with our ape cousins, who are quite clever as animals go. But Human Nature, as a philosophical enterprise, is mostly about how humans differ from animals. For example, the age-old question of non-empirical Souls. If there is no such thing, how do we account for the gap in reasoning power, which, seems to be our only significant advantage over more instinctive creatures? Even apes have hands.
Based on empirical evidence, our physiological advantage seems to be rather minor. But in terms of evolutionary success, humans have created a whole new form of Evolution : world-conquering Culture, which progresses much faster than physical evolution. A bigger brain is a Quantitative edge in processing power. But a rational mind seems to give humans a Qualitative superiority. Yet, some think it's our Animal Nature, including irrational hormones, that holds us back morally. While others think it's our over-weening intellectual arrogance that gets us into trouble. Both seem to be involved in Human Nature. :smile:
The Gap -- The Science of What Separates Us from Other Animals : . . . psychologist Thomas Suddendorf provides a definitive account of the mental qualities that separate humans from other animals, as well as how these differences arose.
https://www.amazon.com/Gap-Science-Separates-Other-Animals/dp/0465030149
Perhaps I should read the book before responding, or may be I can just question you about what the book says. How is an uneducated person 8000 years ago, different from an animal?
What does prejudice have to do with our nature?
Are there limits to our thinking? Do we function as well in a group of 12 people as we do in a group of 500? Is there a difference in how we function in a group of 500 and a group of 5000 people?
Yes, I think our group oriented nature is what's often forgotten when we talk about human nature. Our world view, moral compass, living habits are shaped by the various group systems we belong to.
I think it's a mistake to take man out of that context and treat the individual as if it were a separate completely "free" thing. It hardly ever is.
Ouch.
What’s with this fascination I read so often of reference to brain size being so BIG?!
Our huge/giant/large/reallyreallybig brains! Ego?
Brain size doesn’t actually mean anything. This is partly displayed in how various mammalian and aquatic brains are considerably larger in size than our own. By comparison, which is used to refer to us as having a big brain, we have a small brain also.
Ants are also world conquering.
? “Ouch”?
Adolph Hitler, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, and Franklin Roosevelt all exhibited similar human behaviors throughout their lives, even if the consequences of their lives differed enormously. "Human nature" is synonymous with neither goodness nor badness. Adolph, Winston, Joseph, and Franklin were all capable of feeling very similarly emotions, all driven by aspirations (e.g., for power), all having the same sensorium, all having similar learning / memory / comprehension / association / etc. capabilities.
We are all much more alike than we are different BECAUSE we share in a set of features common to our species. We may not like every person we meet -- indeed, we may heartily loathe, despise, and abhor some of them, and the feeling may be mutual. But there is never any doubt that other people, even disgusting ones, belong to the same species as ourselves, as embarrassing or annoying as that might be.
Great read: "Leiningen Versus the Ants" by Carl Stephenson -- a classic short story published in the December 1938 Esquire.
Here's a reading of it on YouTube.
Nice consideration. Our history is surely one of ignorance. I have much hope for humanity because of how information can change what we think and do.
Let us just hope that the future is one of more knowledge rather than ignorance. I am inclined to think that we are at a crossroads, and history can make negative or positive of knowledge and that it could be used destruction or positively. Perhaps, it will be a mixed picture.
The tendency to prejudge individuals and groups seems to be innate for humans, in part because quick categorizations proved advantageous for survival during Mammal evolution. But our advanced cognitive powers also allow us to quickly learn from our peers, who is to be trusted, and who is to be avoided. So human prejudice is both Innate and Learned. As for your other questions, read the book. :smile:
Humans are wired for prejudice : https://theconversation.com/humans-are-wired-for-prejudice-but-that-doesnt-have-to-be-the-end-of-the-story-36829
Innate or Learned Prejudice : https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/fall-2015-questions-race/innate-or-learned-prejudice-turns-out-even-blind-arent
Note that I mentioned both our Brain Size (quantity) and our Brain Complexity (quality) as partial explanations for human dominance in the world. If you think ants are a dominant species, they don't even come close to the overwhelming numerical superiority and habitat ubiquity of single-cell organisms. But then, we have antibiotics and vaccines that help to even the score. :joke:
"A bigger brain is a Quantitative edge in processing power. But a rational mind seems to give humans a Qualitative superiority."
Complexity is a perceptual designation. Not a natural defining separation in function or morphology. The notion that a bigger brain provides us an edge requires one to dismiss the multitude of organisms that possess brains far greater in size, yet demonstrate no quantitative “edge”.
Neither relative/brain size nor neuronal count can be specifically linked to what creates the particular variances found in humans to other types of organisms. Ergo, this consistent nature of what perceptually amounts to bragging about the human brain size is egotistical.
