Human Nature? If there ever was such a thing as human nature, it has
been so contaminated by our own efforts to understand and control it,
that the term is meaningless. As I read what passes for history,
perhaps there is one thread that I might consider to be Human Nature.
The need to control. I might be persuaded to toss in the need to
reproduce, and the need to protect our young. Beyond that it seems
what we refer to as Human Nature has been so conditioned, so shaped to
meet the needs of those in control, so distorted by our own make
believe world, including our make believe After Life, that a pure
strain of Human Nature does not really exist outside of some dusty
psychology books.
Perhaps one other thread could be considered to be "Human Nature".
That is the need to be superior. That is, we project our customs and
current values onto the rest of Humanity. But that may also be part
of the shaping our present Ruling Class subjects us to.
We like to place values on our behavior. Like, good. But good is
subjective. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the rest of our
Foundering Fathers were considered men of virtue, men of moral values.
And they were declared to be "Good and kindly Masters". So we had
this concept that our Human Nature allowed us to possess other humans
so long as we were kindly disposed toward them.
It was long considered, and in many nations it is still considered,
that women are the "weaker sex", and must be cared for by their
controlling menfolk. But today, at least in many parts of America,
women are now seen to be equal partners.
We are so deeply involved in our own values that we are blind to just
how much our human nature has been shaped. The truth is that some
people are good, decent people, by our current definition of Good, and
"Decent", in spite of their basic human nature that calls for them to
control.
My eldest daughter will turn 54 this year, Born in 1962, the America
she became part of was far different than today's America. Check it
out. I participated in raising her to be a Good and Decent Woman. We
bought her dolls, paper cutouts, put frilly "girlie" frills around her
room and dressed her in cute girl clothes. The Protestant church my
first wife and I belonged to still believed that women must cover
their heads when entering the House of Worship. Our Human Nature was
very different than the Human Nature we observed around us, even
within our own city. In Seattle, Blacks, called Negroes, were seen as
lazy, not too bright, musical folk who were unable to take care of
their money, and thus were living in the Ghetto because of the lack in
their Nature. The Chinese were industrious, but "chose" to live in
China Town. We "Normal" people saw the differences in the Nature of
each ethnic group, and it was obvious to us that ours was the Superior
Nature.
We had, all of us, so polluted what we named, "Human Nature", that
there was no way of being objective. Even our best psychiatrists are
controlled by how we define Human Nature. Check it out. Compare how
early practitioners defined what makes us human beings, as compared to
the "enlightened" views of today.
Finally, what drives me up a wall is our ability to redefine history
by applying today's values onto the backs of our ancestors, and then
going forward trying to make sense of the events of their day. Even
Jesus shows up as a blond, blue eyed, light skinned European Baby.
We have rewritten the entire "Word of God", and continue to shape its
message to our current values.
I would love to see what "Human Nature" looks like in another 54
years. Hmm...I'll be 135 then.
Oh well.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/1/16, Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The examples you giving have less to do with human nature and more to do
with mental illness, because they are, dare I say, ridiculous, extremes. The
things you propose as what if’s also have little to do with reality. They’re
also, as you do point out, impossible.
But after proposing these things you restate your position that objective
conditions determine human behavior. Sonow having rejected your proposals as
demonstrating nothing, I’ll restate my position
that objective conditions do not determine human behavior or, more to the
point of the original argument, they don’t determine whether the negative or
the positive sides of human thought that determines behavior will prevail,
that in the same objective conditions, an entire gamut of human nobility and
human cruelty can be observed.
