What the hell is "human nature"?

[R_P_A_S]

on the OI forum "Voz de la gente trabajadora" told me this...



Human nature is not static as these parasites would like to think, it moves and changes as history and material conditions do.

OK im confused and embarrassed. because these are things I should already know. But like I've said before, I'm slow... :( . Hmmm... I always argue that humans attitude and behavior has a lot to do with the environment. in this case Capitalism. and why I believe human nature or behavior can evolve or if thats too extreme. it can change correct? It can change being that one lives in a system that is there to develop YOU and not money...

Human Nature IS NOT STATIC i dont get it. I though that STATIC meant change.. lol?
so you are saying that it DOES NOT CHANGE? then your following sentence contradicts what I thought Static meant. :unsure:

An other thing I would also like to address is the other "claims of human nature" some people who oppose and think that a socialist system or communism at that are "a nice theory" but "would never work" also throw the "human nature" at you.

"Humans are selfish & greedy by nature"

ARE WE REALLY??? by Nature? thats kind of extreme. and it contradicts the stuff I'm reading.

is it safe to assume that these people who make these claims about human nature are for one biased to only looking at the system, capitalism an what it produces, class antagonism as their only "valid source"..the system which we all are raised under. and nothing else? as opposed to marxist and their study of historical materialism and other things?

[Dominicana_1965]

What people consider "human nature" today is actually a cultural memory of our sorroundings, the majority of what humanity considers "natural" is really a social construct, as time and understanding has shown.

Nature in itself is far too complex, I question if nature does exist as far as behavior & social constructs go. If the theory of "humans being naturally greedy" is brought up because of past and present negative implications by humans themselves, then does that mean that co-operation is also a possible "human nature". If we can build our past and present and implement possitivity to it, will humanity change its buttered up thought of human nature as instrinsically rapacious?

What im trying to say is that the thought of human nature as greedy is ALSO a social construct, and I think many will agree with me.


Not even speech is "natural". Society has learned to utilize a lot of these social constructs and misguided humanity by calling them "natural".

[Soterios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:10 pm
on the OI forum "Voz de la gente trabajadora" told me this...



Human nature is not static as these parasites would like to think, it moves and changes as history and material conditions do.

OK im confused and embarrassed. because these are things I should already know. But like I've said before, I'm slow... :( . Hmmm... I always argue that humans attitude and behavior has a lot to do with the environment. in this case Capitalism. and why I believe human nature or behavior can evolve or if thats too extreme. it can change correct? It can change being that one lives in a system that is there to develop YOU and not money...

Human Nature IS NOT STATIC i dont get it. I though that STATIC meant change.. lol?
so you are saying that it DOES NOT CHANGE? then your following sentence contradicts what I thought Static meant. :unsure:

An other thing I would also like to address is the other "claims of human nature" some people who oppose and think that a socialist system or communism at that are "a nice theory" but "would never work" also throw the "human nature" at you.

"Humans are selfish & greedy by nature"

ARE WE REALLY??? by Nature? thats kind of extreme. and it contradicts the stuff I'm reading.

is it safe to assume that these people who make these claims about human nature are for one biased to only looking at the system, capitalism an what it produces, class antagonism as their only "valid source"..the system which we all are raised under. and nothing else? as opposed to marxist and their study of historical materialism and other things?
Yes. It is safe to say that. They merely look at the capitalist system, the actions of the few in power and rich, and the competition and exploitation of the proletariat at the benefit of the wealthy, and say "normal", simply because it is going on now. It is also because they are used to living in a capitalist system, and have grown up knowing that it is "good" and looking out for them. Pavlov, the neuroscientist, has proven that when someone is taken away from something they love very much, they have emotional reprecussions. This is similar with a "typical person" living in a capitalist regime. They would "love" their country, and the idea of communism- that overturns what they "love"- would be inherently bad. Why? Just because. No other reason. Humans simply think like that.