The discovery of antibiotics was an accident. They were never hypothesized, theorized, nor even imagined. A stumbled upon means of addressing issues that could not be solved in any other way. The great “intelligent” advances of science are accidents. Things created to do one thing, but found to aid an entirely different thing.
The one thing that truly separates humans from all other life is perception. We perceive our “superiority”, “rationality”, and “ greater intelligence”. We construct, organize, harvest, and reproduce just like all other forms of life just in a physically larger way.
As an aside, antibiotics are no match for cells ability to replicate.
https://alleninstitute.org/media/filer_public/29/93/299346f6-190a-4e24-a8ab-fa1cf0abc249/2016_01_doesbrainsizematter.pdf
And how do you account for our greater "perception"?
I suspect that you meant "conception". Human perception is widely acknowledged to be inferior to that of most animals. But, our ability to conceive ideas and to make detailed plans, seems to be our primary advantage over even those animals with larger brains and sharper senses. Sometimes size matters. But complexity and coordination make the difference that makes the qualitative difference between human nature and animal nature. :smile:
Perception : the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.
Conception : the forming or devising of a plan or idea.
the Most Complex Object in the Universe : The human brain contains some 100 billion neurons, which together form a network of Internet-like complexity. Christof Koch, chief scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, calls the brain "the most complex object in the known universe," and he's mapping its connections in hopes of discovering the origins of consciousness.
I.... am not so sure about that. A finch or a warbler or a gold fish could think the same of its own kind, and declare that humans behave colorfully, dangerously, but above all inconsequentially. They don't understand our actions, therefore they declare them as stupid. In that aspect fish are remerkably like people.
I am not stating this as a fact, because I am not a fish or porcupine; but this opinion is just as valid as yours. This is a case when both opinions are equally valid, despite being mutually exclusive. "The cat in the box is both dead and alive."-- until you get empirical evidence to prove it either way.
Perception is also a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression. Conception wouldn’t make sense in reference to believing oneself superior or rational. I’m not saying we hatch plans on how to be superior or rational.
How do I account for humans “greater” perception? You do get that referring to our perceptions as “greater” is literally just perception, right? We are literally incapable of perceiving anything beyond what exists within our own framework of understanding. No two people perceive in the exact same way. As such, it’s impossible to determine any measure of greatness between the perceptions of any other person or other type of life.
Also, a human being saying that the human brain is the most complex thing in the universe is precisely how “biased” is defined. Perception declares it complex. But there is also perceptions that say it’s not.
Definitely when people speak of the human brain as the most 'complex thing in the universe' they are committing the great sin of anthropomorphic superiority. It is all from our limited human understanding of the whole complexity of the universe and beyond.
That would be more knowledge of what? Holy books are so simple. Until the 20 century the only education most people had was from the holy book and that is still true of some people. Our specialization has made it possible for us have good lives relying on the expertise on others, and totally ignoring most of the available information.
The people in the US think they have a democracy but what do they know of democracy? Who can list ten principles of democracy? How can we defend something we know so little about? We may discover our worst enemy is ourselves. At this moment in time, it is as important to know the history of Germany as the history of the US, if you are a US citizen because the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy that shits power to the state, and the German model of education that prepares the young to live under the Germany model of bureaucracy and what makes this really bad is they have no awareness of this.
I am arguing like this because my own family does not share truths and this is extremely upsetting. My own family operates on beliefs that they get off of Facebook and they are so sure of themselves, no one will ever look for facts. They were not educated to think! Education for technology is for people with good memories, not thinking people, and it has nothing to do with transmitting a culture for democracy, unless you happen to be a good school district.
We could say our nature depends on how we are educated. Human beings are very pliable and can be saints or sinners depending on their childhood. Doctors or soldiers, depending on their childhood.
Beautifully worded. :clap:
I have a huge preference for dumping the Bible and using science to understand our nature and I am delighted that you seem to be working with the more scientific understanding of our nature. I think everything in our lives around the world would be improved with a scientific understanding of our nature.
I want to add to what you said, black birds also learn which humans are their friends and which humans should be avoided and they pass this information to each other, so our ability to do has nothing to do with our cognitive powers. HOWEVER, we can do something the rest of the animals can not do. We can see that German uniform or an allied uniform and we can spontaneously put down our weapons and share Christmas eve with our enemy, and return to war the next day. We have more choice over our actions and we can change what we think.
The degree to which we have self determination and self control, depends on how we are raised and educated. Our culture and our time in history shapes who we are, and unlike the animals we can become aware of this and we can change what we think and how we behave.
