NationStates Jolt Archive

Satre says there is no such thing as human nature
Hobbes seems to think that humans in a state of nature are always at war.
conservatives have a dim veiw of human nature-hench their emphasis on law and order
Locke thinks that in a state of nature everyone respects others amd we all follow and respect natural law
Anarchists think that humans are inherantly good and that it is the state than corrupts them
who is right? is there such a thing as human nature and if so how do we define it?
(ps if im wrong about the above definitions please dont hesitate to correct me -I need to be told!)

Where's the Liberal view of human nature? That we have the capacity to do/be good.

There is no real human nature because anything that can be mistaken as such is culturally malleable.

Satre says there is no such thing as human nature
Hobbes seems to think that humans in a state of nature are always at war.
conservatives have a dim veiw of human nature-hench their emphasis on law and order
Locke thinks that in a state of nature everyone respects others amd we all follow and respect natural law
Anarchists think that humans are inherantly good and that it is the state than corrupts them
who is right? is there such a thing as human nature and if so how do we define it?
(ps if im wrong about the above definitions please dont hesitate to correct me -I need to be told!)
[ Points you toward studies of the reptilian midbrain and related structures ]

People are inherently people, and have all the inherent traits that something that can mate successfully with humans has. Those traits do not include good or evil, though they may include perception of it. Beyond that, we really don't know enough about it yet.

Where's the Liberal view of human nature? That we have the capacity to do/be good.
we are all capable of making out own decisions, and we should only be restricted when we trample on others freedoms,because we can make decisions for ourselves.Humans are rational and reasonable.

From an anthropological perspective, the idea of a universal 'human nature' is ludicrous. Cultures, institutions and people vary so widely accross time and space that to try to say all humans are naturally X is an exercise in futility.

From an anthropological perspective, the idea of a universal 'human nature' is ludicrous. Cultures, institutions and people vary so widely accross time and space that to try to say all humans are naturally X is an exercise in futility.
Thats what I think too, but there have been so many attempts to define human nature that i thought it may be an interesting debate.

we are all capable of making out own decisions, and we should only be restricted when we trample on others freedoms,because we can make decisions for ourselves.Humans are rational and reasonable.
Humans, in my view, in the vast majority, are idiotic sheep with little individuality.

From an anthropological perspective, the idea of a universal 'human nature' is ludicrous. Cultures, institutions and people vary so widely accross time and space that to try to say all humans are naturally X is an exercise in futility.

Hardly, and you just disproved your own argument. Saying all humans are naturally X (as in, in possession of an X chromosome) is completely true.

Hardly, and you just disproved your own argument. Saying all humans are naturally X (as in, in possession of an X chromosome) is completely true.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we were going to be assinely pedantic. What I meant is obvious - there is no human nature as in there is no one universal behavioral charicteristic/opinion/cultural nuance common to all people and societies.

Biology, however, is more universal.

since people semmto be in agreement that there is no human nature, can there be natural rights,surley natural rights are based on a definition of human nature and what it takes for humans to flourish?

Human nature is an oxymoron.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we were going to be assinely pedantic. What I meant is obvious - there is no human nature as in there is no one universal behavioral charicteristic/opinion/cultural nuance common to all people and societies.

Biology, however, is more universal.

So you would say that desiring pleasure is not a universal trait of humans. Of course what gives pleasure can be culturally consructed, but the desire for pleasure in itself seems, to me, to be universal across all human existence.

Hmmm? Was Hitler and Stalin born to do what they did?

People are born as an empty book. Their experiences in life will define them.

Satre says there is no such thing as human nature.Yes, but Sartre also had no interest in the exploration (empirical, theoretical, hypothetical or otherwise) in human origins. The question "what were human beings like before we were domesticated" held no appeal for him because he thought that real answers were unlikely, and any answers would provide little guidance for human life today.
Hobbes seems to think that humans in a state of nature are always at war.Hobbes also was not very interested in origins. His "state of nature" was, explicitly, a description of the deadly chaos visibly surrounding him when government authority collapsed in the middle of violent religious wars.

