Human Nature
the_johnjacob
Join Date: 2003-04-01 Member: 15109Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-04-01 Member: 15109Members, Constellation
in Discussions
i'm really curious to see how this pans out. as it has become a big issue in the communism vs democracy forum, and i have quite a view views on the subject. i would like to hear what you guys think.
i'll start it off.
human nature does not exist. each person is born with a clean slate of a mind, with only a few instincts that are in place in order to keep them alive(grabbing, sucking etc. these are all muscle instincts, and have nothing to do with how we think). as each child develops, it experiences different, well, experiences, throughout its life and into adulthood, as a result of these experiences, anything from having a long talk with grand dad to tripping and falling in the grass in the back yard, the child forms a thought pattern based on these experiences.
the biggest issues , i feel, are whether or not humanity is instictually bound to:
1. destroy each other, we have fought many wars, and have rarely seen a lasting time of peace, is this because we love destroying each other, are we instictually driven to kill?
2. is the human lust for power and money instinctual. do people automatically spar for leadership both within a group, and among groups?
those two issues i see as the major 2 in this debate, though, of course, they are both a question of whether or not ther is human nature, how much we are controled by it, and how much we can change it.
i'll start it off.
human nature does not exist. each person is born with a clean slate of a mind, with only a few instincts that are in place in order to keep them alive(grabbing, sucking etc. these are all muscle instincts, and have nothing to do with how we think). as each child develops, it experiences different, well, experiences, throughout its life and into adulthood, as a result of these experiences, anything from having a long talk with grand dad to tripping and falling in the grass in the back yard, the child forms a thought pattern based on these experiences.
the biggest issues , i feel, are whether or not humanity is instictually bound to:
1. destroy each other, we have fought many wars, and have rarely seen a lasting time of peace, is this because we love destroying each other, are we instictually driven to kill?
2. is the human lust for power and money instinctual. do people automatically spar for leadership both within a group, and among groups?
those two issues i see as the major 2 in this debate, though, of course, they are both a question of whether or not ther is human nature, how much we are controled by it, and how much we can change it.
Comments
There are some things that appear to be innate in human nature.
For one, the will to survive. Thats instinctual in every single human being, but as modern day man shows, that natural instinct can be overcome by intellectual reasoning (which leads to suicide, or a sacrifice [I die, I save 100 people]).
Greed is an extension of survival. The more food you have, the better you are. If you can steal food from others, you screw them over and help yourself thus enabling you to eventually propagate your genes.
Friendship is also an extension of survival. An ape that knows how to crack nuts open makes an agreement with an ape that has found a way to safely eat fire ants. In times of shortage, their agreement strengthens their bond and allows them to survive. With humans, friendships can form to counter adversity. In primary school my best friend and I were only drawn closer together as friends despite the amounts of slander we recieved each and every day (try being the only two kids in school that like star trek and see what I mean). My friendship kept me alive through those rough years.
Love also stems from survival. Those that could love each other and their offspring usually tend to do better then those that do not.
Hate comes into it too. Hate drives you to fight harder and faster against your enemies. Early man could have used hate against neanderthals or any other competing hominid species.
Revenge also comes into it. Defeat in a fight leads to disgrace. If you can strike decisively at your enemy, you may be put into a position of presitige.
Where do wars fit in? We place survival of our offspring, our loved ones and of course ourselves ahead of others that we dont know or hate. If our survival lies with the survival of the state, then the state must live even at the cost of individual life, so long as friends loved ones and offspring survive. Revenge begets more bloodshed, and thus the vicious cycle starts.
I would wager that a good deal of human nature would rest on survival.
Let's look at the greed part. It's generally, and pretty much throughout all of human history until a short hundred years ago, figured that a well-rounded, plump woman was attractive: She'd produce healthy children. Healthy children live longer, can work harder, can produce more food, thus feeding the whole family, making the children more attractive in terms of finding a mate, etc. The same is true in animals. Materialistic possessions have sort of replaced that wanton of healthy-looking mates. The animal desire to get a mate leads to getting more possessions no matter what. Notice how crime is higher in low-income neighborhoods? Why is that? The only thing rich, low crime areas have that poor, high crime areas don't is money, possessions. In the low-class areas it's a (albeit a controllable one) natural desire to want more. Thus they steal.
It is human nature to have both good and evil desires, a conscience to distinguish between the two and a free will to make and carry out decisions. That the evil desires are necessarily stronger is a falsity told by those who have succumbed to them. In fact it is part of our nature to try and overcome evil.
Knowing this, I cannot understand what purpose it is supposed to serve if we speak about vices like greed and violence as if we were somehow justified to have them by subsuming them under fictitious or speculative definitions of "nature".
'Good' and 'evil' are man made concepts. In nature, there really is no good and evil, it is just what is the better way to survive. We struggle between good and evil, because it is sometimes our human instincts contradict our views of good and evil. Because good and evil are man made, they are subjective terms, we have labelled things good and others evil based on our interpretations of the world and consequences of actions. Hence, i think this is where the root of wars come from (besides economic reasons too): conflicting values and interpretations of the world, religion also stems from this. We are a competitive species, we want to be better off than the next person, we also like to strongly label our values (grouping, and seperating ourselves from all others), these instincts can have disasterous effects ie. wars.