Essential is understanding, if we are raised to be conservative, concrete thinkers, we will be narrow minded and quick to defend what we believe. If we are raised not to be reactionary, but to think things through, and to think abstractly rather than concretely, we will be broadminded and not so sure of what we think we know. For this reason, the US is locked in culture wars and may destroy its democracy.
I do agree with your point that education, especially one that involves education is extremely important for the development of the potential human nature. This is because, as you say, 'Human beings are very pliable depending on their childhood.' This keys into the nurture aspect and I am sure that people are far better equipped to bring forth the positive side of potential if they receive the best education possible.
However, even then, I do think that individuals vary so much and there is a 'herd instinct,' which Nietzsche described. You say that people can become, 'Doctors or soldiers, depending on their childhood,' Of course, the doctors and the soldiers have their blindspots too.
Some people use "perception" and "conception" interchangeably. But dictionaries make a key distinction : "Conception" is a mental interpretation of raw sensory "Perception". You seem to be using Perception to mean Prejudice or Bias or Misunderstanding. But that usage is itself biased toward Misconception.
In my linked quote about the complexity of the brain, the "human" is an expert in his field. Are you accusing him of being biased toward human superiority? On what basis, other than that it disagrees with your "Perception" of human inferiority or mediocrity? :cool:
Key Difference – Conception vs Perception : Perception is the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses and conception is the ability to form something in the mind and to develop an understanding. This is the key difference between conception and perception.
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-conception-and-vs-perception/
That is a wise conclusion. :grin:
Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued among themselves just as humans do. Each god and goddess is a concept. For example when Athens was being torn apart with dissention, Apollo, the god of reason came into being and the war with Persia transformed Athena from an earth goddess who makes crops grow, to a goddess who teaches men how to rule themselves because Athens became a democracy so everyone would fight the Persians and for Athens.
This speaks of the evolution of the development of human consciousness. The problem with having many gods is you get more and more gods as people become aware of new concepts. In Egypt this got totally out of control and Amenhotep's grandfather ordered a research of the achieves to find the true god. But back to Athens and democracy, it is growing consciousness as each concept, each point of view interacts with another.
The point is the doctor and the soldier will have their blind spots and their different experiences and different points of view, and when they argue from these different points of view, new concepts can be realized and civilization progresses. Democracy is our shared consciousness. In contrast, Trump is attempting to establish a dictatorship where only those who say and do as he wants, hold the seats the power. There is a serious difference and it is disturbing that so many follow Trump.
My thoughts appears to be wondering off the topic of human nature, so to pull it back on topic, my father, a very knowledgeable man who helped send Apollo to the moon, said we naturally avoid thinking when we can, and this seems more true of some than others. Thinking or not thinking goes with responsibility. Following a strong leader can mean avoiding the thinking and responsibility that a democracy demands. The Greeks would say, the god's chose the heroes, but only a small fraction of men agree to go on the journey of hero. Most are content to being like cattle, well cared for but with no responsibility. So what is our nature?
A bit of a Strawman, but hey, I can get tired of telling people what is wrong with their arguments.
If you page back, the remark of the cat being dead and alive was made to point out that we only KNOW when we observe. You are saying the same thing, and in a way, you declare victory.
My post was about how it is not NECESSARILY true that our species is the only one that considers itself the best of the best of the best. I gave reasons and arguments. You completely ignored those, and concentrated on the cat in the box analogy, because you've had for a long time a prepared opinion on that, and you did not mind voicing it.
Whereas my post was NOT about the cat in the box... that analogy only aided my argument, and in the same vain you so carefully explained to me in your reply.
Newsflash, you can’t toss in a concept into your argument that runs counter to that very argument and then be surprised when someone focuses on the incongruency. The cat in the box analogy has one specific use. Using for it for other means without specifically pointing out those means is precisely how mis-communication occurs. Next time, be more clear in your commentary.
As an aside, if people could stop not only mimicking the term “straw man” but also stop misusing it that would be great.
First off, arguing the definition of words is a pointless endeavor as perception oft skews them. My use of perception aligns with the Webster’s definition. You can try calling it something else all you like. It doesn't change what it is, nor the fact you know what I’m referencing in my use of it as you’ve demonstrated. Call it conception if you want. All I care is that you understand the meaning of what I’m referencing.
Secondly, the term “expert” is perceptual in nature. There are no degrees or certifications that provide any individual with a title of “expert”. It’s just a term given to people perceived to be well knowledged or who happen to specialize within a given area. I’m not arguing the definition of the word, just that it’s not something obtainable beyond perception. As the topic at hand is perception it’s only logical to point this out. Am I accusing a human being of being biased towards human “superiority”? Yes! Absolutely. 100%. You can disagree with this all you want, however the very nature of terms like “complexity” and “superiority” are entirely perceptual. As a different word they are “opinion” based.