[R_P_A_S]

great discussion comrades! keep it coming. ;)

[alooo]

Isn't human nature another word for upbringing ;)

[Janus]

Human nature is actually quite ambiguous not only because it's difficult to truly study but also because of the strange metaphysical nonsense that some people sometimes attach to it. Attempts to properly analyze it are problematic since so much of our decisions/actions are influenced or colored by the world in which we live in. Asides from extremely basic human instincts such as basic survival, analyzation patterns,etc. there's not much in the way of "human nature" that we can see right now. However, behavioral biologists and evolutionary psychologists are delving into this field and making some very surprising discoveries.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

redstar2000 once put it quite well (yes, I'm paraphrasing rs2k, sue me) in saying that what liberals (in the classical sense) claim to be human nature and consequently not possible to be overcome by socialism and communism actually amounts to nothing more than those specific peoples' "nature".

When they say that "people" need a "dangling carrot" (I've actually heard this kind of terminology from capitalists), meaning the aspiration for private economic gain in order to be motivated to work, we can assume the truth to be that they need that dangling carrot.

There exists no universal human nature, biologically inherent to our species in regards to capitalism. We survived on the planet for 90% of our existence as fucking nomads, when there was absolutely no conceivable way to personally ascend economically.

These arguments are below us. Don't waste your time.

[Hegemonicretribution]

It is plain to see that "nature" is not exactly a scientific term. I abandon the whole notion because as it stands it too flawed to be useful; as we know it can be dangerous and lead to discrimination. ("Natural" distinction in early view on homosexuality..abononation unto god and later mental illness)

Even if one is too disregard completely the possibility that we have only observed instances of life in a society that perpetuates self interest; it is evident that both benevolence and selfishness can be observed on our planet.

It would be massively flawed to assume that humans overcome self interest to become benevolent for two main reasons: Primarily it could just as easily, considering the observed environments, be the other way around. Secondly, such a view would be naive as self interest and benevolence/co-operation often overlap.

For these reasons alone the "human nature" issue is of no concern to Marxists.

What is of interest are findings by our favourite dogmatist, Dr Dawkins, that in a mixed environment where the options are to help, hinder or pass by, it was those that helped the helpers (and were evidently helped) that did the best, co-operation won out over competition....it was in essence fully in keeping with the selfish gene to co-operate in certain instances. Communism is a state (of existence not in the political sense) of interdependency, and is viable because self interest dictates that we should co-operate in such a case.

My info on Dawkins may not be exact, nor can I be bothered googling the source right now (I am a philosopher by trade so sloppy), but it is reasonably well known and I am sure someone will have some more accurate info on this.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It was in The Extended Phenotype, if memory serves, and alluded to in Selfish Gene. He ain't no dogmatist though. :P

-Alex

[BobKKKindle$]

I think you may have been confused by how Hasta expressed his thoughts, RPAS.

The concept of 'Human nature' means that Humans follow a certain form of beheaviour independent of their cultural and social environment and that this 'nature' normally entails greed and individualism. As you are no doubt aware, such a concept is often used to justify Capitalism. Based on this, it makes no sense to say that 'human nature' can 'change' because the concept refers to something that is fixed.

What I think Hasta should have said and what most Socialists feel is that human nature does not exist, and that our values and aspirations are the result of socialisation - the environment in which we develop as children and inhabit for the duration of our lives. You suggested that this is what you feel - don't worry, most people would agree with you!

Static means fixed by the way - you may have been confusing static, and dynamic - the latter refers to something that changes or is capable of change.

Many aspects of our society, not just in terms of economics but other areas as well, are justified as being 'natural' in some respect, but as a Socialist, RPAS, you need to be constantly questioning these ideas and asking those who suggest that this is the case to provide evidence and support for their views. An example of another social concept is gender and is also an interesting area of debate.

I find it is useful to view society from what could be described as a 'disconnected' position - try to seperate your analysis form the prevailing ideas of Capitalist society and examine life as an alien with no prior experience would. When you do this, you come to recognize how strange and artificial many things are!

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Ehh...human nature exists in the sense that we're predictable little creatures(as a whole).

We're crude, stupid, closed-minded, ignorant, and love a good blood-bath. Nothing appeals more to our collective senses than the destruction of our fellow man, preferably in the most cruel and torturous of ways. Before anyone objects, I have but one example that should quell all opposition:

Rome.

