Welcome to Gaia! ::

Pseudo-Onkelos's avatar

Adored Admirer

CH1YO
Pseudo-Onkelos
CH1YO
Pseudo-Onkelos
CH1YO
There's not a lot to learn, it all comes naturally.


Haha! I see what you did there.


Life is rhetoric. That, I believe, surmises human nature best.


That's a different definition of life I've ever seen.


I think it is the only one that has satisfied me.


I wonder if reading Aristotle's Rhetoric would be of use?
Pseudo-Onkelos
CH1YO
Pseudo-Onkelos
CH1YO
Pseudo-Onkelos
CH1YO
There's not a lot to learn, it all comes naturally.


Haha! I see what you did there.


Life is rhetoric. That, I believe, surmises human nature best.


That's a different definition of life I've ever seen.


I think it is the only one that has satisfied me.


I wonder if reading Aristotle's Rhetoric would be of use?


Quite possibly. I'm more into Idealist philosophy to be honest though.
Eveille
Oxymouse
Eveille
Oxymouse
We have the ability to succumb to our supposed nature (greed, lust, love, etc.) and we also have the ability to transcend them. So what really makes us human? The fact that we have neurotic patterns that we try to satiate or the fact that we can rise above these patterns?

Put it simply, I don't think there are anything that truly defines our nature, aside from physical and genetic differences with other animals.


See that is what I don't get.

The claim that things like war are inevitable, that peace never lasts; that charities and altruism and kindness are social constructs, but that greed and self-interest are our 'nature'.

Why do we emphasize the bad parts, dissociate them from learned behavior and then do nothing to try to transcend them? @_@.


Because we are stuck in a habit of fulfilling our desires. We're always chasing pleasures and security. It feels good. It feels nice to know something will be there when you wake up tomorrow.

Things like war and greed are just extreme manifestations of that chase. We place so much hope that things will go our way once we get something or someone out or or in our life. Then we suffer once the sad reality hits (nothing lasts forever).

Why do we continue to feed our cycles? Like I said, we love the chase and we hate not getting what we want. Also lack of introspection. Lack of motivation. Lack of wisdom. This is why we have spirituality, to try to help us transcend these ailments.


So we are fundamentally hedonists who need religion?

I totally cannot agree with that assessment.

Socialization alone is usually enough to overcome our worst traits, nor is socialization required for kindness since it has been seen in other apes as well.


Hmm... we aren't fundamentally hedonist. Like I said, there's no trait that classifies human nature. There is an infinite number of possibilities for a human to be, yet that is only possible if there wasn't an inherent nature there to begin with. But yes if we do get stuck in feeding our cycles (any cycle), we can be classified as hedonist. But does that mean what we are what we chase? (in this case, pleasure in all senses. Intellectual pleasure. Even pleasures that come with spiritual practice, like tranquility, peace etc.)

"Socialization alone is usually enough to overcome our worst traits, nor is socialization required for kindness since it has been seen in other apes as well."

Of course, as you can show kindness to yourself. After all you are all what you really have and even that is not promised to you (remember; nothing lasts?) And socialization is also a crutch in the long run, in cultivating good habits. Unless you're inclined to not question a system, there is usually something you'll find that does not align with your beliefs/principles. Systems are only there to help you. If they've helped you, you don't need it anymore.

On a side note: I don't know why you have to referrence the great apes. Are you trying to make an evolutionary case by comparison?
Eveille's avatar

Sparkling Reveler

Oxymouse
Eveille
Oxymouse
Eveille
Oxymouse
We have the ability to succumb to our supposed nature (greed, lust, love, etc.) and we also have the ability to transcend them. So what really makes us human? The fact that we have neurotic patterns that we try to satiate or the fact that we can rise above these patterns?

Put it simply, I don't think there are anything that truly defines our nature, aside from physical and genetic differences with other animals.


See that is what I don't get.

The claim that things like war are inevitable, that peace never lasts; that charities and altruism and kindness are social constructs, but that greed and self-interest are our 'nature'.

Why do we emphasize the bad parts, dissociate them from learned behavior and then do nothing to try to transcend them? @_@.


Because we are stuck in a habit of fulfilling our desires. We're always chasing pleasures and security. It feels good. It feels nice to know something will be there when you wake up tomorrow.

Things like war and greed are just extreme manifestations of that chase. We place so much hope that things will go our way once we get something or someone out or or in our life. Then we suffer once the sad reality hits (nothing lasts forever).

Why do we continue to feed our cycles? Like I said, we love the chase and we hate not getting what we want. Also lack of introspection. Lack of motivation. Lack of wisdom. This is why we have spirituality, to try to help us transcend these ailments.