FACT or OPINION?
Vanilla ice-cream is superior to strawberry ice-cream?
Whistling is very complex?
I assume that the "meaning" of your comments was to go on record that, as a layman, you doubt the opinion of of an "expert" on a topic that he studies professionally. That's OK, you're entitled to your opinion. But I happen to agree with his opinion. Regarding which "perception" is skewed or biased, I have my opinion on that too. 'Nuff said! :joke:
"The greatest deception men suffer is their own opinions." —Leonardo da Vinci
"Your Right to an Opinion Does Not Make Your Opinion Valid"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/naked-truth/201706/your-right-opinion-does-not-make-your-opinion-valid
Quoting JackBRotten
Defining terms is what distinguishes philosophical dialog from a squabbling argument. :smile:
“The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” ___Socrates?
Thinking and finding a journey outside the common pathways is perilous and can be lonely. It can also be hard work.Perhaps the people who choose to think and question are those who do not fit in or who become dissatisfied with the status quo.
It is as if many people do not choose to climb to the top of Maslow's top of the pyramid of the hierarchy of needs, to strive towards the need for self actualization. In fact, I found that in my nurse training Maslow's model, is often just used as a model for the basic care needs, with no mention of self actualization at all. This is different from Maslow's original picture because in 'Towards a Psychology of Being'.
He emphasizes the role of peak experiences as being a possibility, but as one which occurs once the lower needs are satisfied primarily. But I do not think it has to be straightforward. For example, a person may follow artistic needs as a response to lack of love. But of course his model does make sense in the respect that if one was homeless or hungry, such factors would make creative work, not impossible, but difficult.
But in response to your question about our human nature, we could say that part of our nature is about the basic physical and social needs. It may be suffering in the truest existential sense that may cause people to wake up, so I wonder if the antinatalists think about it. Suffering was the starting point for Buddha, and both Guirjieff, and Colin Wilson inspired by Guirjieff, spoke of how people get to the point of' choosing to 'wake up' from robot consciousness. But part of our nature is to stay as robots.
I have no real concept of "human values", at least as I have come to believe society suggests they are, and therefore find that "human nature" is an obscure topic.
My observed experience of human nature is that people will generally be kind and considerate until it is no longer convenient. At that point they will justify their actions with any number of rationalizations. Man is inordinately attached to his meat suit and momentary convenience, far more so than his ethics or morality. The former will lapse far earlier than the latter, under most circumstances, with most people.
In essence, human nature is that which the person is inclined to do without external motivations. What would you do when no one is watching? I believe one can change ones nature by expanding one's perspectives to be far more inclusive and considerate of other perspectives and values. This can be accomplished with a great deal of reading, contemplation and time. Lastly, one must be in a place where any change will not be opposed. (basic change theory)
:grimace: That depends on the leader. Following some leaders can be very destructive. Some of us think bad leadership in the US has lead to many avoidable deaths and extended an economic problem far beyond what would have followed better leadership. No doubt some think a god gives us our leaders and that we only need to obey. I am not one of those people.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Athena is the goddess who taught men to rule themselves. Logos is the highest authority and we should seek to understand it and be careful about following others. When we have a sense of being one with the universe, loneliness is not a problem. And hard work leads to great satisfaction.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I think you write of a state of maturity. For many of us, we do not have a good sense of self until 50 years of age or older. When we are young we can be painfully concerned about what others think of us and our position in society. Now that is natural! As social animals we need each other and our position in the group really matters! But as we age our brains literally transform. Hopefully, we have used them and encouraged the growth of neurons. Of course if we have not, neurons atrophy and the amazing thing that happens when we get older is not so amazing. As the neurons grow they reach each other and instead of accumulating facts as we do when we are young, we begin realizing the meaning of those facts in away not possible before because now more neurons are activated so the thought is bigger and deeper. But as I said, this is dependent on how we use our brains through out our life time. People who get through life referring the same Bible verses again and again and by choice remain narrow minded, will not experience amazing brain activity when they are older.
I don't think Maslow had this understanding of neuron growth and how it changes our thinking when we age. Until recently, we didn't know our neurons keep growing and make new connections. In observing people he could gain knowledge but it was incomplete. It is observed, our thinking slows down and we will not learn how to use new technology as easily as youth does. But imagine having 10 neurons activated instead of 1 or 2 and then figuring out which brain message is the most important at the moment. From experience, I would say the complexity of our thinking in our later years, contributes to difficulty in learning new things and slower thinking. We have to forget the old to learn the new. I can hear my great granddaughter saying, "no, not that way grandma, this way". But she does not realize the importance of her decisions and why she needs to follow what the adults say. Fortunately, she is cooperative and receives more from her teachers than many children. Unlike many children in ghetto schools who do not trust anyone and are dealing with stresses and emotional problems that hinder their growth.