[BobKKKindle$]

In response to what Nietzsche just said the topic in general, if you have access to New Scientist as your school/university etc I highly recommend you check out the issue published on the 14th of April - the magazine had an excellent article on how, given certain social conditions, ordinary people with no psychological defects are capable of carrying out acts of great brutality - the article draws on the example of the Abu Ghraib incident and the Stanford prison experiment. This issue is very relevant for the general debate on human nature, I feel, as it shows just how dynamic and 'fragile' our conceptions of what constitutes 'normal' and 'acceptable' behaviour are. Brief summary on the Stanford experiment here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6567335.stm

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:42 am
It was in The Extended Phenotype, if memory serves, and alluded to in Selfish Gene. He ain't no dogmatist though. :P

-Alex
Ringing several bells, cheers :)

Oh he is a good scientist, and one of the best "pop science" authors I have come across (I won't profess to read loads of technical works)....I meant dogmatist with regards to his world view and especially that on religion.

[cubist]

Isn’t trying to define human nature defeatist in its own, right.

I mean to be human isn't natural on a scale comparable to nature itself.

Whilst we evolved in nature we evolved to the point where we can consciously choose and define and think,

To some human nature can in fact be the natural animal instinct (the religious would use something similar to this (as it’s in our "nature" to "sin").

To me human nature is the bit that separates us from the animals.

this ability to rationalize before instinctually acting, and thus the term is a bit of a no go, because the human choice means that we each rationalize on a different set of moral codes and logical processes,

For example

Those driven by greed (the top of the cappie chain) not the proletariats existing in the system best they can.

There human nature would be to instinctively drop and moral code for making money thus it is there "human nature" to put money before man.


Those driven by a desire to help those less fortunate than themselves, will put there own lives before others this is not a natural instinct of survival as nature would define it, but as we are humans we can choose to ignore the instinct to survive and thus the "human nature is to put others before yourself".

I don’t for one second believe that these can be seriously changed I think that the way each human behaves is molded by how he/she is introduced into the world and natured.

So human nature is to be human and not an animal and to make conscious decisions.

[jaycee]

while it is true that people are extremely influenced by what society they live in an so on. But their are core things which are essential and everlasting in humanity. This is one reason visions of the expoilted throughout history (including religious visions) have all been essentially communistic. Things like solodarity and basic morals remain pretty much constant.

The view that human nature is completely dependent on the society they live in, lends credence to relatavist ideas. After all theirs a reason people don't like being oppressed and exploited.

[Leo]

while it is true that people are extremely influenced by what society they live in an so on. But their are core things which are essential and everlasting in humanity. This is one reason visions of the expoilted throughout history (including religious visions) have all been essentially communistic. Things like solodarity and basic morals remain pretty much constant.

They do, but I would think that they are rather a result of collective development of the human community, rather than being "the nature of every single individual", which is what "human nature", as argued by capitalists, means. The sixth of the Theses on Feuerbach is interesting in demonstrating what Marx thought about this issue:


Originally posted by Marx
Feuerbach resolves the essence of religion into the essence of man. But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations. Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence is hence obliged:

1. To abstract from the historical process and to define the religious sentiment regarded by itself, and to presuppose an abstract — isolated - human individual.
2. The essence therefore can by him only be regarded as ‘species’, as an inner ‘dumb’ generality which unites many individuals only in a natural way.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:46 pm
great discussion comrades! keep it coming. ;)
BTW static means unmoving or unchanging.

[bezdomni]

This really belongs in philosophy...

[abbielives!]

Dawkins made a documentary about this:

Nice Guys Finish First:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzeCn02l_Rw...foshop%2Eorg%2F (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzeCn02l_Rw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnews%2Einfoshop%2Eorg%2F)

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Havent read through the whole thread, but I realised that most capitalists and their arguments are very Western centered. Their assumptions of human nature are nothing more than Western bourgeoise based concepts. Greed, need for centralised government, etc arent natural things. The Nuer for example are very anti authoritarian, does that make them "unhuman"? Che Guevara was probably one of the most selfless men to have lived (probably the most "communist" of all the big communist figures in the 20th century) does that make him oppossed to nature?

