What is human nature?
- Thread starter shereads
- Start date
loves oral wife
Virgin
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Posts
- 17
Our purpose is knowledge.
The reason and purpose of life is the acquisition of knowledge. Creating is part of that acquisition. Creation encompasses destruction.
Little boys are forever crashing their toys together. They are learning what stresses the materials of the toys can handle. Later, when they create things with those materials, they will know how to do so without the creation being destroyed.
In order to make things better it is necessary to know what makes things worse. Those who destroyed the dodo contributed to the sum of our knowledge by helping us understand how we can make things worse. Some necessary lessons are ugly ones.
The reason and purpose of life is the acquisition of knowledge. Creating is part of that acquisition. Creation encompasses destruction.
Little boys are forever crashing their toys together. They are learning what stresses the materials of the toys can handle. Later, when they create things with those materials, they will know how to do so without the creation being destroyed.
In order to make things better it is necessary to know what makes things worse. Those who destroyed the dodo contributed to the sum of our knowledge by helping us understand how we can make things worse. Some necessary lessons are ugly ones.
freethinkingman
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2004
- Posts
- 227
Re: Our purpose is knowledge.
With you so far - but sad thing is when we keep having to re-learn same lesson over and over again. (And oral sex sounds much more fun
)
loves oral wife said:
With you so far - but sad thing is when we keep having to re-learn same lesson over and over again. (And oral sex sounds much more fun
)
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
It seems that all of my comments have been overlooked.
I couldn't read all of what Joe said, but I would agree with his opeining statement. Namely:
If we're to say that nature is everything (mechanics, determination, etc.), then its entirely human nature to do everything that humans do.
I don't know if he was arguing for or against it, but he summed up pretty well what I meant to say
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
Not ignored, sweet, but let be. If it all is human nature, then we are left with little to say about it. Wahtever we bring up will have to comprise a part of "all of it."
You and Joe have a wonderful and cogent point. People don't get to exclude some parts of what we do and say they aren't human.
But you can't take a tautology like that anyplace. It just kills all discussion.
I can quibble with you and say that aberrant behaviors like sociopathy are not what we mean by "human nature." Ordinary, non-pathological humans respond to social pressure and have social priorities.
But I don't think that is the question of the thread.
I would like to characterize human nature as partly mammalian, partly primate, partly uniquely hominid. I would like to make those divisions based on what I understand from biology and paleoanthropology.
I would like to do this in contradistinction to the dogmatic beliefs of amicus concerning the uniqueness and special-case nature of the human species, a being set apart from the rest of creation. I deny that we are set apart, and I place us in our animal context.
Another thing about human nature I see being discussed here is the deplorable record we have made, morally and in other ways.
Luc is particularly existential about this stuff. I rmember that phase. I blushed for the behavior of the house ape, but i could not deny my kinship with him. All these deplorable, base, venal, grasping, carnal, stupid, shortsighted, crass, ignorant, violent, obtuse, jejune, porcine, asinine, yet glorious and spiritual, artistic, beautiful creatures are me. I cannot divorce myself from them.
My response to Luc and the other sad observers of the human is that it is not enough to demonstrate our collective insanity and unworthiness, our common pigheaded ruthless cuntheaded foolishness. You have to love them as well. You have to adopt them all. They are you, in the deepest sense.
You cannot divide blacks from browns, or Siamese from Pekingese, or Americans from Arabs, and say these are the real humans and the others are not mine; the others must be killed.
We are all one. One race, one destiny.
That is the discussion I would like to have. It includes your remarks, I think, but it pushes beyond them.
I mean, given that we are such bastards, what can we do? How are we to act?
cantdog
You and Joe have a wonderful and cogent point. People don't get to exclude some parts of what we do and say they aren't human.
But you can't take a tautology like that anyplace. It just kills all discussion.
I can quibble with you and say that aberrant behaviors like sociopathy are not what we mean by "human nature." Ordinary, non-pathological humans respond to social pressure and have social priorities.
But I don't think that is the question of the thread.
I would like to characterize human nature as partly mammalian, partly primate, partly uniquely hominid. I would like to make those divisions based on what I understand from biology and paleoanthropology.