Quoting Book273
:smile: I think you have explained the experience of no longer caring what others think of us. When we are young, life is what is outside of ourselves. As we age we accumulate life, and one day, we are looking inside to know what we want to know, not outside. For very sure we change as our perspective changes!
I am not so sure of your last statement. :worry: I think today we are technologically smart but have lost our wisdom. While Trump is a smart mouth, Biden is not so sure, but will think about it, that is wisdom.
I think the answer to that is we'll do what's most convenient.
So are you suggest that when no one is looking 'we do what is most convenient.' I am interested in what you are saying because there are discrepancies between the public and private self, although I think there will be variations, as I prefer to avoid generalisations.
But if it is true that when no one is looking we just do what is convenient what does that say about our innermost, private relationship with ourselves?
Isn't this the core of Sartre's concept of bad faith?
This has always been the cornerstone of my beliefs.
I think it is the gist of his philosophy. I have read La Nausea. I plan to read Being and Nothingness at some stage, but have not managed it yet.
One quote I love is,
'People who live in society have learned to see themselves in mirrors as they appear to friends. Is that why my flesh is naked?
You might say- yes you might say, nature without humanity...Things are very bad: I have it, the filth, the Nausea.'
I believe "reciprocity" is the pivotal concept. I think, in the mode of bad faith, whatever limitations you place upon your generosity to "the Other," that is a limitation that you place upon yourself.
Funny thing, I was goaded into taking on Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason last year by way of a fairly heated debate on this forum. And if I hadn't been so "motivated" I wonder if I could have even finished it.
When you posed the question, I immediately thought of the stoplight scenario where you're in an intersection with a red light. Nobody's around, no cameras, empty street, do you go or wait?
Another scenario would be where you maybe find yourself hungry and penniless and you come across a bakery with bread but no people. Do you get a loaf for yourself or do you wait for the owner to beg for food?
Or say you're at home in quarantine, do you try to learn new skills like a new language, take up an art, find work you can do at home or do you simply relax and wait for quarantine to end or your savings to get used up?
So, you were really supposing a better side of human nature than the one conjured up by your words. My imagination comes up with far different ones: the people who drink alcohol and take drugs secretly, work hard when the boss is watching but slack off when unsupervised and those who have secret sexual affairs, and endless other possibilities. Perhaps I have a grim picture.
But I have seen so many aspects of the darker side of human nature....
Well, I'm sure those things occur as well but the fact that most consider those as "deviant" behaviors tells me that it's not the norm or default.
And as I've said, those things you mentioned like doing drugs, getting drunk, having affairs, etc... require considerable effort in procurement, implementation as well as post-binge recovery - not to mention the high risk of getting caught as well as the penalties involved.
And so, people that tend towards these things, in my opinion, have possible issues (such as possible abuse, environmental pressures, neglect etc...) that are causing them to behave negatively. These are not normal circumstances.
Perhaps I come from a different world to you because I have most certainly seen the darker side of 'normal'. And I really don't whether your view is the more common experience and whether or not mine is the deviant one?
Yes, I am still thinking about your response and how it compares to my experience. It probably depends on where one lives in the world and also the social groups one mixes in.
Living and working in London, I have not lived a particularly sheltered life and it will be interesting if others on the forum read this, because our social contexts affect our lens of perception.
So, the latest question to add to the human nature debate is whether readers of the forum have been witness to the darker side of human nature.
In some respects I agree with you but I have seen the subcultural aspects of life. I have spent time in Camden, mixed with the downtrodden and walked around London in the middle of the night, so perhaps I have seen too much...
I'm from the Philippines. One of the poorest countries in the world and where those types of behavior definitely occur but are still not the norm considering the population of 100 million.
For example, estimates of drug users are in the 4-5 million range.
There's also a healthy sex trade and a lot of alcoholics.
However, those are things that some of the poor are getting into because of their environment but it's hardly sustainable because of the costs involved. It's not something regular people want to get into just for the heck of it. Nobody wants to be a sex slave or to have to sell their kids.
The addicts I know got into it because they somehow got into the wrong crowd in school. And these crowds are typically led by kids with familial issues.
Quoting Pinprick
I’ve only scanned the rest of this OP so my post may gave already been addressed, but I feel that the part of us that our environment does not affect is reason, and that is the core of human nature. Which suggests to me that there is a human nature.