What I offered as substantiation for my position are observations of very
different human behavior existing in the same objective conditions. What
wins out? Cowardice or bravery? Altruism or selfishness? Helping others or
helping one’s self? Working together, sharing available resources or
grabbing all one can get for one’s self? Inviting strangers in to offer them
shelter or being only concerned with one’s self or even only with one’s own
family? Giving things away to those in need or selling them? At a certain
point, objective conditions and/or external, unconnected circumstances
might determine who survives and who dies, or maybe even that everybody
dies, no matter which choices were made, no matter who has behaved in which
manner. But those choices will also have influenced that outcome, at least
in certain cases, to a certain extent. On Jul 31, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Okay, we don't have to go back twenty thousand years. Let's look at right
now. What happens if you decide that you are not going to acquire or spend
money from now on? No matter what your proclivities might be what choice
do you have? Or suppose you decided that methods of electricity production
have a negative effect on the environment and so you will not use it. That
means that you will not consume food that is produced with any use of
electricity; you will not wear clothing that was produced with any use of
electricity; you will not live in a dwelling that was built with any use
of electricity. How far will you get and how long will you survive? Or
suppose you decide that it is your duty to take care of every destitute
person. Once you give everything you have away to them and find that there
are plenty of destitute people left including yourself who is going to
take care of you? The point is that objective conditions have a lot, a
whole lot, to do with one's behavior. There are simply things that one has
to do and cannot do under certain objective conditions and if those
conditions are changed the range of possibilities shift along with them.
If there are things that it is desirable for people to do and other things
that it is undesirable for people to do then by changing the objective
conditions they will have no choice but to change their behavior.
On 7/31/2016 4:22 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
My examples did not have anything to do with money per se, but OK, not
money then, but the mentality and behavior described is fairly clear.
And really, how much relevance does 20,000 years ago really have,
particularly given the dearth of records, accounts, and other assorted
evidence that can tell the story in depth?
On Jul 31, 2016, at 3:07 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I would like to see you hoard money twenty thousand years ago when not
only did money not exist but the concept of money did not even exist.
The objective conditions just simply did not allow for the hoarding of
money and not much of anything else either.
On 7/31/2016 2:45 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
Both the better and worse sides of human nature prevail in every
objective condition you can name. The objective conditions actually
have the least effect on how people behave. Some people who have every
good thing imaginable and in excess are selfish pricks who wouldn’t
throw a life preserver to a drowning man, even if it cost them nothing,
whereas, although I know you scoff at this, others establish
scholarships, foundations, support scientific research, open settlement
schools, that’s not so common anymore, establish libraries, and while
none of these things significantly diminishes their lives of privilege,
it’s still preferable to keeping it all for themselves and ripping off
those less wealthy than they are. . Some people in the face of
unspeakable deprivation and horror will hoard everything they can get
their hands on, and others will share whatever little they they have
with others around them.
On Jul 31, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just believing or not believing that the better sides of human nature
will or will not prevail does nothing to make it prevail or not
prevail. If you really want those better sides to prevail it will be
necessary to work to change the objective conditions under which they
operate. Recently I came up with an example that I kind of like. That
is what do you do if you want a stiff alcoholic drink in Saudi Arabia.
I am neither saying that the consumption of alcohol is good or bad. I
am simply saying that the objective conditions in Saudi Arabia are
such that it would be extremely hard to get drunk no matter how much
you wanted to. If you have lived there all your life it is even likely
that you will not want to get drunk or even think about getting drunk.
The trouble with Saudi Arabia is that the sides of human nature that
that society encourages and discourages are not the sides that I think
should be encouraged and discouraged. The point remains, though, that
if you don't want certain behavior to take place you have to construct
the objective conditions such that it cannot take place and if you
want other behaviors to take place you have to construct the objective
conditions such that they will be inevitable.
On 7/31/2016 10:11 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
As I said to Dick, cynic that I am, I can’t quite bring myself to
really believe that the better sides of human nature won’t prevail,
experience notwithstanding. There are many, many examples in which it
does, despite many people’s tendencies to rip even those to shreds
because they are not 100% perfect.
And now, I’m going to do a little of that: you speak of the ethical
humanist movement, but look at how shabbily the New York chapter
treated you and your husband. Where were all their admirable
principles of equality and the positive sides of human nature then?
On Jul 31, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Of course, humann nature is what it is. We have the potential for
altruism
and cooperation, and we have the potential for aggression and
domination. If
we assume that every effort toward making our political and economic
system
will end in failure because the negative aspects of human nature
will win
out, then really, there's no point in trying anything that might
improve
life for all of us. One of the things that I really like about the
Ethical
Culture, or Ethical Humanist movement, is its emphasis on working
toward the
kind of society that will encourage the positive aspects of human
nature.
Miriam
