Does human nature exist?

There is no distinct "human nature". There is only nature, of which humans are a part. Any trait found in humans can be found elsewhere in nature, and more importantly, any trait found in humans IS a trait of nature, since humans ARE nature, just as everything else.

So a one-hundred meter tall building of steel and concrete is a natural thing, since it has come to be as a result of natural evolution.

To say otherwise implies a perception of humans as something outside of nature, as if evolution loosened it's grip on humans when they became self aware. But it didn't, and to think otherwise is just arrogant and foolish.

Cyracuz,

"Similarity" and "difference" are two sides of the same coin we might call "analysis". You are merely stressing the similarity side, whereas religionists and moralists would stress our differences from other species.

Bear in mind the controversy over "Martian canals".....the apparent perception of "straight line features" which would be evidence for "intelligent life". It is clear that the sub-division of "nature" into species specific levels has major significance. Further examples might include the controversy over the commercial killing of whales versus that of other species. Note how issues of "religion" are involved in the first case, and "morality" is involved in the second.

Cyracuz said: "So a one-hundred meter tall building of steel and concrete is a natural thing, since it has come to be as a result of natural evolution."

This is not literally true, technology is an extension of ourselves, a tall steel and concrete building is not what you would call "nature", in a sense it is what nature has "created", if that word is correct. A building is a product of nature, not nature itself.

That argument is flawed. You could just as easily say that a bird's nest is a product of nature, not nature itself, but it doesn't make much sense. Nature never trancends itself and becomes something alien to itself. It merely expands to encompass more and more things previously unseen within it.

In a sense, nature has evolved to beind able to percieve itself, by means of human beings.

It seems clear that are diverging definitions of Human Nature at play here.

I do not view Human Nature has anything more than a generally reliable pattern of behavior.

whether or not Human Nature is inextricably bound up with morality is dependent upon the scope of your concept of morality.

It is within the nature of humans to compete and to attach themselves to identifiable groups (tribes). At this point in time these aspects of human nature mainfest themselves in the popularity of sports, spelling bees, dog shows, Dancing With The Stars, and preferences for various styles of BBQ.

Each of these areas of human interest may seem, to some, to be trivial, but the passion many people have for them is very real, and to them, not at all trivial. This is Human Nature.

Morality can be overlaid on virtually anything:

Is competition, which requires a loser moral?

Is anything approaching an obsession with a style of cooking morally sound when millions of people are starving?

Is genetic manipulation of a non-human species by humans, and for their pleasure, moral?

These can all be interesting questions, but they are not necessary in the contemplation of whether or not the particular interest or behavior reflects Human Nature.

Again, if there is some cosmic law that Human Nature be universal, then I would argue there is no such thing beyond aging, dying etc. I just don't agree that this cosmic law exists or must be imagined.

Substitute the word "nature" with the word "God" in your post and how do you feel about it?

I feel the same, since both words mean pretty much the same to me. :wink:

I still dont believe you can call a tall steel and concrete building nature, because in order to create a building you have to manipulate nature itself, or you could say nature manipulates itself, nature manipulates nature, in order to bring about something that isnt nature, but the product of nature, but the difficulty is what constitutes to being unnatural, if anything?

Can you make something out of clay that is not made out of clay?
No. No matter what you subject the clay to it will always be clay in some form.

The only difference between the manipulation of nature that a bee does when making it's hive and man does when making buildings is one of complexity. All the components and processes we find in the making of such a building are found elsewhere in nature.

As far as I'm concerned, nothing constitutes being unnatural, so I see no difficulty. After all, what most of us mean when we use the word "unnatural", is "undesired".

I've heard Bush talking about acts that are inhuman in their cruelty when inflaming his people to back his war. But if the action was performed by a human being it is not inhuman. Merely undesired, but well within our capacity.
To soar like an eagle without technological aid is an inhuman act. How do we know? No human can do it. If one day some humans can, it will no longer be an inhuman thing to do.

But man alters and cultivates nature, so as soon as you manipulate nature, or something that is natural, it no longer does what it would do naturally, so therefore it is not natural, a building is not a natural structure as apposed to say a mountian, which was formed naturally due to the forces of nature, which indeed have manipulated it, but have not knowingly designed it like a building.

What you say would be true if man was a force outside of nature. But we are not. We are natural beings, therefore anything we might do is natural. Even this computer I'm operating right now is a thing come about through natural evolution. It is a thing of nature, categorized under the subcategory of nature we call technology, a category we often tend to think is outside the realm of nature since it was produced by us. That's a faulty line of thought born of the assumption that evolution no longer applies to us. But it does, even though we've attained some measure of control over it's direction.

Cyracuz,

In normal discourse, the concept "human nature" no more equates to "nature" than "human biology" equates to "biology". Gilbey quite correctly points to artificial structures like buildings as indicative of "human" presence. Animal artifacts like hives or nests are inflexible in their design even if complex genetic programming is involved in their origin. The argument that is that "flexibility" is directly related to language and cognition in humans which allows them limited prediction and control of their environments relative to that exhibited by other species.

In the long run, it may be the case that human attempts at "control" turn out to be "mis-managed" to the extent that the species is a danger to itself and others. i.e. "Mother Nature" has the last laugh. But that does not detract from the point that "human nature" exists as a meaningful concept.

I do not argue against that. But in the same way human biology is a "sub-category" of general biology, human nature is a sub category of nature. It is not elevated above it. Building do indicate human presence, but that does not make them unnatural structures.

Cyracuse has acknowledged that he considers Nature and God pretty much synonomous.Based on that premise, it makes sense that everything --- even the inanimate constructs of mankind --- are Natural.

However, there are certainly schools of thought which hold that Nature is a subset of the whole, and from which humanity can seperate itself.

A time will come, if it is not already here, when humanity removes itself from the evolutionary process and takes sole control of it development. To many of us this represents a notable break with the dictates of Nature. To Cyracuse this is merely another aspect of the Whole, of Nature.

As for his comment that there is no such thing as Human Nature because humans are part of Nature, this is an unnecessarily strict application of his belief.

The can easily be a discernable nature of behavior of humanity contained within Nature, just as there can be Tree Nature, Bee Nature, and Lion Nature. The differences in these "natures" is largely the degree to which individual members are able to depart from them.

Once humanity takes complete control over its nature, eventually, Human Nature will cease to exist.

You understand me correctly, Finn.

And I do believe that the term "human nature" is useful. But I do not believe it is a nature separate from "the big nature".

It may be the case that "complete control" is an oxymoron. See for example Capra (The Web of Life) or Von Foerster (Second Order Cybernetics). In that case "attempts to control" would remain forever part of "human nature"....or more generally "the nature of intelligent life forms".

The thing that distinguishes a building from say, a tree, or a mountain, is that the building has been designed, by humans, a tree and a mountain, has no obvious signs of intentional design, unless you believe in the design argument of course. The difference is, intention of nature, and freak of nature.

How can "complete control" in this instance be an oxymoron?

I am thinking that humanity taking complete control over it's nature would encompass achieving complete control over absolutely everything, since everything is interwoven, and no true distinctions within nature exist. That would mean that in the moment humanity achieves complete control of it's nature it would cease to be human nature and simply be nature...

And the similarity is "...of nature".

Intention can be found in other creatures of nature. What governs that intention in humans and in bees and birds, for instance, may be the same thing, only expressed in humans, to humans, in more complexity.

But I was not talking about the similarity, I was talking about the difference, in nature, intention and freak.