I think we carefully have to seperate what is nature and what is culture. The whole nurture-nature-debate is ignored by the capitalists and assume that certain cultural aspects are part of human nature because these things seem so normal for their ethnocentric world view.

[Monty Cantsin]

Bentham is a purely English phenomenon. Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the driest naiveté he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future. The Christian religion, e.g., is “useful,” “because it forbids in the name of religion the same faults that the penal code condemns in the name of the law.” Artistic criticism is “harmful,” because it disturbs worthy people in their enjoyment of Martin Tupper, etc. With such rubbish has the brave fellow, with his motto, “nuila dies sine line!,” piled up mountains of books. Had I the courage of my friend, Heinrich Heine, I should call Mr. Jeremy a genius in the way of bourgeois stupidity.

Karl Marx - Capital, vol 1.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...c1/ch24.htm#n50 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm#n50)

-------------------------------

The notion of species-essence alienation is predicated on an essentialist approach to human nature. This of course doesn’t prove whether or not human-beings have a human nature, just that Marx conceived of an inherent human-nature.

And for the record, i would agree with him...

[Arkham Asylum]

Both capitalism and Marx got it wrong when discussing human nature.

There is indeed a nature of man but since the dawn of civilization,politics and society in it's corruption we have pulled away from it so much that it is un-recognizable.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 18, 2007 12:24 pm
Both capitalism and Marx got it wrong when discussing human nature.

There is indeed a nature of man but since the dawn of civilization,politics and society in it's corruption we have pulled away from it so much that it is un-recognizable.
And what is your evidence for this assertion?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hey, Z! Asking a nihilist for evidence is like asking a DM-fan to be reasonable!

Where is your head comrade!?!!

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+June 18, 2007 09:22 pm--> (Citizen Zero @ June 18, 2007 09:22 pm)
Arkham [email protected] 18, 2007 12:24 pm
Both capitalism and Marx got it wrong when discussing human nature.

There is indeed a nature of man but since the dawn of civilization,politics and society in it's corruption we have pulled away from it so much that it is un-recognizable.
And what is your evidence for this assertion? [/b]
That man lives in a state of assumptions and superficial certainties with complete disregard to his his natural enviroment that he can no longer be defined by it.

[NewEast]

I like this article from MIM's website:
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/hnature.html

Give it a read, regardless of your opinions on MIM.

[TC]

Originally posted by Arkham [email protected] 18, 2007 11:24 am
Both capitalism and Marx got it wrong when discussing human nature.

There is indeed a nature of man but since the dawn of civilization,politics and society in it's corruption we have pulled away from it so much that it is un-recognizable.
Have you actually read Marx on human nature (or, gattungswesen rather, which is more typically translated as "species essence") or are you just totally bullshitting based on what you think Marx might have thought? Marx wrote extensively on the subject and i don't think that any leftist who actually read what he wrote would seriously disagree with him.

Its astonishing how much people bullshit about what Marx thought here.

[Hit The North]

Marx wrote extensively on the subject and i don't think that any leftist who actually read what he wrote would seriously disagree with him.

But then, Arkham Asylum is no leftist.

[Morello]

I'll use the example of what Capitalist's would say when confronted with anarchism being a good system. " It's human nature for people to begin running rampant because without laws there is not order." And with Communism, " It's human nature for people to be greedy."

Now, there's no such thing as Human Nature or Instinct. Crocodiles have instincts. They can swim when there born. No human is born going " I'm Greedy " or " I would riot if there was no laws" when they're born. It's called "Personality". Things the person sees and agrees with when they grow up is what makes up how they would react to certain freedoms. So, you ask, what the hell is human nature? It's a pile of bullshit.

[wizard135]

Too many people forget that humans are animals. "human nature"? Human nature does not get that much more complex than the nature of an ape. He are habitual creatures, that is why addiction is so deadly. And we learn from our environment. So really "human nature" is just whatever our past experiences and our environment has programmed.

[Morello]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:24 pm
So really "human nature" is just whatever our past experiences and our environment has programmed.
Exactly.