Quoting JackBRotten
Reason responds in a fluid way. It’s fixed as a core attribute but it’s responses are fluid.
In fact our nature is exactly the same now as it was earlier.
I agree with this.
At our core, we need 4 basic things: eat, sleep, sex, drink. Everything we do revolves around delivering those 4 basic things at a particular combination specific to each individual.
So that will never change. What changes are the methods and strategies to attain the sufficient combination.
For example, 3 squares a day, 8 hours of sleep - are both recent inventions. Back then, people ate one large meal and maybe had a snack. And it was also common to break up sleeping periods into 2 distinct times. Some cultures have a "siesta" or nap period during the day, for example.
Quoting 8livesleft
Yes, they are of a animal nature, common across the planet. Most of it is probably achieved by instinct, or association among other things. It’s repetitive and necessarily controlled by environment. This is not human nature. Human nature may be regarded as destructive because it has learned how to use nature and control nature to the degree it suits our purposes. But nevertheless right or wrong it’s clearly how things work. Reason serves man’s interests only.
I think a lot of our needs require some sort of destructive elements. Eating for instance, terraforming our environment.,
But that's not specific to just humans. From bacteria to large animals, you see similar types of destructive behavior.
I read your posts and I know that you come from the Phillipines, which I am sure is very different from England. I have known work colleagues from the Phillipines.
Regarding poverty, it is true that on the whole the Phillipines is a poorer country. The main difference is that England is a very consumer orientated society, although I think that is beginning to break down.
In one of your posts you suggest that there are 4 basic needs: 'eat, sleep,sex and drink'. I find this a rather simplistic picture of human nature. I am not saying that this is not the case at all though, as I see that many appear to be driven by these goals, even in England.
It may come down to basic sets of values and aspirations. Of the those raised in poverty may in some cases be told that these are the important aspirations. But you leave out the whole aspect of relationships with others which I would think is treated as more important than material goals, particularly in some more poverty stricken societies. Perhaps?
Reading through your comments made earlier today it seems that you are concerned about the destructive potential of human nature.
There are many aspects of the whole debate on human nature captured in the many comments made already but what I would say to you is that I have found the psychological perspectives of Freud and Jung useful for considering human destruction potential.
Freud speaks of an inherent conflict between the life and death instincts. Jung points to the idea of repressed aspects of the personality, which can give rise to destruction potential, which he calls the shadow. But I won't say anymore here because I created one thread on Freud and one on the shadow a few weeks ago. If you are interested you would find these by scrolling back a few weeks ago.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I’m not sure how you got that impression, in fact I’ve received a considerable amount of flak on this forum for being positive about human nature.
As I said,
Quoting Brett
There’s no doubt many people today view human nature as destructive. In fact I find that position destructive. I have a lot of faith in human nature, it’s extremely adaptive and curious, and as I’ve said, we’re ethical creatures. Wrongs are eventually righted.
I was a little confused about the full basis of your argument . Can you explain in what way you believe that destructive elements of human nature will be righted. Is it in an evolutionary perspective?
Because we are ethical creatures. That may sound ridiculously simplistic, but what else can I say? Except, of course, that the morals based on those ethics can be bent according to culture. Which is the position I’ve stated in other posts.
I am afraid that I do not understand the logic of what you are saying. The only posts I have seen by you were in the thread on Kant's moral view, so it would be helpful if you could say briefly but a bit more clearly your point of view. I do not see how 'morals can be bent according to culture'. Surely, it is about circumstances, and you have not stated your basis for believing that we are 'ethical creatures.'
Quoting Jack Cummins
That we are ethical creatures:
“Darwin’s two most significant points concerning the evolution of morality are stated early in chapter III of The Descent of Man. The two points are (i) that moral behavior is a necessary attribute of advanced intelligence as it occurs in humans, and thus that moral behavior is biologically determined; and (ii) that the norms of morality are not biologically determined but are rather a result of human collective experience, or human culture as we would now call it ...
... I propose that the moral evaluation of actions emerges from human rationality or, in Darwin’s terms, from our highly developed intellectual powers. Our high intelligence allows us to anticipate the consequences of our actions with respect to other people and, thus, to judge them as good or evil in terms of their consequences for others. But I will argue that the norms according to which we decide which actions are good and which actions are evil are largely culturally determined, although conditioned by biological predispositions, such as parental care to give an obvious example.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/
Ethics is the question of what should one do in a situation where there is a choice to be made, where we must “anticipate the consequences of our actions with respect to other people”.