So we are fundamentally hedonists who need religion?

I totally cannot agree with that assessment.

Socialization alone is usually enough to overcome our worst traits, nor is socialization required for kindness since it has been seen in other apes as well.


Hmm... we aren't fundamentally hedonist. Like I said, there's no trait that classifies human nature. There is an infinite number of possibilities for a human to be, yet that is only possible if there wasn't an inherent nature there to begin with. But yes if we do get stuck in feeding our cycles (any cycle), we can be classified as hedonist. But does that mean what we are what we chase? (in this case, pleasure in all senses. Intellectual pleasure. Even pleasures that come with spiritual practice, like tranquility, peace etc.)

"Socialization alone is usually enough to overcome our worst traits, nor is socialization required for kindness since it has been seen in other apes as well."

Of course, as you can show kindness to yourself. After all you are all what you really have and even that is not promised to you (remember; nothing lasts?) And socialization is also a crutch in the long run, in cultivating good habits. Unless you're inclined to not question a system, there is usually something you'll find that does not align with your beliefs/principles. Systems are only there to help you. If they've helped you, you don't need it anymore.

On a side note: I don't know why you have to referrence the great apes. Are you trying to make an evolutionary case by comparison?


The apes was because you claimed we needed spirituality to overcome our personality ailments. Apes don't have spirituality but there have still been observed cases of altruism and kindness, as well as cases of all out war against another tribe.
Eveille
Oxymouse
Eveille
Oxymouse
Eveille
Oxymouse
We have the ability to succumb to our supposed nature (greed, lust, love, etc.) and we also have the ability to transcend them. So what really makes us human? The fact that we have neurotic patterns that we try to satiate or the fact that we can rise above these patterns?

Put it simply, I don't think there are anything that truly defines our nature, aside from physical and genetic differences with other animals.


See that is what I don't get.

The claim that things like war are inevitable, that peace never lasts; that charities and altruism and kindness are social constructs, but that greed and self-interest are our 'nature'.

Why do we emphasize the bad parts, dissociate them from learned behavior and then do nothing to try to transcend them? @_@.


Because we are stuck in a habit of fulfilling our desires. We're always chasing pleasures and security. It feels good. It feels nice to know something will be there when you wake up tomorrow.

Things like war and greed are just extreme manifestations of that chase. We place so much hope that things will go our way once we get something or someone out or or in our life. Then we suffer once the sad reality hits (nothing lasts forever).

Why do we continue to feed our cycles? Like I said, we love the chase and we hate not getting what we want. Also lack of introspection. Lack of motivation. Lack of wisdom. This is why we have spirituality, to try to help us transcend these ailments.


So we are fundamentally hedonists who need religion?

I totally cannot agree with that assessment.

Socialization alone is usually enough to overcome our worst traits, nor is socialization required for kindness since it has been seen in other apes as well.


Hmm... we aren't fundamentally hedonist. Like I said, there's no trait that classifies human nature. There is an infinite number of possibilities for a human to be, yet that is only possible if there wasn't an inherent nature there to begin with. But yes if we do get stuck in feeding our cycles (any cycle), we can be classified as hedonist. But does that mean what we are what we chase? (in this case, pleasure in all senses. Intellectual pleasure. Even pleasures that come with spiritual practice, like tranquility, peace etc.)

"Socialization alone is usually enough to overcome our worst traits, nor is socialization required for kindness since it has been seen in other apes as well."

Of course, as you can show kindness to yourself. After all you are all what you really have and even that is not promised to you (remember; nothing lasts?) And socialization is also a crutch in the long run, in cultivating good habits. Unless you're inclined to not question a system, there is usually something you'll find that does not align with your beliefs/principles. Systems are only there to help you. If they've helped you, you don't need it anymore.

On a side note: I don't know why you have to referrence the great apes. Are you trying to make an evolutionary case by comparison?


The apes was because you claimed we needed spirituality to overcome our personality ailments. Apes don't have spirituality but there have still been observed cases of altruism and kindness, as well as cases of all out war against another tribe.


Like I said, you don't need a system if it's already helped you. And it follow that if you are already inclined to be kind, of course, the system is not required.
Phallic Wonderland's avatar

Distinct Browser

10,150 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Forum Regular 100
Men peeing standing up I guess would be considered instinct. Standing up gives them more awareness of their 360 degree surroundings, even though it's no necessary anymore (unless you're in the woods or something,) and sleeping with your feet towards the entrance of your house could be considered instinctual as we prefer to do that in case of intruders (which would have prolly happened in caveman days.)
Eveille's avatar

Sparkling Reveler

Phallic Wonderland
Men peeing standing up I guess would be considered instinct. Standing up gives them more awareness of their 360 degree surroundings, even though it's no necessary anymore (unless you're in the woods or something,) and sleeping with your feet towards the entrance of your house could be considered instinctual as we prefer to do that in case of intruders (which would have prolly happened in caveman days.)


