The 'Human Nature' problem.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Why is it that nobody here when talking about human nature takes into account Marx's own words on this?

From a philosophically perspective there is a certain human nature and Marx is aware of this, it is just that man under capitalism has his potential torn from him.

I dont know, can somebody tell me why they think there is no such thing as human nature?

[YKTMX]

Man has certain "in built" drives, like any organism i.e food, shelter etc.

Any assumptions about in built "behaviours" or emotional tendencies are to treated very sceptically, even with hostility.

[aberos]

to say that man is predestined by some "human nature" that is inherent in each any every one of us is a fairly dense way of looking at things. if one were to evaluate the concept of social norms throughout the ages, one would notice that these change with the societies, and, thus, so too do their natures. human nature does exist, but it is no unwavering and static; but, rather, it is dependent on society. look at the way different cultures and their peoples react to the same types of things, and this becomes apparent. as YouKnowTheyMurderedX said, the only universal human nature is our built in drives for food, shelter and the like. the rest is entirely dependent on society and the mind.

[Faceless]

I dont know, can somebody tell me why they think there is no such thing as human nature?
My knowledge of a human nature isnt advanced enough for me to come to my own definite conclusion but on Marx some, including most prominently Althusser, argue that Marx's work can be divided into his pre-marxist or hegelian and true marxist period (where he moved more and more away from Hegel). Thus when Marx concerned himself with species being and alienation, we would be referring to what Althusser would have described as Marx's pre-marxist period. I myself do not have a detailed enough knowledge to say whether or not I agree with this but there does seem to be some pattern in Marx's progression. Still, many people have been very inspired by his earlier works and have even give them precedence over his later works. Interestingly I always find that authors who want to dismiss the liberating ideals of Marx yet embrace his genius referring to Marx's work "before he was a marxist" or "before he was a communist".

[Roses in the Hospital]

I tend to see human nature as a purely evolutionary instinct. Whatever chasracteristics we need to survive we develop. Some of these such as food, reproduction etc. are very basic instincts which (unless technology develops significantly) we are unable to live without. Others such as the often quoted greed are developed due to the society we live in. i.e. If you want to 'survive' in a capatalist society you need to be greedy. It all comes down to survival of the fittest. Or 'survival of the greediest' in this case. Obviously I think these less 'essential' instincts can be overcome, but it'll take many years of de-condiotioning...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:04 PM
Man has certain "in built" drives, like any organism i.e food, shelter etc.

Any assumptions about in built "behaviours" or emotional tendencies are to treated very sceptically, even with hostility.

Why? I don't see the problem, mans nature is transient in many ways but in general Marx's problem is that capitalism keeps down some of the potential he has left in him.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:02 AM
to say that man is predestined by some "human nature" that is inherent in each any every one of us is a fairly dense way of looking at things. if one were to evaluate the concept of social norms throughout the ages, one would notice that these change with the societies, and, thus, so too do their natures. human nature does exist, but it is no unwavering and static; but, rather, it is dependent on society. look at the way different cultures and their peoples react to the same types of things, and this becomes apparent. as YouKnowTheyMurderedX said, the only universal human nature is our built in drives for food, shelter and the like. the rest is entirely dependent on society and the mind.

Indeed but I cant see where the notion of human nature if a problem, I mean man changing his views, his attitudes is not human nature as such, merely shifting norms of society.

His human nature to me would be and this is from a philosophically perspective a will to self extension, will to power (not to dominate, power is always productive as Foucault has shown) and things of that nature. I dont think they will ever change nor does it matter if they do.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:08 AM

I dont know, can somebody tell me why they think there is no such thing as human nature?
My knowledge of a human nature isnt advanced enough for me to come to my own definite conclusion but on Marx some, including most prominently Althusser, argue that Marx's work can be divided into his pre-marxist or hegelian and true marxist period (where he moved more and more away from Hegel). Thus when Marx concerned himself with species being and alienation, we would be referring to what Althusser would have described as Marx's pre-marxist period. I myself do not have a detailed enough knowledge to say whether or not I agree with this but there does seem to be some pattern in Marx's progression. Still, many people have been very inspired by his earlier works and have even give them precedence over his later works. Interestingly I always find that authors who want to dismiss the liberating ideals of Marx yet embrace his genius referring to Marx's work "before he was a marxist" or "before he was a communist".

Well I would certainly consider myself somebody influenced by the 'pre-Marxist stage' (haha pre-himself) so you can see what I mean.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 28 2005, 11:02 AM
I tend to see human nature as a purely evolutionary instinct. Whatever chasracteristics we need to survive we develop. Some of these such as food, reproduction etc. are very basic instincts which (unless technology develops significantly) we are unable to live without. Others such as the often quoted greed are developed due to the society we live in. i.e. If you want to 'survive' in a capatalist society you need to be greedy. It all comes down to survival of the fittest. Or 'survival of the greediest' in this case. Obviously I think these less 'essential' instincts can be overcome, but it'll take many years of de-condiotioning...

Aristotle is good on this, disregarding evolution he believes man's becoming takes precedence over his adaptation (survival of the fittest). I dont want to get into this but lets just say you have hit on the head more or less what I think.

[aberos]

i see what you are saying about my post pedro, but it seems as if you are twisting the point of it to make a point. i do not say this to instigate hostilities or out of rudeness, but to say that it is human nature to change the nature of humans seems to be one of those overly ornate ways of putting things. it is an interesting way of looking at it though. again, i say this with all due respect.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well I'm just trying to think something true, so if I coem across like I'm looking for a new way around a problem then yeah its true, I dont think the current view is sufficient is all.

[aberos]

okay, i do not want to get hostile so i secede