How we answer that question is the moral action. Our environment, our culture, will have an impact on that decision. It’s only within a culture that the moral decision is consistent: the Catholic Church, or Marxism, as an example. All people are creatures of reason, that is consistent, and it requires them to consider which is the best course of action, to;
“ think in the abstract and form images of realities that are not present (and, thus, anticipate future events and planning future actions),” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/
Edit: I include these quotes not in an effort to bolster my thoughts with an expert opinion but because it explains clearly what I mean without spelling it out myself.
Yes those are indeed very basic but the process and resources required to achieve the right balance is extremely complicated and specific for each individual.
It's also heavily affected by the environment. So it requires constant readjustment.
That's a great point. Impoverished communities are heavily reliant on each other to provide the basics and so relationships are definitely important.
That's why sharing is such a vital part of our culture. Anytime you pass by somebody eating, they'll typically offer what they have no matter how little it is. Of course, the polite response is to simply decline but if you did decide to join them, they would happily share.
What you describe about community in your society is a sharp contrast to the one I am familiar with in England where there is a whole culture of materialistic individualism. Of course there are exceptions and bonds between friends but, generally, the principle of sharing is not applied. Life is tough and fierce for many, with a whole emphasis on performance and outward goals, targets and markers of success.
I guess that's possibly because your country already provides the basics (but maybe not 100%? I'm not sure) that it allows the citizens to focus on other things that may not seem to be related to the needs I mentioned.
Unfortunately, the country I live in is failing to provide the basics for many. Perhaps, in the past the majority were in relative comfort but not now, as there are many people who are queuing at food banks. The Covid_19 situation has been a major factor but it was beginning already.
Life as we know it is turning upside down but it may involve relearning the basics and essence of human nature, for worse, or preferably, for better.
Yes, this pandemic has put most countries in a bad situation. This is where community really comes in to ideally cover for whatever the government can't provide.
So, that's also something that could explain why they say that our impoverished seem to be so resilient.
And I also feel that that's why some individuals in developed or modern societies seem prone to deviant behavior - their isolation and detachment.
As individuals, it's easy to justify one's behavior but once we're part of a community - which works by consensus, we find that we need to calibrate our moral compass to more closely coincide with that of the community's.
Quoting Jack Cummins
So we’re back to the beginning; is there such a thing as human nature and what is it?
I think that part of the problem is that people do not really live in actual communities in all parts of the world, especially England. It also depends how people define communities. Is it the people in one's immediate locality, family groups, religious communities, education or work communities.
I would say locally is not necessarily a part of community. One does not know one's neighbours. For example, I moved into a shared house of 7 people about 2 months ago and still only know 3 of the other tenants by name. Mind you, this is related to the fact that I am the only person in the house who is from England and 4 of the people can barely speak any English at all.
What I would say is that it is possible to not belong to any community at all. Most people have some connections with others but it is variable.
But in some cities people are increasingly becoming numbers and isolated.
Yes, it's a sad reality that modern society is moving towards isolation. Is it because people are too busy? Or are they wary of potential problems with opening themselves up to others?
In the US, there's this custom (?) where children are expected to leave the household by the time they turn 18.
I'm not sure if it's the same way for the UK, but that's unheard of here, where one household can have 3 generations of relatives and/or multiple families. Interestingly, affluence doesn't change things. All that happens is the houses get bigger haha
Without going back to the beginning of the question of human nature, because it has been the whole thread discussion, I would say that the whole way we live is part of way of defining human beings. There are underlying issues, especially the nature and nurture one. However, the possible adaptations we make in the face of our circumstances and possible freedoms are also one way of seeing human nature. In other words, the issue is not just about looking at the past, but about us our nature in present existentialist terms and future potential.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Taking into account your comments on community and family, and posts from others about psychotic CEO’s or environmental destruction or politics or poverty, do you think that necessarily defines us and therefore our nature?
I think that the main reason why so many people are starting to become isolated is that there are so many people in certain areas, that is easy for certain individuals to get ignored. A lot of people hold on to their established networks. It is not necessarily the case that they are too busy but perhaps do not need to reach out to increase their social support circles.
Of course for those who do wish to open up to others there are risks and questions of who to trust. Also, as we are beginning to communicate more on our digital devices we are beginning to interact less in the physical world. In that sense, we can be in danger of isolating ourselves.
In the UK, the age people move out of the family home varies a lot. Many are choosing to remain at home longer because of the difficulty of finding affordable accommodation. But this can be awkward if the houses are not big. As the population gets bigger living conditions are starting to get more overcrowded, to the point where it affects quality of life in a detrimental way.
I do not believe in any one simplistic definition of human nature but incorporated ideas from psychoanalysis and other psychological traditions and see the whole question as being a multidisciplinary exploration. I do appreciate the ideas of Charles Darwin, as mentioned by yourself.