So human nature to you would be that which is instinctual? That is a hard position to take honestly lol, so much of what we are is learned that it is hard to differentiate what we are socialized into doing/believing, from that which comes naturally without outside influence.
Human nature isn't a real thing. It's just some silly concept people use to justify their bullshit.
Eveille's avatar

Sparkling Reveler

The Sky Does Not Bow
Human nature isn't a real thing. It's just some silly concept people use to justify their bullshit.


I am inclined to agree....but there has to be something to us. Something that is common all around and we would have no matter what's around us. I just think that 'human nature' is used too frequently to excuse our bad traits and not nearly enough to explain our good ones.

Blaming greed on nature, but kindness on society...is bullshit. Why is there the assumption that we naturally bad and that we can only be good if we have laws and religious rules and society? It's pretty annoying.
Quote:
What is it really though? What is it about humans that (non-physically) differentiates us from all other life forms?
Now, you see - personally, I must argue these are questions with a lot of difference. After all, this division, whilst perhaps a rationale to the nature of what humans are. It not neccessarily the whole sum of humanity. Nor, is it neccessariyl actually part of "human nature". Perhaps being a somewhat artificial thing.
To answer the latter, since I've asked it myself a few times and answered having been satisfied by an answer. I would say that what makes humans seperate is their capability to social contract. Whilst other species may demonstrate this, humans in particular - show a different ability at such things. To the point where a one would think a significant distinction formed.
Now, to human nature - a difficult premise in and of itself. To create a "nature" to humanity, one has to find something common. Ignoring the biological (given human nature is oft a response in psychological or sociological arguments), I find myself left to consider only a single possibility. The rest having been thrown out for too much variance. The remaining area of concernation being morality.
Thus, we are left (assuming i did not erroneously throw something out) to ask "what common morality exists?" The problem here is the number of cultures that differ even on this. Whilst most formulate moral codes demanding certain actions aren't performed. The problem is where they cop out to say "it's ok in this instance" as may occur. Thus, one could argue differentiation is an inherent thing to humanity. After all, note social classes, nationalities, religions, groups within societies, so forth - there seems to be pretty strong definitions and catagorizations for anything that might try to act as a full hegemony.
Thus, I suppose I hit;
Quote:
In fact, does human nature even have to be something that differentiates us?
And have to say, prima facie of my argument. It inherently does by said differentiation being nature.

Quote:
Can we share our characteristics with other life forms and still be have it be part of our defining features?
Something I cannot comment on. Grant me another sentient species to observe intereactions with.

Quote:
What is intrinsic and what is learned? Is there anything that ISN'T learned?
Supposedly, intelligence levels (rate of learning information as opposed to information known - to cut a possible misconception) are mostly genetic.
Eveille
The Sky Does Not Bow
Human nature isn't a real thing. It's just some silly concept people use to justify their bullshit.


I am inclined to agree....but there has to be something to us. Something that is common all around and we would have no matter what's around us. I just think that 'human nature' is used too frequently to excuse our bad traits and not nearly enough to explain our good ones.

Blaming greed on nature, but kindness on society...is bullshit. Why is there the assumption that we naturally bad and that we can only be good if we have laws and religious rules and society? It's pretty annoying.

Well, humans are mammals and have instincts like any mammal, but our higher brain functions supercede those all the ******** time. "Kindness," or empathy, is observed in almost every single social species on the planet - it's a part of us as much as greed is, and greed is simply our basic sense of survival applied to social constructs and abstract concepts lie currency and wealth.
Eveille's avatar

Sparkling Reveler

The Sky Does Not Bow
Eveille
The Sky Does Not Bow
Human nature isn't a real thing. It's just some silly concept people use to justify their bullshit.


I am inclined to agree....but there has to be something to us. Something that is common all around and we would have no matter what's around us. I just think that 'human nature' is used too frequently to excuse our bad traits and not nearly enough to explain our good ones.

Blaming greed on nature, but kindness on society...is bullshit. Why is there the assumption that we naturally bad and that we can only be good if we have laws and religious rules and society? It's pretty annoying.