I would like to do this in contradistinction to the dogmatic beliefs of amicus concerning the uniqueness and special-case nature of the human species, a being set apart from the rest of creation. I deny that we are set apart, and I place us in our animal context.
Another thing about human nature I see being discussed here is the deplorable record we have made, morally and in other ways.
Luc is particularly existential about this stuff. I rmember that phase. I blushed for the behavior of the house ape, but i could not deny my kinship with him. All these deplorable, base, venal, grasping, carnal, stupid, shortsighted, crass, ignorant, violent, obtuse, jejune, porcine, asinine, yet glorious and spiritual, artistic, beautiful creatures are me. I cannot divorce myself from them.
My response to Luc and the other sad observers of the human is that it is not enough to demonstrate our collective insanity and unworthiness, our common pigheaded ruthless cuntheaded foolishness. You have to love them as well. You have to adopt them all. They are you, in the deepest sense.
You cannot divide blacks from browns, or Siamese from Pekingese, or Americans from Arabs, and say these are the real humans and the others are not mine; the others must be killed.
We are all one. One race, one destiny.
That is the discussion I would like to have. It includes your remarks, I think, but it pushes beyond them.
I mean, given that we are such bastards, what can we do? How are we to act?
cantdog
Last edited:
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
cantdog,
not sure if I'm completly following you, but I'll give an example of what I mean.
When I hear the term, 'human nature' it's usually in the context of why some peaceful or equitable plan won't work. That competition, greed ect are human nature. And it's usually stated as if that were the main part (or all of human nature) and that it's nieve to think otherwise.
I think that there is good and bad in human nature, and that it's wrong to assume that either is an aberation. Capitalists swear that it's our nature to be greedy, competative, and all that the more socialist of us would consider to be 'bad qualities.' They so, no not bad just 'human nature' grow up and face the facts.
Welll, I think we are taking sides in a case were both sides are part of the truth and each side claiming that there part of the truth is the only and whole truth. I think that it is* in our nature to be any of these things, greedy or giving ect. And that the whole truth (and following that the 'solution) encompasses that.
I think that we run into trouble when we try to separate nature from nurture in that society reinforces what is already there. And I think that we can build a society to reinfoce the good, the ultruistic, the peaceful, the gentle, the compationate... ect. ect. *But first we have to accept that these too are a part of our nature* and not just an abboration or something. AS long as we accept violence as *human nature* (the only and unavoidable human nature) we will never be able to get past violence to peace. As long as we accept greed as human nature we will have suffering. I believe that we can do that in a non-nieve way- accepting the good and the bad in human nature, but nurturing and cultivating the best.
Finding goodness in our fellow man may be difficult, but I believe that the potential for it is in all of us.
Religion teaches us that 'badness' is human nature and 'goodness' is devine- or outside of ourselves. As long as we believe that we are doomed...
(I think I missed some essential point that I meant to make, but that appears to be the best I can do right now
not sure if I'm completly following you, but I'll give an example of what I mean.
When I hear the term, 'human nature' it's usually in the context of why some peaceful or equitable plan won't work. That competition, greed ect are human nature. And it's usually stated as if that were the main part (or all of human nature) and that it's nieve to think otherwise.
I think that there is good and bad in human nature, and that it's wrong to assume that either is an aberation. Capitalists swear that it's our nature to be greedy, competative, and all that the more socialist of us would consider to be 'bad qualities.' They so, no not bad just 'human nature' grow up and face the facts.
Welll, I think we are taking sides in a case were both sides are part of the truth and each side claiming that there part of the truth is the only and whole truth. I think that it is* in our nature to be any of these things, greedy or giving ect. And that the whole truth (and following that the 'solution) encompasses that.
I think that we run into trouble when we try to separate nature from nurture in that society reinforces what is already there. And I think that we can build a society to reinfoce the good, the ultruistic, the peaceful, the gentle, the compationate... ect. ect. *But first we have to accept that these too are a part of our nature* and not just an abboration or something. AS long as we accept violence as *human nature* (the only and unavoidable human nature) we will never be able to get past violence to peace. As long as we accept greed as human nature we will have suffering. I believe that we can do that in a non-nieve way- accepting the good and the bad in human nature, but nurturing and cultivating the best.
