Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Human nature ??
#1
I have been battling with this question and had many discussions with several people about human nature.
Specifically if are we greed and bad by nature, or compassioned and with a natural pro-pension to help one another.
I noticed that most people will automatically say we are greedy and bad without even putting to much tough in it, I'm completely the opposite and fill strongly about it.
I believe we have a natural predisposition to help and grow has a group so greed wouldn't be a good survival tool.
It particular gets on my nerves when someone says that Human race is shit and should not exist, don't this people realize they themselves are humans ? Why do they even bother to live ? ( some of this are understandably depressed, no wonder.)
I would like to have your opinions on this guys.
Thank you.
Reply
#2
The 'essence' of Dasein lies in its existence.
Reply
#3
I've always worked with the assumption that human nature isn't really defined in good or bad and human nature arguably doesn't even exist at all, almost every human behavior is entirely circumstantial and seen through the current human social lenses.  Mutual aid is the byproduct in my view to this sort of natural ambiguity humans function by, not only does it benefit those around us but it serves to fuel those "selfish" desires we have (many of which are man made but that's an entirely different topic.)  By that I mean we as people come together to serve a purpose to each other, the farmer makes crops so I can live then I can do something to benefit him and my community.  We don't engage in mutual aid for some holy concept of being good it's just how human beings are.  It wasn't til the advent of large scale organization of humans and capitalism that the concept of humans as greedy really took shape.  Once it became required from a social normative standpoint that one must have more then thy neighbor then the social formulations or the human race as a greedy violent creature came into the consciousness.
Reply
#4
Any definition of human nature is the product of the entirety of the humans which made said definition. You see this with all forms of reification. As an example, isn't it somehow unlikely that every universal objective moral code that American white male liberals insist on, happens to be completely and utterly embedded in American white male liberalism? Isn't it odd how laws are completely different, in different times and places? Well, no—neither of these things are surprising.

Humans seem capable of a great many things. It does not seem to me that there is a definable or graspable human nature, beyond banalities such as how we cannot fly or hold our breaths for hours. And if there is, it is—as I demonstrated above—hidden from us anyway. Because once we try to pin it down, our conceptualisation of human nature becomes informed by ourselves, our society, our social status, yes, even our mood that day. Human nature primarily simply serves as the basis of argument for someone who is about to commit the natural fallacy.
Reply
#5
Great, it was most enlightening guys.
What i took from all your opinions was,
Basically this so called human "nature" either doesn't exist or/and is flexible.
Better to call it "current local human behavior".
And still most people don't have this perception and generalizes in time space, which leads to very bad conclusions and thinking, and what the mind thinks the mind does.

P.s - I currently live very away in a different country from the one i grow up in and i can testify  what alexander mentions about laws, i see laws now that would never work on the other country some of them would almost be a joke.
Reply
#6
I agree with the original post. Human nature is by definition a social nature.

Capital, "The Machine", acts out laws that run contrary to human nature. It has by its nature an intrinsic need to add value to itself, even if that means destroying a portion of itself and of the labour force in order to carry on adding value to itself. When we act on behalf of the capital and not on behalf of our species we are acting inhumanly, e.g. when we go to war on behalf of the nation, religion or an ideology.
Reply
#7
People might find these interesting:

https://www.livinganthropologically.com/...an-nature/

https://takku.net/mediagallery/media.php...5180454961
Reply
#8
(Sun, 03 Dec 2017 18:58:32 +0000, 06:58 PM)Odin Wrote: People might find these interesting:

https://www.livinganthropologically.com/...an-nature/[:]

"Human Beings in Process": the unique configuration of relations which distinguishes the individual as a human being has been transformed into something quite different by the performance of estranged, alienated labour.

or,

The human species being, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. 
Reply
#9
From Odin's first link,

«Human capacities are not genetically specified but emerge within processes of ontogenetic development. Moreover the circumstances of development are continually shaped through human activity. There is consequently no human nature that has escaped the current of history. . . .

This does not mean, of course, that a human being can be anything you please. But it does mean that there is no way of describing what human beings are independently of the manifold historical and environmental circumstances in which they become–in which they grow up and live out their lives.»

Seems sensible to me. The whole piece was very informative, as it goes through the enlightenment view, racism, and so on, up until the modern anthropological consensus, which is that there is no "Human Nature" in the classic sense.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)