If you read Leviathan carefully, you will find that Hobbes actually had a view of human beings as innately peace-loving and reasonable. Given half a chance, we're prone to negotiate peace rather than continue in a state of war--this principle being what he called the First Law of nature. He also thought that the primary reason for chaos and death in the modern world was an attachment to deeply held (yet unprovable) religious beliefs, and other ideologies. Indeed, he had a deep antipathy for academics and especially monks, who twisted words and wrote complicated treatises attempting to prove obscure points. He thought that a form of "common sense" was the best wisdom--and he considered his own lengthy text a mere recitation of what should be obvious to any sane person on self-examination. That is, he thought that if we all take a good look at ourselves, we basically want to live in peace... so we should act on that desire, rather than the nonsense we get from supposedly "wise" church leaders and politicians.

Hobbes is, alas, badly misunderstood. :(

conservatives have a dim veiw of human nature-hench their emphasis on law and orderThis is at least partly true. On a fundamental level, however, I think most conservatives think along the lines of John Locke's class divisions. The wealthy are "reasonable," as Locke would have it, while the masses without property are "unreasonable" in their curious demands for liberation. It's a convenient myth for the rich, anyway.

Locke thinks that in a state of nature everyone respects others amd we all follow and respect natural lawClose. While Locke has a fairly glowing description of the original state of nature (essentially a political description of pre-Fall paradise in the Christian myth), he was convinced that a "few" bad individuals would inevitably ruin it for everyone. More to the point, his original state was incompatible with landed property, the justification of which was his real aim in the famous fifth chapter of the Second Treatise.

Anarchists think that humans are inherantly good and that it is the state than corrupts themTo be fair, anarchists are a diverse crowd. Some of us, such as the primitivist John Zerzan, believe that humans are biologically and ecologically inclined toward a relatively peaceful state of existence, throwing up the many millenia we spent as peaceful hunter-gatherers as (rather compelling) evidence to this point. He maintains, however, that this kind of wholeness is entirely incompatible with any advanced technology that requires division of labor. Others, including most of the more utopian anarchists of the nineteenth century, believe that human beings in any state tend to be peaceful and reasonable, but that the brutal machinery of the state (and capitalism) deform human behavior; they believe, unlike primitivists, that fairness in distribution and decision-making would allow humans to attain such a state at any level of technology--indeed, increasingly anarchists (e.g. Marcuse or Macpherson) argue that anarchist society needs more technology, not less. Some anarchists, at last, are perfectly willing to admit that humans come packaged with just about as much "bad" aggressiveness, competitiveness, and violence as they do with "good" behavioral traits... so that these anarchists wind up arguing that because of this very fact, an egalitarian distribution of power and a dismantling of the state, by withholding the tools of violence from a minority who is all too willing to use them, would be the best way to deal with our unfortunately violent nature.

who is right? is there such a thing as human nature and if so how do we define it?

I would say that the truth is somewhere between Zerzan and Hobbes, in that Zerzan seems to be quite right about human origins as well as current gatherer-hunters--at least according to most anthropologists and paleontologists; while Hobbes provides a very accurate description of what human "nature" has become in the modern world.

The real question is, can we still move from one to the other (as we have done once already)? Can we reverse the "progress" we have made?

I don't know.

(ps if im wrong about the above definitions please dont hesitate to correct me -I need to be told!)Yep, it's always good to learn. Most people hold some of these misconceptions anyway, so there's certainly no shame in being corrected. :)

Clicked on I don't Know for the simple reason that people are inherently part good AND part bad. Average people tend to be reasonably decent most of the time, but not all of the time. Meanwhile there will always be good and bad people who populate the extremes of society. People like Mother Theresea tend to be insanely good, whilst assmunches like Mao tend to be uniquely twisted.

Humans are basically good but a little bit of nasty goes a long way. Communism is the best system around. As long as people are fair and reasonable and don't get greedy and .. pop .. there goes communism.

Actually, I'm wrong.

Human nature is to get drunk as piss as often as possible.

People are born as an empty book. Their experiences in life will define them.
If we are born as an empty book, tabula rasa, how do we learn anything? At the very least, there must be something that enables us to see, speak and think. Something in the mind is innate, something interprets the meaning of sentences, something finds meaning in the actions of others–rather than parroting back the exact words, or merely seeing the random movement of limbs.