[Neutrino]

If there really is a definite human nature, it's impossible to actually reduce it to a series of maxims, assuming it could be ascertained in the first place. The capitalist will argue that a person will as a general rule act in his/her rational self-interest, which on the surface seems to be a reasonable principle but upon further investigation is merely a statement of what is already axiomatic: that it is a universal that creatures will seek to propagate their genes and ameliorate and sustain their lives. The fallacy that typically immediately follows this is in assuming that the rational human response must necessarily be the most superficial one: that strict individualism is best route of following the biological axiom of the propagation of one's genes and in the sustenance of one's life. This is, of course, a remarkably and degradingly absurd, inapplicable standard to even primitive creatures, for whom there is empirical evidence to indicate that altruism is as indigenous to their empirical nature as any individual drive. Moreover, it seems that humanity acts individually insofar as it is necessary to sustain life and secure comforts, etc. The conceptual and rationalized "human nature" is rebutted by the empirical in this manner.

Of course, all this presumes an actual human nature that, though supposedly existent, cannot be expressed verbally. It seems much more reasonable to say that human nature is malleable and mostly shaped by our infantile experiences with the world than it is to say that human nature is intrinsic and static to the human condition. The singular conditions that could be presented by a more advanced form of modernity, wherein basic human needs are assured, would set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. The incentive for competition would be abolished, and with it would the entire basis for acting superficially in one's "rational" self-interest. New endeavors would easily supersede old ones: a sense of community, altruism, and revelry. I cannot envision that a child brought up in a such a society would demonstrate vestigial traces of "rational egoism"; since circumstances are altered, so is "human nature."

[R_P_A_S]

what was that line from the communist manifesto in which marx sort of said that the whole thing about how: humans are greedy by nature and that humans are lazy by nature completely contradicts it self. as how capitalism would go to shit if this was true????

[cb9's_unity]

It seems pretty well documented that without contact with other humans children don't progress mentally and in some cases physically. If there is some sort of human nature it is that humans will act the way they have observed others act.

In capitalism it is taught and observed very early on that you are likely to get burned if you put to much effort in to helping others. You have to look out for yourself first because nobody else is going to. Yah charity is for the most respected in capitalist culture but it is recognized that nobody makes a living off of simply being charitable. This is why for the most part people living capitalism are 'greedy' or 'selfish'. It also happens to be the reason capitalism will fall (when you oppress enough greedy and selfish people they are going to find a way to get what they want but that is for a different conversation).

In communism/socialism/anarchism people will value service to the community. People will be able to make a living through charity and because financial security will no longer be an issue, your image in the community and how others treat you will be extremely important.

Even in today's culture people do things that don't make material sense in order to make themselves look better. The only difference is in communism you image will take much higher priority.

This post may have gone a little off topic but i've been thinking about this issue for a long time and its nice just to right it down.

[Oneironaut]

there is arguably only one human universal that appeared to exist, the incest taboo. but this in itself is also debatable. in other words, there exists no human nature that will determine how any individual will act given certain situations and the environment that surrounds the individual. for the capitalist's argument is always "humans are much too greedy for a communist society to function properly": but this is simply a result that greed is spawned by a capitalist society. there have existed hundreds of thousands of cultures where greed seemed to not even be present. much like how jealousy in a capitalist's definition is not present in Naru society. Every thing is socially constructed.

[Led Zeppelin]

Human nature doesn't exist because existence precedes essence:

Whereas previous methods of philosophical thought held that "essence precedes existence", a concept which dates back to Avicenna and Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi, Sartre flips this around arguing that for humans, existence precedes essence. In the former mode of thought, there is some creator who conceives of an idea or purpose of an object, say a knife for example, and then creates it with the essence of the object already present. The essence of what the knife will be exists before the actual knife itself.

For Sartre, who did not believe in God as the creator of humanity, believed that if there is no God to have conceived of our essence or nature, then we must come into existence first, and then create our own essence out of interaction with our surroundings and ourselves. With this comes serious implications of self-responsibility over who we become and who we are. There is no longer, for Sartre, some universal "human nature".

Existence precedes Essence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence)