What is Human Nature?

[S c h a d 3 n f r e u d e]

I agree with you completely. It is, indeed, a cop-out. It's also irresponsible and an excuse. I do not believe in human nature whatsoever. I think that we, as human beings, have choice, regardless of everything else, and as such should take responsibility for the choices we make and our actions.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Complex Systems

Eveille

then it is our nature to be contradictory? we build societies and then want to act as we please?

We don't build societies. They emerge.

Societies have both been built and emerged. Societies are more likely to be built upon long after their inception: look at nation-building projects in Europe and post-colonial developments.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

S c h a d 3 n f r e u d e

I agree with you completely. It is, indeed, a cop-out. It's also irresponsible and an excuse. I do not believe in human nature whatsoever. I think that we, as human beings, have choice, regardless of everything else, and as such should take responsibility for the choices we make and our actions.

If you think humans have choice, then you think choice is our nature.

[Rysidel]

What is inhuman nature?

[Yoshpet]

I don't think human nature is an over-riding compulsion. I think of it as a set of behaviors and thoughts that humans are prone to having but are by no means compelled to do them against their greater judgement. As with all generalizations there are exceptions. It's just about learning what to expect.

[Yoshpet]

Rysidel

What is inhuman nature?

Hard disk defragmentation?

[Eveille]

Rysidel

What is inhuman nature?

Being a psycho or sociopath?

[Complex Systems]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Complex Systems

Eveille

then it is our nature to be contradictory? we build societies and then want to act as we please?

We don't build societies. They emerge.

Societies have both been built and emerged. Societies are more likely to be built upon long after their inception: look at nation-building projects in Europe and post-colonial developments.

I don't think you're getting the point of emergence. We can try to set rough ordering of how people interact, rules, regulations, policies, but individuals create their own unique institutions, and way of organizing themselves based around cultural and interpersonal relationships. However, we cannot plan the form that a society will take, nor can we force a particular conduct onto it without black markets and other equivalents forming. Society is just too complex.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Complex Systems

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Complex Systems

Eveille

then it is our nature to be contradictory? we build societies and then want to act as we please?

We don't build societies. They emerge.

Societies have both been built and emerged. Societies are more likely to be built upon long after their inception: look at nation-building projects in Europe and post-colonial developments.

I don't think you're getting the point of emergence. We can try to set rough ordering of how people interact, rules, regulations, policies, but individuals create their own unique institutions, and way of organizing themselves based around cultural and interpersonal relationships. However, we cannot plan the form that a society will take, nor can we force a particular conduct onto it without black markets and other equivalents forming. Society is just too complex.

It's because I couldn't read the link at the time of my response. But to me it sounds like you're talking about Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory.

[Complex Systems]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Complex Systems

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Complex Systems

Eveille

then it is our nature to be contradictory? we build societies and then want to act as we please?

We don't build societies. They emerge.

Societies have both been built and emerged. Societies are more likely to be built upon long after their inception: look at nation-building projects in Europe and post-colonial developments.

I don't think you're getting the point of emergence. We can try to set rough ordering of how people interact, rules, regulations, policies, but individuals create their own unique institutions, and way of organizing themselves based around cultural and interpersonal relationships. However, we cannot plan the form that a society will take, nor can we force a particular conduct onto it without black markets and other equivalents forming. Society is just too complex.

It's because I couldn't read the link at the time of my response. But to me it sounds like you're talking about Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory.

I'm talking about complex systems, the reason behind my name, applied to human action.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Complex Systems

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Complex Systems

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Complex Systems

Eveille

then it is our nature to be contradictory? we build societies and then want to act as we please?

We don't build societies. They emerge.

Societies have both been built and emerged. Societies are more likely to be built upon long after their inception: look at nation-building projects in Europe and post-colonial developments.

I don't think you're getting the point of emergence. We can try to set rough ordering of how people interact, rules, regulations, policies, but individuals create their own unique institutions, and way of organizing themselves based around cultural and interpersonal relationships. However, we cannot plan the form that a society will take, nor can we force a particular conduct onto it without black markets and other equivalents forming. Society is just too complex.