Well, humans are mammals and have instincts like any mammal, but our higher brain functions supercede those all the ******** time. "Kindness," or empathy, is observed in almost every single social species on the planet - it's a part of us as much as greed is, and greed is simply our basic sense of survival applied to social constructs and abstract concepts lie currency and wealth.


Was just wondering why we credit outside influence for the good and blame internal influences for the bad, as if we were all bad and could only possibly be redeemed by the effects of civilization; it's a stupid idea. You are right.
Eveille
The Sky Does Not Bow
Eveille
The Sky Does Not Bow
Human nature isn't a real thing. It's just some silly concept people use to justify their bullshit.


I am inclined to agree....but there has to be something to us. Something that is common all around and we would have no matter what's around us. I just think that 'human nature' is used too frequently to excuse our bad traits and not nearly enough to explain our good ones.

Blaming greed on nature, but kindness on society...is bullshit. Why is there the assumption that we naturally bad and that we can only be good if we have laws and religious rules and society? It's pretty annoying.

Well, humans are mammals and have instincts like any mammal, but our higher brain functions supercede those all the ******** time. "Kindness," or empathy, is observed in almost every single social species on the planet - it's a part of us as much as greed is, and greed is simply our basic sense of survival applied to social constructs and abstract concepts lie currency and wealth.


Was just wondering why we credit outside influence for the good and blame internal influences for the bad, as if we were all bad and could only possibly be redeemed by the effects of civilization; it's a stupid idea. You are right.

because cynicism.
The only absolute truths on human nature would probably the instinct to reproduce and eat.
Evidence is even in language: the letter 'A', alpha, etc. all have the 'aahh' sound--a sound we make when we satisfy those two particular instincts.
Of course, that's a basic gvien for all animals (not the 'aahh' sound) and those are only general instincts for humans.
Some people (very little) don't seek sex/reproduction (but I think that's only because personal ideals/feelings get mixed in).

Several historical figures say that humans are born with a clean slate of no human nature at all and their actions of that are considered 'natural' is just what society deems socially acceptable.
Others say that humans are naturally peaceful (e.g. Native Americans) and that some trauma makes them otherwise. Jean Jacques Rousseau was believed that reason suppressed a person's natural virtue.

Personally, I agree w/ the guy that says humans were too diverse, so there is no 'one single human nature'.
Eveille's avatar

Sparkling Reveler

A Really Bad Idea
Quote:
What is it really though? What is it about humans that (non-physically) differentiates us from all other life forms?
Now, you see - personally, I must argue these are questions with a lot of difference. After all, this division, whilst perhaps a rationale to the nature of what humans are. It not neccessarily the whole sum of humanity. Nor, is it neccessariyl actually part of "human nature". Perhaps being a somewhat artificial thing.
To answer the latter, since I've asked it myself a few times and answered having been satisfied by an answer. I would say that what makes humans seperate is their capability to social contract. Whilst other species may demonstrate this, humans in particular - show a different ability at such things. To the point where a one would think a significant distinction formed.
Now, to human nature - a difficult premise in and of itself. To create a "nature" to humanity, one has to find something common. Ignoring the biological (given human nature is oft a response in psychological or sociological arguments), I find myself left to consider only a single possibility. The rest having been thrown out for too much variance. The remaining area of concernation being morality.
Thus, we are left (assuming i did not erroneously throw something out) to ask "what common morality exists?" The problem here is the number of cultures that differ even on this. Whilst most formulate moral codes demanding certain actions aren't performed. The problem is where they cop out to say "it's ok in this instance" as may occur. Thus, one could argue differentiation is an inherent thing to humanity. After all, note social classes, nationalities, religions, groups within societies, so forth - there seems to be pretty strong definitions and catagorizations for anything that might try to act as a full hegemony.
Thus, I suppose I hit;
Quote:
In fact, does human nature even have to be something that differentiates us?
And have to say, prima facie of my argument. It inherently does by said differentiation being nature.

Quote:
Can we share our characteristics with other life forms and still be have it be part of our defining features?
Something I cannot comment on. Grant me another sentient species to observe intereactions with.

Quote:
What is intrinsic and what is learned? Is there anything that ISN'T learned?
Supposedly, intelligence levels (rate of learning information as opposed to information known - to cut a possible misconception) are mostly genetic.


So our ability to learn, our need to categorize things and group ourselves and the ability to hold morals?

Besides the ability to learn they actually do seem pretty unique to people. Would a feral human like categorizing things and be able to create a moral system outside of society though? ...I guess they would have to, after all we didn't always have these things and yet now we do, they had to start at some point. Could they start again with a modern feral human? @_@ hmm

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games