I also think that everything about human behavior is a direct result of those two stimuli. Right, wrong, good evil, religion and politics all stem from that root process that ensures a speceis will make an effort to survive. As humans have become more advanced, we are able to approach that core instinct on an emotional and intellectual level as well as purely physical. As we became more intellegent we could begin to scrutinize and question what essentially boils down to pain and pleasure.
ANyway, Im waaay to tired to actualy keep my train of thought, so hopefully whats there makes even the least bit of sence.
Good and evil are what someone else calls them. A lot of people believed Osama Bin Laden is good, and everyone else thought of him as evil.
anyway, it is because of this, that i believe there is no human nature, or, if there is, it can be overcome, and therefore, is not a controlling part of our lives. i also think that the way we overcome them, how we do it, and what happens afterward is based on our environment as we grew up, and our special combination of genes that we got from our parents...although that is another issue. are genes the end all be all of all human characteristics? or are they too only decided by environmental factors?
it has been shown that malnurished children mature very late in life compared to those that get their nutritional supplements everyday. and that if a malnurished child is put on a more nutritional diet when they are in a phase where maturation should've already started, it will start up.
i believe that above all else, it is the environment that controls us, even it is our environment that determines how we control the environment, if that makes any sense.
Okay, now don't laugh. I think the best way to do this is through sexual fetishes. No, seriously.
Why do some people dig people who are wet? Like lingerie? Like leather? What are the roots of S&M and bondage, and crossdressing? When you get through that, delve into the really awful stuff, like rape-themed video games, furries, pedophilia, and other things. Ask yourself what kind of person derives pleasure out of cannabalism and amputation (and I'm not talking about murder, but consensual sex on these two)? What parts of these are innate within humans and what parts are learned? Murders and mass-murders are one thing.. clearly there are signals of sicknesses we can trace, but with the others can't be counted as sicknesses. Esoteric and certainly stomach churning at some points, but what does it all mean?
There are a huge number of reasons sexual fetishes exist. Human sexuality is already a very complex matter upon itself.
This being said, I think it's probably the easiest way to take a look inside human nature and try to figure out how we develop and mature. It's easier to look at the rawest form of human lust rather than a lust for material.
I'll develop what I think about this later.
However, much of the rest are things we have thought about at one time or another. The reason everyone has to learn how to ride a bike only once in their life is because you don't know the pattern of muscle movements which a normal person would do to ride a bike. You acquire this knowledge, and never again must you "think" about riding a bike.
We learn things so well as children. We learn that cookies are good, and touching things we aren't supposed to are bad. We learn that sharing, while it isn't fun to have to share things with other children, your parents like you when you do that, etc. We learn it so much, that like riding a bike, it becomes second nature and we never "think" about it ever again. It is all acquired knowledge.
Unfortunately, a kid who is raised by abusive parents get mixed signals about what is right and wrong. People like this grow up to become mass murderers. Why? Their heads got wired wrong when they should have been punished for hurting things, they were encouraged. Thus, when they grow up to be adults, you can't unlearn this like you can't unlearn how to ride a bicycle. Hence, no matter what you do to them (punishment-wise), they will always be mass murderers.
This is human nature 101. I'd like to see a good rebuttle of my argument. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Meaning to say that people naturally look out for themselves, and are always ready to please themselves. However, certain people may be convicted to do otherwise because of conscience, our born morality.
without more sophisticated instincts (more complex than grabbing and sucking...)
ie: without social drive and survival instincts
society would never be established, and the human race would not exist.
why don't you believe human nature exists? dolphin nature and chimpanzee nature exist, and yet we're so much more advanced than any other animal on our world.
that's really all that needs to be said, on that part.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true, animals, and most living organisms can override instincts with experience. For example, we electrify a piece of food, an animal has the instinct to eat that piece of food, but once it touches it, it gets a shock, and it therefore learns not to try to take that piece of food again. This is the benefits that 'consciousness' has, and i think it is an evolutionary adaptation, like any other.
Now, human nature basically is, the sum of our instincts and our environment/experiences. People have always acted the same, since the dawn of time. The person with the largest cave was the best, now, it is the person with the largest house.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The pleasure principle. That food is no longer pleasurable or rewarding to the animal, instead it brings pain. I think that example shows quite the opposite. imho that is the true essence of animal instinct kicking in to override the animals adapted habits.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The pleasure principle. That food is no longer pleasurable or rewarding to the animal, instead it brings pain. I think that example shows quite the opposite. imho that is the true essence of animal instinct kicking in to override the animals adapted habits. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gathering/eating food is an 'instinct' not a habit. Habits are determined by the environment. The animal responds to the environmental stimuli of a piece of food, and therefore tries to eat it, that is instinct. I dont think it is a case of instinct overriding instinct, as the unpleasurable experience is lodged in its brain as 'memory'. The animal will not stop seeking food, only that certain piece of food, or something similar, because it 'remembers' the experience. Though, it is instinct to keep away from things that cause pain.