Finding goodness in our fellow man may be difficult, but I believe that the potential for it is in all of us.
Religion teaches us that 'badness' is human nature and 'goodness' is devine- or outside of ourselves. As long as we believe that we are doomed...
(I think I missed some essential point that I meant to make, but that appears to be the best I can do right now
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
And that's where some religion and I part company. Not all Christian religion carries the message you imply.
There are ways and ways to view "original sin." Someone posted an insightful article not long ago on the boards here. It delineated two ways of seeing the function of government and the basic goodness of man.
There is the conservative model. People are basically bad, they can mean well or ill and it matters little. People require discipline and a stern father.
In the liberal model people are basically good. They mean well, just not THAT well and not all the time. Essentially they require a nurturing environment and freedom.
You can tell the difference in just a few minutes in a church or talking with a person.
Christian churches come in both flavors, just as every other sort of institution can do. They don't actually all teach that man is not perfectible. But there are churches which tell you what to wear, how to think, when to laugh, what to eat and so on, and imply clearly that-- despite grace-- Jesus loves you a lot less if you don't follow those orders. And the rules cover most of the details of life.
Other churches are much more in the model of nurturing. You are to be open to the whispers of God's voice, so that you know what he will require of you. This is much more consonant with the sermon on the mount. The bit about the peacemakers, the meek.
cantdog
There are ways and ways to view "original sin." Someone posted an insightful article not long ago on the boards here. It delineated two ways of seeing the function of government and the basic goodness of man.
There is the conservative model. People are basically bad, they can mean well or ill and it matters little. People require discipline and a stern father.
In the liberal model people are basically good. They mean well, just not THAT well and not all the time. Essentially they require a nurturing environment and freedom.
You can tell the difference in just a few minutes in a church or talking with a person.
Christian churches come in both flavors, just as every other sort of institution can do. They don't actually all teach that man is not perfectible. But there are churches which tell you what to wear, how to think, when to laugh, what to eat and so on, and imply clearly that-- despite grace-- Jesus loves you a lot less if you don't follow those orders. And the rules cover most of the details of life.
Other churches are much more in the model of nurturing. You are to be open to the whispers of God's voice, so that you know what he will require of you. This is much more consonant with the sermon on the mount. The bit about the peacemakers, the meek.
cantdog
Riven___Caulfield
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Posts
- 273
Human nature is very comparable to wolf-nature or parakeet-nature or water-nature.
We will flow in the direction of least resistance. Hate and love and creativity and violence are all incidental to this principle.
We will flow in the direction of least resistance. Hate and love and creativity and violence are all incidental to this principle.
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
So your idea, Riven___, is to channel people where you want them to flow, by dint of providing resistance at other points?
So is mine. I got a line in the fuckin sand all ready for these puppies.
They shall find that, until the Big Guy does the sorting out, there are still goats among the sheep. If they get too slappy happy with the dogs, they may find there are a few wolves as well. I for one do not respond well to being taken for a fuckin ungulate.
So is mine. I got a line in the fuckin sand all ready for these puppies.
They shall find that, until the Big Guy does the sorting out, there are still goats among the sheep. If they get too slappy happy with the dogs, they may find there are a few wolves as well. I for one do not respond well to being taken for a fuckin ungulate.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Riven___Caulfield said:
There are animals - lower animals, if you will, like the meerkat - that will stay beside their wounded/dying, snuggling with them, standing guard, even if it means going days without food or water.
Compassion is part of nature and can't be explained as the path of least resistance.
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
Actually, there is quite an extensive calculus of the advantages of altruistic behavior. Many "lower" animals exhibit behaviors which fall under theis rubric. Animals "low" enough that most observers see their behavior as completely instinctual. A raven, when in the winter flock group, will announce to others of his flock the discovery of food. And intelligent as ravens are accounted, the behavior of any raven does seem driven by instinct.
In the vernacular, the actions of individual ravens seem altogether hard-wired. What advantage accrues to a raven by inviting competition at his food?
