1
   

Does human nature exist?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Gilbey
 
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 03:54 pm
I believe that human nature does not exist, to say that it does implies that there are universal human characteristics that we all have, but I don't think thats the case. And how can we be all individuals if human nature exists.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 6,205 • Replies: 44
No top replies

 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 05:25 pm
"Human nature" exists because the idea of "human nature" certainly exists, and that's all that we need to say about it.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 05:46 pm
Humans are distinguished by their use of language and their relatively long dependency on adults. These both seem to be significant factors in the modification of our "nature" even if they do not account for it in total. The question is significant in terms of our "moral" attitudes to ourselves and other species and to related religious dogma regarding "man's place". Some will discount both of these factors as epihenomena of cognition/language use and in so doing may argue the case that our nature is little different in kind from that of other species. According to this any "success" we may appear to have of controlling our environment (unlike animals) may be illusary in the eventual long term evolution of this planet.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 09:14 pm
We share 99.99% of the same DNA. Double blind tests of identical twins seperated at birth compared to siblings who grew up in the same house suggest that DNA has just as much and likely more to do with our behavior than nurture does. Surely then, there is such a thing as human nature.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 06:27 am
so you've established that it exists conceptually, contrex, which perhaps it must in order to simply ask the question. but it could be a false concept, or a partially false concept, in which case i would agree at least partially with gilbey.

daniel quinn talks about the idea that most of what we call "human nature" is actually "human culture," implying that we can invent things which persist (conceptually) for a long time, until they are mistaken for our nature.

you could say that it's "human nature" to create pottery, and perhaps it's "human nature" to build things. but pottery is a cultural artifiact, not a natural one.

spiderwebs are natural. many spiders would simply cease to exist as a species if they stopped building webs, but we could live without ever making another clay pot. there are countless things we mistake for some kind of instinct or possibly organically predestined capacity, such as war.

it's true that animals (and humans) fight, but to mistake our wars for "human nature" might miss any number of important facts we've grown to take for granted. evolution is human nature, it would behoove us to realize what aspects of our lives are not "human nature" but "human culture," otherwise we might feel compelled to do things that won't fit us the same way along each stage of the evolution of our species. we don't need to make clay pots that we can replace with something we would rather have instead.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 06:31 am
The phrase "human nature" can sometimes mean "frequently observed behaviour". People say that "it's only human nature" to e.g. steal unguarded cash, but that doesn't mean that everybody would do it.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 07:03 am
Note my previous answer. The concept "human nature" is semantically significant in a limited range of contexts....normally "morality" and "religion". Once we move outside these, the concept loses coherence.
(Ref: Wittgenstein: "Meaning is use")
0 Replies
 
Gilbey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 02:55 pm
Contrex, you cant say that human nature exists just because the idea of human nature does, an idea of something is never proof of that something.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2007 05:58 pm
On the contrary Gilbey, from a non-dualistic perspective every "thing" depends on a "thinger". The word "proof" merely implies consensus amongst thingers. Things have functionality for thingers. Neither has independent existence. Such functionality may change over time ...e.g. "the four humours of the body"....and now we are left with linguistic vestiges of their former "existence" in words like "phlegmatic".

The position you advocate is "naive realism" in which existence is independent of observers.
0 Replies
 
Gilbey
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 06:01 am
But we observe our own existence, you can have an idea of anything you can think of, but not everything you can think of exist's
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 06:06 am
Gilbey wrote:
not everything you can think of exist's


Does the greengrocer's apostrophe exist?
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 06:11 am
Gilbey wrote:
not everything you can think of exist's


Does the greengrocer's apostrophe exist? Do concepts "exist"? What is existence? Who cares?

Questions such as "Does human nature/truth/evil etc exist?" are surely either essay assignments in introductory philosophy courses or naive/stupid/dumb questions.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 06:15 am
Gilbey,

All those words: "we", "observe", "existence",and "idea", are subject to analytical deconstruction from a number of philosophical perspectives. Such analysis falls under the headings of ontology and epistemology. If you were to explore those fields you would find that many of your current ideas would dissipate or be subject to radical modification.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2007 10:50 pm
Re: Does human nature exist?
Gilbey wrote:
I believe that human nature does not exist, to say that it does implies that there are universal human characteristics that we all have, but I don't think thats the case. And how can we be all individuals if human nature exists.


There are general characteristics shared among apes, among lions and among bison. This hardly means that each member of these species is identical.

Clearly "human nature" exists in that human reactions to external stimuli are, generally, predictable. Obviously this doesn't mean that in each any ever case the reaction is a foregone conclusion.

If there was nothing approximating the concept of "human nature," fast food outlets would not sell salty and fatty products, Hollywood film companies would not produce special effects laden, violent extravaganzas; team sport owners would not be multi-millionaires; there would not be Fashion, Home Design, and Cooking channels on cable TV; companies would not establish a taboo concerning sharing salaries among workers; workers on an assembly line separating white from dark tuna would not keep their dark tuna separate until the end of the day so that they could measure their achievement; praise would have no value, and people would not first fill up the back rows of an assembly.

Within this context there is plenty of room to be an individual. No one is compelled to follow "human nature". You can find a seat in the front row, tell everyone your salary, pass the dark tuna down the line, or eat only veggies.

Nevertheless, understanding "human nature," or the general tendencies of human beings is a great advantage in many endeavors---particularly business.

In essence it is understanding probabilities, but it seems softer to speak of "human nature."
0 Replies
 
Gilbey
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 03:08 pm
What about human nature in the moral context, finn dAbuzz, you said that
" Human reactions to external stimuli are, generally, predictable", how are they "generally predictable", and, can you give any solid examples of this in the moral context?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 06:22 pm
Gilbey wrote:
What about human nature in the moral context, finn dAbuzz, you said that
" Human reactions to external stimuli are, generally, predictable", how are they "generally predictable", and, can you give any solid examples of this in the moral context?


I don't know that there is a separate contex for Human Nature that is limited to morality,but there are plenty of examples of predictable reactions to stimuli that can be put in a box labeled morality.

It is reliablly predictable that Human Nature will drive most adult humans to rescue a child in danger.

Put enough pressure on people and they will do things they believed themselves morally incapable of, and they will find a way to rationalize their immoral acts so as to minimize their guilt.

Human Nature is not necessarily moral nature.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 10:34 pm
Finn makes a case for "predictable responses" as a basis of economic exploitation, but such predictability is "target group" related rather than universal. Rather it is the exploitation itself which might be regarded as "human nature".

This raises the point whereby I was tempted to add "tendency to predict and control" to my list of valid discourse areas for "human nature" but I refrained from doing so because I see this trait as a sub-aspect of "language and cognition" already mentioned. In other words, our universal "anticipatory mode" indeed sets us apart from other species and such a point is a priori to discussions of "morality" etc. i.e. Language allows for discussion/anticipation but this is a meta-level which deconstructs or equivocates all forum "questions".

I apologize for such a convoluted paragraph which boils down to "it is the nature of humans to discuss the meaning of "the nature of humans" for the purposes of prediction and control."
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 11:50 pm
fresco wrote:
Finn makes a case for "predictable responses" as a basis of economic exploitation, but such predictability is "target group" related rather than universal. Rather it is the exploitation itself which might be regarded as "human nature".

This raises the point whereby I was tempted to add "tendency to predict and control" to my list of valid discourse areas for "human nature" but I refrained from doing so because I see this trait as a sub-aspect of "language and cognition" already mentioned. In other words, our universal "anticipatory mode" indeed sets us apart from other species and such a point is a priori to discussions of "morality" etc. i.e. Language allows for discussion/anticipation but this is a meta-level which deconstructs or equivocates all forum "questions".

I apologize for such a convoluted paragraph which boils down to "it is the nature of humans to discuss the meaning of "the nature of humans" for the purposes of prediction and control.

Universality is a condition forced upon Human Nature by some who consider it. There is no reason to believe that Human Nature must be universal to exist.

There are few aspects of human life that can brook no exception, and those that exist are biological in nature: aging is universal, as is dying. There is no exception to the requirement that a human breath, drink and eat to continue to live for more than a relatively short period of time.

Human Nature involves reliable tendencies, not physical laws.

If one insists that Human Nature be universal to exist, then it does not exist, but this insitance is arbitrary.

Clever as it may have seemed to write it, exploitation of predictable human tendencies is no more a universal trait of Human Nature than any other
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2007 02:09 am
Quote:
Clever as it may have seemed to write it, exploitation of predictable human tendencies is no more a universal trait of Human Nature than any other


It is precisely the fact that this debatable point verges towards "morality" which makes it a valid candidate for a discussion of "human nature". Nobody would seriously debate "following sports" as "human nature" because it would be merely an academic exercise, unless of course such "sport" involved potential "moral issues" like boxing.

With your introduction of "physical laws" I will now restate my thesis slightly. The concept of "human nature" is inextricably bound up with the concepts of "morality" "religion" and "free will", because universal traits amongst humans can variously be viewed as "hard wired", subject to "sociological forces of compliance", or matters of "divine providence". The concept of universality itself is axiomatic when dealing with all "humanity", even if at a secondary level of analysis the seeking of universality is itself considered to be part of human nature.

"Existence" is about relationship. Concepts only have existence in relationhip to other concepts,
0 Replies
 
Gilbey
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2007 01:57 pm
Finn dAbuzz said, "It is reliablly predictable that Human Nature will drive most adult humans to rescue a child in danger." Is it human nature that drives humans to do such a thing as rescue a child in danger, or is it just an emotional reaction?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does human nature exist?
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2025 at 09:23:47
▲ ▼