Artificial Intelligence has shown us that initially simple-sounding tasks such as walking round furniture, recognising faces, understanding sentences, guessing other’s actions, etc, are still near-impossible. The idea that these problems can be overcome by a lump of clay shaped by ‘culture’ or ‘experience’ is ridiculous.

As Leibniz said, “there is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses, except the intellect itself”.

Inborn nature does not determine specific actions, but it will play a role in setting someone's generally attitude. A tempermental person is so not because society made them tempermental, but for various inborn reasons. An mellow person will often be mellow, not because of any external factors, but, instead because of their brain chemistry, which has an awful lot to do with genetics. Basic personality traits are very often visible early on in childhood, sometimes even during infancy. People are creatures who can control themselves, but only to certain limits.

A tempermental person is so not because society made them tempermental, but for various inborn reasons. An mellow person will often be mellow, not because of any external factors.
Yes, but we musn’t throw out external factors completely. Obviously, arguing that life’s experiences have no effect on us whatsoever is as ridiculous as saying we are born as a blank slate.

Yes, but we musn’t throw out external factors completely. Obviously, arguing that life’s experiences have no effect on us whatsoever is as ridiculous as saying we are born as a blank slate.
Naturally, but I'm arguing against the blank slate concept, not for a wholly written book. That's the last thing I'd argue. Hell, any good psychologist will tell you that nature and nurture play equally important roles in the development of a person.

Hell, any good psychologist will tell you that nature and nurture play equally important roles in the development of a person. You’d hope so! Though a lot of psychology (not the most modern stuff, granted) is far too slanted on the blank slate position. Skinner and his ilk have a lot to answer for!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

My arguments are the words of the scientists.

This is a bit harsh, but it needs to be said:

People who claim that there is no such thing as human nature are fucking imbeciles.

While its true that people have a myriad of different traits, values, and habits, it should be noted that large groups of us [and indeed individuals] have tended to act the same way over the course of many, many generations. People have become so afraid of making generalizations [OMG DONT STEREOTYPE GASP!] that they've been rendered completely unable to make even the most basic observations about human behavior. We do tend to act in our own self interests; at least until new doctrines convince us otherwise. The best example of this, of course, is our general behavior before we're old enough to grasp abstract concepts; in the normal state of things we tend to prefer to sustain our basic life funtions, and in our infancy I can't say as I've heard of a single case where a child preferred to offer his forumla to a nearby infant or adult; we tend to take such action only after these values are introduced to us; and even then its something of a crapshoot.

Any course of action or value system one pursues directly benefits the individual in question. Even the baddest-ass, hardest-core altruist accepts his values [i]because he wishes to improve his moral character; therefore it can be reasonably assumed that all action, moral or physical, seeks to sustain or better the individual's life, be it in a direct [physical] or indirect [moral] capacity. Whether it actually ends up being morally or physically beneficial is another story.

I just have to say, I saw this special once about two twins that were separated at birth. There was a guy a ways back in this thread who said we are all a born a blank book...these twins had no contact with each other yet both worked in the same industry, drove the same car, and had the same interests. A i agree with the blank book theory to a point, but i don't see how anyone could deny that genetics play some factor in what a person is like.

People's actions and choices are based off their environments and experiences. There is no universal human nature, just as there is no universal preferred breakfast or favourite color.
I go as far as to say there is no 'good' or 'evil' but that's not what this thread is about.

This is a bit harsh, but it needs to be said:


Mister proper! Where you been hiding?

Satre says there is no such thing as human nature
Hobbes seems to think that humans in a state of nature are always at war.
conservatives have a dim veiw of human nature-hench their emphasis on law and order
Locke thinks that in a state of nature everyone respects others amd we all follow and respect natural law
Anarchists think that humans are inherantly good and that it is the state than corrupts them
who is right? is there such a thing as human nature and if so how do we define it?
(ps if im wrong about the above definitions please dont hesitate to correct me -I need to be told!)
Well, Sartre is a dumbass so we can cross him off.
Hobbes is long dead and nobody really cares about him any more.
Conservatives are wrong, inherently.
Locke is a snooty dumbass.
Anarchists are deranged and don't understand the system they're advocating.
_______________________

Human nature is human nature. First of all, you must define what is good to decide whether human nature is good or bad. Human nature is quite well suited to a non-technological environment, essentially the tribal hunter-gatherer society. But human nature is not designed for complex society such as ours, and so problems arise such as genocide, rap, crack addiction, and reality television.