People are no different, we act on instinct and experience in response to environmental stimuli. Humans are <i>not</i> that different from the animals, ask any biologist.
The original question dealed with our passions and the extent of our control over them. Philosophers and psychologists might be particularly qualified to offer insights, but biologists research different things.
This does not mean that I ignore the natural influences we inherit due to the evolution (creation) that brought our species where it is today, nor do I discard the cultural influences everyone of us is exposed to, nor the Freudian limitations of our conciousness which kind of assume a sort of human nature due to the two primary urges eros and destructo.
On the contrary, I will agree with everyone in here who argues that humans are shaped by those influences. There is, however, a difference between being shaped by something, and having something as ones nature:
The one aspect that divides human from all mammals or other animals is quite obviously his self-conciousness.
(We could now argue whether apes and dolphins are self-aware, as well, but experts assign the self-conciousness of three years olds to the smartest of apes, which means that this kind of sentinence doesn't much touch the validity of my following elaborations.)
If we accept that the ability of self-reflection is inherent to all humans, we will also agree that a human is capable of reflecting the influences that shaped him/her. Such a self-reflection does always offer multiple outcomes. In the most black-and-white case, one can either agree with the influences effect on oneself and carry on as before, or disagree with it. In this case, a human will be able to draw the consequences and reject this influences effects, and change (which means constantly reflecting ones behaviour and modifying it if it seems to stem from that influence).
Humans are thus, at least in principle, capable of shaking a shaping influence off. This is of course nothing that would happen on a daily basis, nor would it be something easy, for it'd mean conciously rejecting what one formerly regarded an aspect of oneself, but look back at your own life and tell me <i>you</i> didn't at least once break with something because you realized it didn't appear right to you. I know of myself that I found pacifism due to such reasoning.
If the above can be held true in at least <i>one</i> case, it means that human isn't bound to a kind of all-defining nature. If <i>one</i> human managed to stand above the influences that shaped him or her, the 'human nature' ceases to be all-defining, ceases to be humans nature.
Thus, I believe that humans can only be defined as beings presented with a constant choice: Think, or don't.
People are no different, we act on instinct and experience in response to environmental stimuli. Humans are <i>not</i> that different from the animals, ask any biologist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The act of eating is pleasurable, and the act of starving is painful, so of course an animal will still seek food. Gathering food is an evolved habit, as is knowing specifically wich foods are safe and unsafe in thier habitats. That is not instinct, its adaptation.
While I agree that humans are not much different from animals, I think its our capacity for adaptation that seperates us, and the many levels we can inturpret and adapt to any new and/or changing environment. Most animals quickly die when thier environment changes too quickly. "Quickly" in an evolutionary sense could be decades. Meanwhile humans adapt imediatly to any change, usually by changing the environment itself.
Twex: I think we'd all be interested in hearing from someone who know what theyre talking about <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Humans only adapted to change because they had the need to. In other words, if they didn't change their life so drastically, the species wouldn't survive. Animals, however, don't need to adapt too much since the ecosystem is pretty much balanced out, and any big adaptations would disturb it.
While I agree that humans are not much different from animals, I think its our capacity for adaptation that seperates us, and the many levels we can inturpret and adapt to any new and/or changing environment. Most animals quickly die when thier environment changes too quickly. "Quickly" in an evolutionary sense could be decades. Meanwhile humans adapt imediatly to any change, usually by changing the environment itself.
Twex: I think we'd all be interested in hearing from someone who know what theyre talking about <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even though it is undesirable to starve, and desirable to eat, wanting food is still an instinct. The first things most babies do is suckle at the teet of their mother, it has just been born, it has not evolved this habit, yet it knows, because of its instincts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A lion sees a gazelle, its instinct is to hunt it, hence response to environmental stimuli. The way it hunts and kills it though is adapted habit. This also brings up an interesting example the "altruistic instincts in social animals", just like humans in fact.
The truth is humans are animals, the reason i asked "ask a biologist" is that a biologist will tell you humans are no different from the animals, and use evolutionary evidence to back it up, whilst a philosopher or theologean will give you subjective rubbish. Though it is true, that our advantage over the animals is our speed of adaptation. We can create tools and items such as clothing to adapt to our climates and environments better. But we still sit taxonomically with the other animals, this is just our means of surviving natural selection, humans, get over yourselves.
ie: without social drive and complex survival instincts
society would never be established, and the human race would not exist.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
anybody NOT agree with me?
it's getting somewhat frustrating that people scarcely respond to my posts in these more serious threads ;_;
You know if you think about it, we're all just little children inside. There is always a little voice inside you that is like a little kid. That little kid has feelings and wants and needs. Your boss cusses you out at work for doing a bad job, your little voice starts crying (and/or gets very angry) for instance, or your neighbor buys a new lawnmower, your voice gets jealous. You learn, as an adult, not to show those feelings, but you have them. You hide them for the purposes of keeping your job and being adult about situations. However, EVERYONE has that voice. That's your ego if you will.
The trick is looking past the mask and figuring out what each person's voice says, and you know exactly what they want and what their feelings are. That is human nature in it's most primitive form.