|
Marc2b -> RE: Human Nature (9/26/2008 10:50:10 PM)
|
I was going to respond to several posts individually but then, I realized, I’d be writing all weekend. So, instead, here is my take on the whole thing. Those who I am obviously disagreeing with will recognize themselves I’m sure.
First, to say that there is no such thing as human nature, that we are a blank slate is, in my opinion, foolishness. To assert such is to deny our animal origins. It is to deny the effect of millions of years of evolution. It is to deny that we sprang from this ball of dirt covered (remarkably!) with a teeming mass of life. It is to deny that we have been shaped by it (even as we shape it), molded by it, created by it. I am in full agreement with Desmond Morris when he says (I’m paraphrasing), we may prefer to think of ourselves as fallen angels but the reality is: we are risen apes.
To say that we have no human nature is to say that we have no instincts and I do not see how anyone can deny that we share some powerful instincts with the animal world. The two fundamental ones being personal survival and reproduction (some people argue that the later is merely a reflection of the former).
It has been argued that for every example given as evidence of human nature there can be found an opposite example. I see two things wrong with this argument. First, many things that appear to be opposite may in fact simply be different ways of our instincts reacting to our surroundings. Consider the Fight or Flight response. If I fight threat X but run away from threat Y am I not, in both cases operating on my instinct to preserve my own life? The difference is my method used for accomplishing that goal (the goal being to save my ass). The fact that these two responses appear to be opposite does not refute the existence of a human nature.
Second, I find it difficult to deny that our instincts have a biological origin. For all intents and purposes we are our brains. The rest of us just serves to house, protect, acquire sustenance for, and ultimately reproduce, our brains. Just like any other part of our body, our brains are susceptible to accidental injury, disease, as well as mistreatment and neglect – meaning they won’t function correctly. Sometimes this is obvious to the rest of us, sometimes it is not. This can lead to behavior that can appear to go against human nature but the existence of a pathology is not proof of the non-existence of a human nature. The existence of women who neglect, abuse or even kill their children does not counter the claim that mothers have an instinct to protect and care for their children any more than a person born without legs would be proof that human beings don’t have legs.
To me, the biggest proof of the existence of a human nature can be found in a question: if there is no such thing as human nature why then, as both individuals and a species, do we repeat the same patterns over and over and over again? Even when it clearly seems that to do so would be against our best interests?
As to the question of mutual aid or perpetual war, I believe the question is worded incorrectly and should be rendered as co-operation or competition. War is certainly an example of competition but it is not the only one. Humans, on both the individual and societal levels have found many ways to compete with each other. We compete with each other in jobs and careers with out ever doing physical violence on each other. Sometimes we limit and/or ritualize the violence in contests called sports. Nations, even friendly nations, compete with each other in economic matters and in researching new technologies.
As to the answer of the co-operation versus competition question it seems obvious to me that the answer is both. Co-operation and competition bother serve to further our survival as individuals and as groups. It’s not a fifty/fifty thing. It seems to vary amongst both individuals and groups due, no doubt to a wide variety of internal and external influences. Both, I believe, are aspects of human nature but both are in service to that prime instinct of survival. It has been argued that there is no such thing as selflessness because such acts are done for the selfish reason of feeling good about yourself. I could never be so cynical as to discount the existence of true selflessness, but I do believe it to be rare. We co-operate with other people (as individuals or as groups) because it aids in our survival. We compete with other people because it aids in our survival.
This may sound reductionist to the extreme, as if I am reducing humans to nothing more than pre-programed responses (which is, I believe at the heart of many people’s objections to the concept of human nature), but I am not and here’s why:
There are two fundamental differences, I believe, between us and the rest of the animal world. First, is the ability to reason. There are some animals that appear to show a rudimentary ability to problem solve but let’s be honest, when it comes to reasoning ability humans are not only in a different league than other animals, were playing a whole new game. Second, our reasoning ability gives us the ability to override our instincts. No animal ever laid down it’s life for an abstract concept like freedom or equality.
These differences give humans the unique ability to remold themselves in a great many ways. I do not believe us to be slaves to our instincts. To do so would be to deny the existence of free will. I won’t go that far, but freedom is a relative concept. We may have the freedom to choose but the choices may be limited. Making choice B over choice A may be a case of choosing to override one of our instincts but as I said before, that does not negate the existence of our instincts. Nor does it discount the possibility that choosing B over A may simply be a case of choosing to follow one instinct over another.
|
|
|
|