"Good" and "bad" are far too simplistic. Humans have a basic tendency to get along with each other-- that at least has been ingrained into us by evolution. But human society today is, quite simply, too many hairless apes all in contact with too many of each other.

Mister proper! Where you been hiding?
Sorry, been addicted to Guild Wars. They're apparently moving the mainframes from one end of Los Angeles to the other so I fell back on my now-secondary addiction: NationStates.

There is no universal human nature,


There isn't? So the fact that boys tend to be more aggresive then girls is not human nature?

How do you explain how there have been 6000 conflicts in the last 2000 years?

The question of nature vs nuture?

Well it's a little of both. In Canada there was a case of a boy that got a botched circumcission and they decided to remove it and raise him as a girl. In time he he showed all the normal traits of a boy even though he thought he was a girl.....

Hobbes seems to think that humans in a state of nature are always at war.


Well, ok, but what does CALVIN have to say about it?

Well, ok, but what does CALVIN have to say about it?
Calvin was always far more philosophical and insightful.

Calvin: Mom and Dad say I should make my life an example of the principles I believe in. But every time I do, they tell me to stop it.
Hobbes: I'm not sure that total self-indulgence is really a principle.

Sorry, been addicted to Guild Wars. They're apparently moving the mainframes from one end of Los Angeles to the other so I fell back on my now-secondary addiction: NationStates.

Guild Wars? Oh man that is one I am trying to stay away from. It sucks my friends away from reality.

Evercrack first did that. Many of addicts are gone now. ;)

Guild Wars? Oh man that is one I am trying to stay away from. It sucks my friends away from reality.
The game is pure bliss. Especially with the new expansion. So much better than WoW in my opinion.

The game is pure bliss. Especially with the new expansion. So much better than WoW in my opinion.
I dunno, I've got no love of WoW, Guildwars or Everquest. The lack of efficacy of those games just doesn't cut it. I love the a strong, story based single player, but I have no patience for MMORPGs. Online games like that never caught my fancy. I mean, sure, I'm on NS, but I've only used it for the General forum for the past two and a half years. Nothing else.

Hobbes is long dead and nobody really cares about him any more.
Pish posh! Leviathan is a stonker, and a fantastic intro text to some meaty political philosophy. The state of nature and other Hobbesian theories are still widely read and discussed. He may not be perfect (who is?), but he’s far from unimportant.

Human nature is quite well suited to a non-technological environment, essentially the tribal hunter-gatherer society. But human nature is not designed for complex society such as ours, and so problems arise such as genocide, rap, crack addiction, and reality television.
Eh? Shome mishtake, shurely? Anyways, how is human nature any less effective in a heavily technological society?

Pish posh! Leviathan is a stonker, and a fantastic intro text to some meaty political philosophy. The state of nature and other Hobbesian theories are still widely read and discussed. He may not be perfect (who is?), but he’s far from unimportant.
To quote the Looney Tunes...

Soitanly!

Hobbes is considered to be the founder of modern liberal thought. After all, he derived the legitimacy of power from the people instead of from divine right or something like that.

Pish posh! Leviathan is a stonker, and a fantastic intro text to some meaty political philosophy. The state of nature and other Hobbesian theories are still widely read and discussed. He may not be perfect (who is?), but he’s far from unimportant.
Yes, but he doesn't entirely agree with me, so I can entirely dismiss everything he has to say.

In the end, I just don't think that I need to take anyone else's word on philosophy, because I prefer to decide things for myself.

Eh? Shome mishtake, shurely? Anyways, how is human nature any less effective in a heavily technological society?
Yes, rap. I think we can all agree that humans have adapted for some roughly 3 million years to living in small bands and tribes, hunting and gathering. Only for 10,000 years or so have we had larger, more complex, agricultural societies.

Take murder, for example. It is almost unheard of for animals to kill members of their own species in conflicts. There are territorial conflicts and fights for mating priveleges, but those are not lethal except accidentally. But humans frequently kill each other, even killing those with whom they should be getting along quite well. In modern society, we are conditioned to do many things which are grossly unnatural. For instance, the taboo against nudity. There is almost nothing more natural than nudity, and yet we are made to believe that it is a bad thing. We have, essentially, gone crazy.

Me be in a boat with the anarchists.

Me be in a boat with the anarchists.
Me sink u boat.

The game is pure bliss. Especially with the new expansion. So much better than WoW in my opinion.
TG me, we should swap IGNs.

TG me, we should swap IGNs.
Will do. ;)

I dunno, I've got no love of WoW, Guildwars or Everquest. The lack of efficacy of those games just doesn't cut it. I love the a strong, story based single player, but I have no patience for MMORPGs. Online games like that never caught my fancy. I mean, sure, I'm on NS, but I've only used it for the General forum for the past two and a half years. Nothing else.
I also prefer single player rpgs, in general. GW just happens to be exceptionally awesome though. It's so much fun. And addictive. Like NSG.

How do you explain how there have been 6000 conflicts in the last 2000 years?How do you explain that there were apparently none at all before 10,000 years ago?

Yes, rap.
Again, eh? How can rhythmic delivery of rhymes be something bad. If you’re indicating the propensity of a certain minority of the hip-hop community to rap about guns, women and money, then argue away. Tis a bad thing in my view too. Just don’t tar everyone in a musical genre with the same brush.

In modern society, we are conditioned to do many things which are grossly unnatural. For instance, the taboo against nudity. There is almost nothing more natural than nudity, and yet we are made to believe that it is a bad thing. We have, essentially, gone crazy.
Maybes aye, maybes no. But what has this to do with human nature?

How do you explain that there were apparently none at all before 10,000 years ago?
History was only recorded 6000 years ago. Can we do much but speculate about societal organisation before then?

In any case, I reject the notion of a blank slate from the mere fact that humans are animals. All animals in nature act on certain instincts. We differ in that we have societies and cultures, thanks to our ability to speak mostly. So ultimately its both, but to say human genes do not factor in is one-sided and baseless as far as I am concerned.

TG me, we should swap IGNs.
Meh, I can't log on to the nation screen. Could you TG me yours? I'll reply when I can get on.

History was only recorded 6000 years ago. Can we do much but speculate about societal organisation before then?Yeah. We can dig up the remains and see what we find.

What is that, you ask?

Well, for one thing we find human societies based on sharing. See, if you find a set of fires or hearths near each other, and most of the animal remains are around one fire, you have a chief. Instead, we find a pretty even distribution of goods, indicating a high level of equality.

Second, we find only weapons used for hunting and tools used for preparing food or clothing. Weapons of war? Mass graves? Evidence of one group attacking, destroying, or stealing from another? None.

On top of all this, we have the evidence of the few gathering-hunting groups that our own civilization has not yet wiped out. They tend to bear out the theory that war begins with agriculture.

*snip*
Yet none of this invalidates the notion that human beings, aside from being competitive, are also social animals with a basic nature. We cooperate within societies with the end of benefitting ourselves. Sort of like lions in a way, working together in a pride for a mutual interest. I'm not saying conflict on a grand scale is necessary; rather, it is the result of a conflict of human interests. So it's sort of a side-effect. What we are now is fundamentally different to what we were. Our natures have of course shifted, making the concept of sharing all the less likely. I do not see this as bad. Just as a change.

On top of all this, we have the evidence of the few gathering-hunting groups that our own civilization has not yet wiped out. They tend to bear out the theory that war begins with agriculture.
I think its nieve to suggest that indigineous groups are somehow more inherently peaceful and generally better people than those who live in large civilisations. Tribal groups, even those with loosely anarchial structures, are known to war with one another with the same bloodthirstyness as the rest of the human species. I’d hazard its technology and the mass production of weapons that highlight our western civilizations’ feuds.

I think its nieve to suggest that indigineous groups are somehow more inherently peaceful and generally better people than those who live in large civilisations. Tribal groups, even those with loosely anarchial structures, are known to war with one another with the same bloodthirstyness as the rest of the human species. I’d hazard its technology and the mass production of weapons that highlight our western civilizations’ feuds.
Yeah. Like I said, conflicts exist on a small scale at the very least within human societies. The more advanced the civilisation, the more pronounced the conflicts.

Yet none of this invalidates the notion that human beings, aside from being competitive, are also social animals with a basic nature.Right.
We cooperate within societies with the end of benefitting ourselves.Ah, but there is just as much evidence that, however well we cultivate it, we also have an innate sense of empathy or commiseration. For all we talk about the selfishness of children, just as often as I see a child hoard his toys I see another one roll a ball to the kid who has none. Indeed, seemingly selfless acts of caring have frequently been recorded even among non-human animals--and even between species! For that matter, there are several good explanations for the evolution of sharing as a development in social species. Remember, it's ultimately our genes fighting for survival: self-protective behaviors often further this end, but to the extent that we share many of the same genes with our immediate family, our extended family networks, ethnic groups, and even the species as a whole, sometimes even self-sacrifice can be a more effective species-adaptation.

Sort of like lions in a way, working together in a pride for a mutual interest.Sure.

I'm not saying conflict on a grand scale is necessary; rather, it is the result of a conflict of human interests.Right. To paraphrase Freud, civilization was forced upon a resisting majority by a minority that gained control of the tools of coercion.

What we are now is fundamentally different to what we were.Is it? Or are we merely alienated from our true selves? Is all this anxiety and depression, all of this social pressure that we tolerate--most of us in a warped and unsatisfying material condition--is this simply "who we are now" or are these the symptoms of the massive repression necessary to maintain a civilization that ultimately benefits only the very few?

If this is so "natural," why are we the only species on Earth increasingly dependent on psychopharmacology just to manage to "cope"?

I think its nieve to suggest that indigineous groups are somehow more inherently peaceful and generally better people than those who live in large civilisations.It would be naive to make assertions without the backing of paleontological and archaeological evidence. Tribal groups, even those with loosely anarchial structures, are known to war with one another with the same bloodthirstyness as the rest of the human species.I never said all "tribal" groups or indigenous people are peaceful. Rather, in accord with the overwhelming anthropological evidence, I pointed out that the gatherer-hunters are peaceful. The farmers are just as warlike as the rest of us.

I think that Humans are inherantly selfish.
This leads Humans to do things that in Western Society are typically called good and other things that are typically called evil. I don't believe there are very many cases of true selflessness. There are a few examples but for the most part Humans will try to do what is best for themselves first and foremost. Even seemingly selfless acts can have selfish benefits. Therefore whether good or evil, We are Selfish.

My beliefs run something like this.
Humans are not inherantly good or evil.
Humans are from birth largely purely selfish beings on a conscious level and inherantly social beings at an instinctual level. This obviously leads to conflict internally and with the world around us. We start as sociopaths capable of qualmless evil but with an instinctual need to be an accepted part of the group of people around us. Groups dont function well with pure selfishness in many members. Purely selfish humans however often see advantages to using groups.

I think that genetics provide the instinctual need to be social and therefore the desire to interact with others. Some have a greater need to belong than others However I think that the conscious human mind only becomes other than purely selfish through environment. I think that the environmental variable responsible for the change is social interaction with others. This grooms and teaches how and why and how much to care about others.

I think that most of the behavioural differences between "good" and "evil" humans are due to a very few variables.

>Some social interaction is better than others at teaching humans to care about other humans.

>Some people have a greater instinctual desire to fit into their social group and therfore more readily absorb and accept social concepts (like sharing) that.directly oppose purely selfish desires (like immediate gratification)

>When you add disease physical damage or chemical imbalance to a human brain and all bets are off as far as behavior goes.

Humans are inherantly human.

Satre says there is no such thing as human nature
Hobbes seems to think that humans in a state of nature are always at war.
conservatives have a dim veiw of human nature-hench their emphasis on law and order
Locke thinks that in a state of nature everyone respects others amd we all follow and respect natural law
Anarchists think that humans are inherantly good and that it is the state than corrupts them
who is right? is there such a thing as human nature and if so how do we define it?
(ps if im wrong about the above definitions please dont hesitate to correct me -I need to be told!)
Marx and Owen tell us there is such a thing as human nature, but it is malleable - it can be changed, both by circumstance, and by will. circumstance may be the specific way you are brought up, or taking on aspects of the society in which you live and work. i believe capitalism to be an inherently greedy system, and as such this impacts on people's human nature, making them have something of a hobbesian nature about them. i don't believe this need be the case, and can be changed.


but i am a hippie like that :P

edit: how do we define it is a whole other question....

Marx and Owen tell us there is such a thing as human nature, but it is malleable - it can be changed, both by circumstance, and by will. circumstance may be the specific way you are brought up, or taking on aspects of the society in which you live and work. i believe capitalism to be an inherently greedy system, and as such this impacts on people's human nature, making them have something of a hobbesian nature about them. i don't believe this need be the case, and can be changed.


but i am a hippie like that :P

edit: how do we define it is a whole other question....

I like that hippie ideal. I think we should at least strive for it, and it might just even be possible in a capitalist climate, as it doesn't own us completely; we have still some freedom left to develop a positive (social) human nature. So, to answer the thread: we are no empty vates from start, nor are we totally determined. (Genetical-Cultural, thatsortastuffIbelieve)

I like that hippie ideal. I think we should at least strive for it, and it might just even be possible in a capitalist climate, as it doesn't own us completely; we have still some freedom left to develop a positive (social) human nature. So, to answer the thread: we are no empty vates from start, nor are we totally determined. (Genetical-Cultural, thatsortastuffIbelieve)
i agree. you can still strive for your own 'nature', but in order to survive in this society, unless you completely remove yourself from it (communes, bennedictine monks, etc) then you need to take on elements of its inherent nature in yourself.
genetical-cultural-nature-nurture-inherent-superstructure (etc), indeed :)

Take murder, for example. It is almost unheard of for animals to kill members of their own species in conflicts.

You do know that's utter nonsense? Investigate and find out that's not so unheard of at all.
And for the nudity thingy, what you call gone crazy, most people refer to as culture...and I like a sweater when it's cold.

Yes there is a human nature. I believe it's similar to animals of the survival of the fittest. It's just our "survival" has strayed far from natural. $$$$$ for now. For are humans evil or good.. I don't know atm, my knee jerk says evil .. but my good side says no. So I don't know.

i agree. you can still strive for your own 'nature', but in order to survive in this society, unless you completely remove yourself from it (communes, bennedictine monks, etc) then you need to take on elements of its inherent nature in yourself.
genetical-cultural-nature-nurture-inherent-superstructure (etc), indeed :)

jup, and hopefully once we'll all choose the right elements so the "wrong" ones (which are...uhm) will automatically disappear off the face of the earth.
yeah a superstructure of hippies suits well :)

To be clear:

State of nature =/= Human nature.


State of nature is a description of environmental features. The state of nature is the utter lack of environmental features which would attempt to constrain, alter, or inhibit human nature in some way.

Human nature is just that; that which is natural to or inherent to human beings.




I think its rather silly and counter-definitional to claim that human nature doesn't exist. Humans beings in order to exist at all must have some qualities which are herent to them. Existence is probably the foremost candidate for "Human Nature" though this could be said of all things which exist. But more germaine to the conversation Humans must have some qualities which they all possess or else we couldn't differentiate ourselves by kingdom let alone by species.


In a behavioral sense we can and do have instincts. To state otherwise flies in the face of hundreds of years of natural history and scientific inquiry. We do have instincts; the million dollar question is "Just what exactly do those instincts do?"


"Human Nature" is a set of dispositions genetically encoded into the human genome. We all share certain biological features and this cannot be denied. These features do include certain behavioral predispositions. Testosterone causes increased aggression. This can't be denied. So everything with Testosterone in it will have some amount of aggression in its "nature." And since all humans, both male and female, have Testosterone in their bodies some form of aggression component is a part of "Human Nature."


Everything which is directly separate from the genetic factors are responses to environmental stimuli, and thus wholly separate from "Human Nature."


NT

Humans are inherently evil, but humans in large groups are much better at carrying out their intentions. Hence I detest both views.

Humans are inherently evil, but humans in large groups are much better at carrying out their intentions. Hence I detest both views.Do you consider yourself evil?

Anarchists think that humans are inherantly good and that it is the state than corrupts them

Untrue. There is no unified anarchist consensus on what human nature is.

I personally believe that there is no such thing in a unified sense - all humans think and act differently, and none are naturally born "evil" or "good", as flawed as those terms are.

People's actions and choices are based off their environments and experiences. There is no universal human nature, just as there is no universal preferred breakfast or favourite color.
I go as far as to say there is no 'good' or 'evil' but that's not what this thread is about.

I just have to say on a side note that it's a good point the 'good' and 'evil' thing was brought up...say some radical taliban terrorist voted...his idea of what good human nature would be would be different from what mine would be....they're relative terms

We've all got rationality. How (and if) we use them is anyones guess.

i tend to aggree with jean-paul if that's the other guy besides myself who said it.

most of what is called human 'nature' is learned behaviour.

the only things intrinsic to humans, other then for infants to seek the teat, and i'm not so sure it's all that unique to humans, even on earth, other then by degree, are gullability and the desire to express ourselves creatively.

all of surrounding ourselves so completely by our artifacts that some of us entirely forget that anything else can possibly exist or that we are dependent on its doing so, owes it's existence to our drive to be creative.

all of soverignty, idiology, politics and warfare, owes its existence to our gullibility.

=^^=
.../\...

Satre says there is no such thing as human nature
Hobbes seems to think that humans in a state of nature are always at war.
conservatives have a dim veiw of human nature-hench their emphasis on law and order
Locke thinks that in a state of nature everyone respects others amd we all follow and respect natural law
Anarchists think that humans are inherantly good and that it is the state than corrupts them
who is right? is there such a thing as human nature and if so how do we define it?
(ps if im wrong about the above definitions please dont hesitate to correct me -I need to be told!)
I believe that there is such a thing as human nature, which is wired into us by evolution. Like every other evolutionary adaptation it isn't concerned with good or evil, only with strategies that make one's genes more likely to live on.

There is no real human nature because anything that can be mistaken as such is culturally malleable.
Totally untrue. Look at the behavior of kids before being socialized. Toddler boys tend to engage in more rough and tumble play than girls. This has been verified statistically. Also some people are born with three X chromosomes. They are biologically female, but if they inherit the extra X from their mother, the X that is found in boys as opposed to the X from the father that is found only in girls, they act like males. They express male personality traits. And they do this despite being physically female and being raised as females and treated as girls all their lives.

The evidence arising from sociobiology shows that there is, in fact, such a thing as human nature. The previous arguments against in and in favor of a "Blank Slate" are not science, but radical ideology.

From an anthropological perspective, the idea of a universal 'human nature' is ludicrous. Cultures, institutions and people vary so widely accross time and space that to try to say all humans are naturally X is an exercise in futility.
That's not actually true. In the back of the book The Blank Slate by Seven Pinker there is an appendix listing traits found in all societies across the world, modern and primitive.

Any course of action or value system one pursues directly benefits the individual in question. Even the baddest-ass, hardest-core altruist accepts his values [i]because he wishes to improve his moral character; therefore it can be reasonably assumed that all action, moral or physical, seeks to sustain or better the individual's life, be it in a direct [physical] or indirect [moral] capacity. Whether it actually ends up being morally or physically beneficial is another story.
lol, always count on you to shoot down from afar anything that even potentially threatens your ideology.

I think we'd all be much more content back in the trees eating fruit and throwing our excrement at one another for fun. Life as a human is too complex and these hairless philosophers have a terrible tendency to build intellectual cloud castles.

Who will join me in my quest to regain our ancestral simian heritage?

I think that human nature exists, but it is neither good nor evil, merely stupid and self-interested, in a primitive sort of way. Most people would consider that unfortunate, but some might also consider it evil, while followers of Ayn Rand might actually think it a good thing -- the self-interested part, anyway (they'd never actually admit to being stupid).