Examples are myriad and explanations are sometimes strained. Biologists fall back on mumbo-jumbo such as "social drives" to explain these behaviors.
But it is true, as shereads says, that actions which would be read as "compassionate" in humans are nonetheless done, seemingly by instinct, by the "lower orders."
Guarding the injured from harm, sharing food with unrelated others of his kind-- these things happen in many species, and the advantage is none too clear.
cantdog
In the vernacular, the actions of individual ravens seem altogether hard-wired. What advantage accrues to a raven by inviting competition at his food?
Examples are myriad and explanations are sometimes strained. Biologists fall back on mumbo-jumbo such as "social drives" to explain these behaviors.
But it is true, as shereads says, that actions which would be read as "compassionate" in humans are nonetheless done, seemingly by instinct, by the "lower orders."
Guarding the injured from harm, sharing food with unrelated others of his kind-- these things happen in many species, and the advantage is none too clear.
cantdog
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,724
There are 'rational' explanations for altuistic behaviour. Whether they are correct or not is another matter altogether.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
"There are things we should believe simply because they should be true."
Maybe compassion and empathy are just what they look like, in meerkats or any other creature with the capacity to comfort or take comfort in another of its own kind. Maybe being alive isn't the end goal.
Maybe compassion and empathy are just what they look like, in meerkats or any other creature with the capacity to comfort or take comfort in another of its own kind. Maybe being alive isn't the end goal.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
cantdog said:
Surely, you cannot be including neoconservative Republicans. Sociopaths, maybe. But Cheney?
Here's a twist: differences significant enough to be visible on brain-scans have been found separating populations of "normal" adults from serial killers; of heterosexual and homosexual men; of the same individual before and after being exposed to advertising. The question becomes, are we each programmed by our DNA to respond to certain circumstances in a particular way, beyond our control? When one of us is provoked to violence but chooses against it, is it really a choice? Or are each of us always responding in the only way we are able?
The question nobody's answered yet is whether the serial killer's brain was altered by the acts he chose - or whether his actions were caused by the abnormality? Is it possible that choice is an illusion?
I vote "no," as I think most people would. We don't like to think of ourselves as powerless. We can all relate instances of having overcome some awful urge, with the help of a 12-step program or a parent's guidance or our own stubborn will. But maybe we couldn't have responded any other way. Maybe it just felt like a triumph of will.
Ick. I don't like that road. It leads away from the compassion of weasels and down the dark road to Cheneyism
Goodnight, pornsters.
impressive
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Posts
- 27,372
This thread reminds me of a half-finished book I've been meaning to finish: The Brighter Side of Human Nature by Alfie Kohn:
"Drawing from hundreds of studies in half a dozen fields, "The Brighter Side of Human Nature" makes a powerful case that caring and generosity are just as natural as selfishness and aggression. This lively refutation of cynical assumptions about our species considers the nature of empathy and the causes of war, why we (incorrectly) explain all behavior in terms of self-interest, and how we can teach children to care."
"Drawing from hundreds of studies in half a dozen fields, "The Brighter Side of Human Nature" makes a powerful case that caring and generosity are just as natural as selfishness and aggression. This lively refutation of cynical assumptions about our species considers the nature of empathy and the causes of war, why we (incorrectly) explain all behavior in terms of self-interest, and how we can teach children to care."
Lucifer_Carroll
GOATS!!!
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Posts
- 3,319
cantdog said:
Technically I'm a black romantic with occassional pure nihilism. I believe in the big good things and the possibility of any person being sometime a good person, but I also have seen enough to have a Holden Caulfield style outlook on how most people fail and even conspire against these good and altruistic tendencies. I have seen the Earthly reward for a good life and the one for a bad life. I must say the bad life is infinitely better and you get more people at your funeral.
So, some of my outlook on human nature is characterized by the shirt "Losing faith in humanity, one person at a time", but most despite all by Dawkins and is demonstration that while genetically we're all selfish little fuckers living for the self, we also have the ability through our intellects to act against these impulses and/or self-sacrifice.
Anyway, that's my folly in a poorly worded nutshell. I doubt anyone gives a fuck and it's not as humorous as insert-a-rant.
Similar threads