It's because I couldn't read the link at the time of my response. But to me it sounds like you're talking about Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory.

I'm talking about complex systems, the reason behind my name, applied to human action.

Yeah, that's pretty much Actor-Network-Theory. You'd probably quite like it, except it is the source of our dispute over non-human agency.

[Complex Systems]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Complex Systems

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Complex Systems

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Societies have both been built and emerged. Societies are more likely to be built upon long after their inception: look at nation-building projects in Europe and post-colonial developments.

I don't think you're getting the point of emergence. We can try to set rough ordering of how people interact, rules, regulations, policies, but individuals create their own unique institutions, and way of organizing themselves based around cultural and interpersonal relationships. However, we cannot plan the form that a society will take, nor can we force a particular conduct onto it without black markets and other equivalents forming. Society is just too complex.

It's because I couldn't read the link at the time of my response. But to me it sounds like you're talking about Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory.

I'm talking about complex systems, the reason behind my name, applied to human action.

Yeah, that's pretty much Actor-Network-Theory. You'd probably quite like it, except it is the source of our dispute over non-human agency.

Except whatever the hell you're talking about, complex systems research has research institutions founded by people at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, any number of books, that have been promoted and use ideas from nobel leurietes in economics, has developed robust computational techniques to understand phenomena and reach conclusions, some of which are pretty ******** awesome. But are based around methodological individualism and human agency.

[Machine_Gun_Blues]

Human nature can technically be anything we already do, simple as that.

I dont think anything in a realist sense can be a "cop out" because anything goes in this world we live in. Granted we live by man-made laws for the decency in a system that can serve us or destroy us.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Complex Systems

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Complex Systems

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Complex Systems

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Societies have both been built and emerged. Societies are more likely to be built upon long after their inception: look at nation-building projects in Europe and post-colonial developments.

I don't think you're getting the point of emergence. We can try to set rough ordering of how people interact, rules, regulations, policies, but individuals create their own unique institutions, and way of organizing themselves based around cultural and interpersonal relationships. However, we cannot plan the form that a society will take, nor can we force a particular conduct onto it without black markets and other equivalents forming. Society is just too complex.

It's because I couldn't read the link at the time of my response. But to me it sounds like you're talking about Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory.

I'm talking about complex systems, the reason behind my name, applied to human action.

Yeah, that's pretty much Actor-Network-Theory. You'd probably quite like it, except it is the source of our dispute over non-human agency.

Except whatever the hell you're talking about, complex systems research has research institutions founded by people at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, any number of books, that have been promoted and use ideas from nobel leurietes in economics, has developed robust computational techniques to understand phenomena and reach conclusions, some of which are pretty ******** awesome. But are based around methodological individualism and human agency.

How the hell did me recommending you to read the work upon ANT after appreciating that the work upon complex systems has theoretical similarities when researching human agency turn into you having a b***h-fit about how what you said is correct? I never said it wasn't. I was simply being reciprocal, and observing that "if you like X, you might also be interested in Y".

[Eveille]

Machine_Gun_Blues

Human nature can technically be anything we already do, simple as that.

I dont think anything in a realist sense can be a "cop out" because anything goes in this world we live in. Granted we live by man-made laws for the decency in a system that can serve us or destroy us.

I didn't call it a cop out because it was untrue, I called it such because it was incomplete and has has real consequences. Claiming that human nature is always some negative personality trait (as is frequently the case) is only half true. Those who use 'human nature' to end an argument tend to do so based on negative traits like greed and selfishness; yet in an argument of positives (kindness, altruism, cooperation), 'human nature' is never brought up.

I have a major problem with this because it makes it seem, and teaches children to believe, that bad behaviors are inherent so we can't do anything about them; and that good behaviors only happen when laws and rules and morals force them out, so they are unnatural. It is all messed up and creates a world of haves and have-nots and justifies that world as being inherently necessary because of 'the way we are'.