But the point I was making in my last point to you is that we have been viewing human nature based on past history, but this history is still not over an
we can say that a final analysis involves the fate we make by our choices, especially in this age of technological sophistication. And, here, I will offer a quotation for reflecting upon,
'Self-made gods with only the laws of physics to keep us company, we are accountable to no one.
We are consequently wreaking havoc on our fellow animals and on the surrounding ecosystem, seeking little more than our comfort and amusement, yet never finding satisfaction.
Is there anything more dangerous and irresponsible gods who don't know what they want?'
Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens:A Brief History of Mankind (2011)
I decided to go back to to read your first post.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I don’t know whether that was ever possible. Maybe it was when we were still learning about ourselves and our understanding was very basic. What I’m not sure of is whether it was a limited understanding of our “nature” or that our “nature” was actually that simple then and that very quickly we’ve become very complex. I suspect the latter. So complex in fact that the idea of a human nature is redundant.
We are obviously very adaptable creatures, we can make decisions about the best way to go forward, how to change the environment to suit our purposes, how to produce food according to our needs and not the dictates of environment, how to preserve life and so on; all material gains. But we can obviously be adaptable in how we think about thing and how we respond. Because of that we can sometimes go careering down the wrong path, sometimes we agree to follow someone down that path, we can convince ourselves of the truth of it. Fortunately we can also override that thinking and correct the direction we’re going in.
One of reasons for my posts is the interest I have in where we’re going and what it will be like. I try to do that by looking at who we are, which means I have to try and find out what brought us here, what is “human nature” and how that affects our decisions. Which is what I as looking at in my Kant OP. Are we moving away from our decision making on a moral basis towards a more ideological position?
If there is no such thing as ”human nature” then we are free to do whatever we want, but without any sense of morality. So we toss aside the idea that we are ethical creatures and now go with ideology, which is culture to me, but not a natural, organic culture that evolved over time. Instead it’s culture rapidly constructed along ideological claims and reinforced by the media and political response, and as I’ve said, there are cultures within cultures within cultures.
So I don’t think human nature is a fundamental part of philosophy. But something has replaced it which is the idea of who we can be, who we should be and what purpose we serve, and each culture has its own idea of that. If I’m correct then where does that take us?
I am concerned about the history of humanity and where we are going. I agree that ideologies are a problem in the sense that they are ideas involving political agendas, reinforced by the mass media. You say that you don't think that, "human nature is a fundamental part of philosophy' and I do think that philosophy is beginning to abandon some of the basic questions about human living.
Personally, in my own studies and personal life I have been interested in ethics, including Kant originally, which was why I replied to your thread on the categorical imperative. However, I do believe that ethics based on intention rather than consequences is limited.
I have read one book which has influenced my thinking in particular, called, Depth Psychology and a New Ethic, by Erich Neumann. The copy I have was published in 1990, and I believe the original edition was 1949, but it is an accepted classic discussion about ethics, influenced by the ideas of Carl Jung.
In the foreword to this book, James Yandell offers a definition of human nature which includes, 'in potential form, capacities for such virtues as loving generosity, compassion, altruism, courage, patience and wisdom. It also includes potentials for other qualities, like callous selfishness, greed, envy, backwardness, cruelty, pettiness, destructive violence, and wilful unconsciousness.'
Neumann argues that the problem with traditional ethics is that there was an emphasis on perfection and this could not be achieved, meaning that people failed. Rather than people being given or trying to achieve a certain set of ideals the better option is for people individually to gain wholeness.
He argues that,'The mortal peril which confronts modern man is that he may be collectivised by the pressure of the forces of the unconscious,' and that, 'growth through wholeness necessarily involves a creative relationship between the dark instincts of man's nature and the light side represented by the consciousness mind.' So, the whole emphasis is about greater self awareness of their 'good' and 'bad' tendencies rather than be driven by them on an unconscious level.
The whole perspective of Neumann is so different from Kant in the sense that it is about understanding of our basic nature, rather than the importance of 'duty' as part of the moral life. But, the level of the quest is about self knowledge and Neumann stresses that it has, 'nothing in common with any megalomaniac condition of being "beyond good and evil"'.
I do not know if the ideas of Neumann which I have tried to give in summary will offer any useful way for considering the whole issue of human nature and the future of humanity and hope that you do not see the perspective itself as a dangerous ideology. I certainly believe that the best hope for us is increased self knowledge and this will determine our actions individually but in doing so, this can have an influence on the collective level too.
Of course, what I have been saying is that we need to understand our own nature on an individual level. This is a psychological journey and we are all unique and it is a picture which does involve a view of the person, involving unconscious as well as a conscious ego. So, it is open to philosophical debate.