Discussions
What defines Human Nature?
Posted by iratedog • 8/28/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Human, Nature
Hello all.
I wanted to ask, what do you think is the best way to describe Human Nature?
To see my thoughts on this go here:
theiratedog.blogspot.com/2009/08/human-nature-part-1.html
and here:
theiratedog.blogspot.com/2009/08/human-nature-part-2.html
Please comment both on the blog and here.
User Comments
-
Oh wow, there are probably as many ways to define human nature as there are humans! But if we're talking about the popular brands of ethics as taught in college, I'd personally be a card-carrier the "philosophy of naturalism" camp. Like you said in your post, all categories are paradoxical, a great early point to make preceding any generalizations.
I think your best line is: "We are selfish and giving, altruistic and arrogant. We are most definitely unequal, yet fundamentally equal."
So true. We can also display completely different portions of our collective "natures" inside a cultural civilization and/or in the wilderness. Interaction, environment and group-think can all result in different outcomes...
Great, insightful posts!
-
I'm glad you liked it.
I think the main point is as you say, there are as many definitions of Human Nature as there are humans, but that in itself is the definition of human nature. It's a confusing concept, at least for me.
-
-
Great essay! This is really a hard one. (Taking a deep breath)You can define it in a lot of ways and many sciences and studies will come up with different interpretation. Human nature for me is the human interaction to a given enviroment. It's how the human characteristics are shaped and they are shaped by our experiences and as well by the society.
Thanks for sharing. Love the website too! -
Strictly speaking, I don't think there is a human nature, in the sense of some universal set of innate characteristics or tendencies. What I think does exist is the ability to act. We create ourselves through our actions; our actions make us who we are. -
I love essays! This is a fine one. Kudos. Human nature? i think the real human nature manifests itself when we aren't defining or looking. When I come here to BC and observe the discussions, i see human nature at play. i think deep down inside we are just the same longing for meaning in the chaos we call life. Thinking of the inevitable, and mourning that there's too little time.-
["i think deep down inside we are just the same longing for meaning in the chaos we call life."] Perhaps that longing could have been the source of religion/faith/belief in a higher power?
-
-
I also like the line 'We are selfish and giving, altruistic and arrogant'.
I think what makes a nature human is the abillity to become aware of itself. To become aware of the inner dualism of being selfish and altruistic. And accept that.
As negative as being selfish is conscidered by societies, I think it is a really very important phase and is needed to be able to become altruistic in a later phase without loosing itself.-
Of course it is. Being selfish is the basis of survival in terms of evolution and the animal world.
-
It also depends upon what you mean by "selfishness," which itself is a very vague word. If you mean the selfishness of a US Marine, who, by way of his own dignity, character, inegrity and inward-looking sense of honor cannot sink to the point of living without principles, breaking a sacred trust, dishonoring his own word or walking purposelessly, then I'd say that is a very beautiful thing. If you mean "selifshness" as in "sleaziness" or being concerned with me or mine or arrogantly asserting that you're "worth something," then that's different. -
@iratedog: I agree that being selfish is the basis of survival. And I think it is our first nature so to speak.
But what makes us human, so apart from this survival nature, is that we might develop the desire to do things for the sake of a bigger whole than just ourselves.
Which can give an inner conflict (especially if the self is not yet strong enough) and I think that conflict is what makes us human.
@jeremyjanson: Well, I don't mean it on a larger scale that the individual human being. But of course it also goes for communities, groups, countries and so on, when there is the conflict between I (or my group) and you (everyone else).
But in fact that is also some sort of inherent survival nature, although it can become very complicated with all kind of rules and restrictions that are not exactly 'natural' anymore.
But maybe the good thing of that is that it forces people to go and think for themselves. Which then finally leads to the inner conflict of how selfish to be.
And sleeziness is the other end of the scale, where there is also no conflict anymore, (you just only think of yourself) as there was also no conflict if you just follow the rules of your own tribe or so.
So it is this conflict what makes us human I guess. -
"But what makes us human, so apart from this survival nature, is that we might develop the desire to do things for the sake of a bigger whole than just ourselves."
- Social insects, like ants and bees, also sacrifice themselves for a bigger whole. -
@urikalish: I think that is the part of nature indeed that is not specific human.
But those insects do not have the inner conflict (well, not that I know of course) of desire to think for themselves. And the nature of human does include that possibility, but it might go against the 'rules' of society.
Although I personally think it does not go against humanity as a whole, as I think that needs 'selfish' (to some point) individuals. -
@Anthe: But what about the other point, that self can also include principles, honor, and a purpose-driven life which, in a way, are also a form of selfishness even though they're not one that our society actively criticizes.
-
@Jeremyjanson: It is probably not criticized if it serves that society. But if an individual is acting upon a more ‘universal purpose’, it might very well go against the ‘rules’ of that same society.
And I think there is nothing wrong with principles, honor and purpose in the setting of a certain society. It is what makes a society strong and developing.
But each individual might come to a point of an inner conflict, in this case it might be ‘my society against other societies’ or something like that.
-
-
Having both complete (or near complete) free will and severe limitations on what we can see and understand, and the fundamental human passions: sexual and monetary desire, the desire for a group, the drive towards an identity, sympathy and empathy, pride and the yearning for power...
@iratedog: Not true. A selfish member of a stone age tribe will gather little sympathy for when he falls on hard times and may be cast out of the society. He also will be unable to gather assistance for any kind of fight that arises or create a good reputation to prevent fighting to begin with. Also, if you have to do everything "your way" the whole group, including you, will die. It is conformism and collectivism that are the basis of survival in terms of evolution and the animal world for social animals, hence the fact that everything in the old testament is punished by stoning. Indiviudalism arose with the rise of a stronger, central state and tools like automatic weapons that gave the individual a better chance of surviving on his own, and also wrecked collectivism by, for the first time, making it possible to control nearly every aspect of an individuals life.
You especially see this in the bible, where at first any act of "treason" against the established religion and what not of the Isrealites is punished by stoning to death, because it has to be since you have threatened the survival of the whole clan, but by the time of Christ (and in increments along the way) these things are forgiven and it becomes more about the individual as an individual. -
Lazy, selfish, boring, stupid, angry people... -
Greed...(the truth)
isn't it evident -
The need to know and the need for connections. -
what defines human nature?
the words "evolved idiocy". -
The only Turing Machine who thinks he is not a Turing Machine -
This is good guys, but I just want to nudge the conversation in a slightly different direction with the question:
Which philosophy/ideology do you think gets closest to what human nature is?-
(edit: hmm...i thought ideology said theology, sorry about that, but i reckon i'd have the same answers anyway)
buddhism and quite possibly simple western atheism.
Buddhism teaches that we are what we make ourselves to be, which is something only humans seem capable of (we can do whatever job/life path/yada yada we wish). It gives us an ideal, what a truly good human should be, and how one can attain that truly good ideal.
Western atheism (the non-belief in religion/god[s]/spirituality) defines us as we really are, human. It does not oppose or stand against our fundamental nature. It does not teach us to hate ourselves for being human, but instead, offers acceptance, because what we are, really is human. Atheism does not tack on a soul, magic, or other special preference to the human. It tells us we are part of reality, we are individual yet many, but most of all, we are not that different from other species. It levels us down to earth to keep us in perspective; it does not tell us we are better or worse than creatures around us. It does not try to make us out to be magical beings like christianity and paganism do.
-
-
I don't think that I've ever seen a dog lead such an intense conversation.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
