human nature

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

does this post even flirt with human nature?

  • yes
  • what do you mean flirt
  • no
  • read some more…
0 voters

when anyone claims they have an answer to any question, we assume there is some grounds or means of justifying they’re claim. If we we’re to claim that we we’re all gods and hold such a statement as true, we would have to assume that they’re is a general consensus as to what exactly a god is , what charactoristics this thing would posses which make it distinct from every other thing. But, if this thing did not have a distinct nature which was perceptable and clearly known to us, we could never make such a claim.

In reality, when we say" I am a man" this implies that we exist and have all of the charectoristics of a man and a man is something clearly defined and every bit of mans nature is present in us, as we are one in the same thing.

But, one might ask how clearly defined is mans nature? many people hold many different perspectives as to the worth of men, they’re utility and they’re function. Many men have many different capacities and many different beliefs and many goals and aspirations. When one looks at the big picture its clear, that as much as a man can attain in the way of skills and knowledge and preferances, this labour of aquisition only ends in death.

When we look at men in this way, its quite easy to say that every man is the source of many a project and these projects act as a way to distinguish one man from another, but how do we uncover the charectoristics which are present in all men? When we look at a square, it is so evident when it appears to us that we can never be mistaken and think it is a circle. Such things are defined with such clearity that nobody who is aware of the essential nature of this thing could mistake it for another.

what charectoristics make man an entity which can’t be mistaken? one could easily look at a biology book, at the image of a man or woman, and recognize one when seen moving about the world(much like any other animal). Also, one can hear the voice of a man or woman, and from past experiance recognize that it is a human making the noise and not a dog or a cat.

this begs the question; can we recognize a man by any other means than his appearance and language? i can’t think of any, though this doesn;t necessarily mean there are none.

By recognizing that i appear to be what scientists call a man(by mirror or pond) i can extend different potential capacities to all mankind by reflecting on my own capacities and limitations and assuming that all humans are of as like a nature potentially as they appear to be through the senses.

In examining myself and my learned limitations I can become aware of multiple capacities and limitations which, should each mans nature be taken to be similar, should apply to all men.

So, is the search for human nature done completely through reflecting on ones own faculties and limitations?

can reason be said to be a hierarchy of facts which may or may not be relevant to a question? what gives us the capacity to know what is relevant and what is not relevant to any particular issue?

2

Data

Human nature

Data

Philosophy

Portent

Human nature and philosophy are the same in that they are the sum total of all input and output.

3

Basically, yes^^

4

i’m pretty sure the view of introspection as a guide to human nature generally is misguided.

if you’re interested in the issue of classification, plato’s meno asks some interesting questions on the matter.

5

when trying to determine what exactly human nature is, should we analyse appearence, behaviour, similarities, differences? are we more likely to dicerne the distinct charectoristics which make humans, human, by analysing mans outward appearence and behaviour or by reflecting on our own lives?

i would say that their should be an element of both which is useful in sucessfully mapping the innate human or the base set of human charactoristics.

our outward appearence is like that of a led zeppelin song; you may not remember the name of the particular song, but you won’t mistake it for another song upon close inspection. ie our outward appearence is the initial mark of individuality which serves to allow people to distinguish one person from another and yet, still leaves one aware of the similarities between people.

when we analyse human behaviour, we recognize that different people have varrying sets of capabilities and within those limiitations attempt to expand upon these capabilities.

we all have a set of biological necessities which are evident to even children.

we all eventually die, and hence we have a limited ammount of time to do what we do.

we are all conscious(aware of our environment and our own location in that environment and our current state eg sick, happy, angry, tired, hungary ect.)

we all have varrying levels of language skills, or the ability to communicate and be understood.

some of mans base charactoristics can become evidant through introspection and some through analysis of current events, mankinds history, science, and literature and art.

can you think of any other way to attain awareness of mans base or innate capacities(although some develop with time and practice and hence are not innate)?

6

I dunno - I voted yes instantly out of curiousity to read more and that, surely, is one of our major features!

7

I think it is important to be clear when discussing human nature. Are we discussing that which is unique to humans, or are we discussing that which is innate to humans?

To go back to Led Zepplin, we could either discuss emergent elements that arose from the dynamic of the band . . . or we could discuss how they used both blues and rock to create their sound.

So, since you framed the question, which angle would you rather look at?

8

i say we should look at the whole range of mans capacities and along the way we can differentiate the innate capacities from the developed ones.

as far as innate capacities go, we are born conscious/sentiant, with a set of biological necessities(food/drink/air/sleep). We also have a memory which is responsible for the recollection of past experiances.

when we age, we develop language skills and this expands our ability to give accounts of our experiances.

when we develop our language skills, we attain the capacity to learn from other peoples experiance.

what gives rise to our ability to have ideas? is the capacity to think innate? or is it developed? what is the source of our imagination? what is responsible for our capacity to think logically? are these capacities a complex of experiance(memory) and belief? what gives us the ability to assert a position or suspend judgement? is the awareness of ignorance the aid of reason? can a child reason or does one require language to reason?

9

Hi, i just want to clarify are we trying to resolve what human nature is in terms of what makes us unique and ‘special’ or merely how we define ourselves?
We can distinguish ourselves from other animals simply from our DNA structure although we share approximately 98/99% of our DNA with some chimpanzees but personally I think what makes us human is the ability, or rather the potential, to question why. To look for causes and search for meaning. We have the capacity to create our own purpose and it this potential freedom that is lacking elsewhere in the animal kingdom, humans can strive beyond animal nature although I guess not all do…i guess im not original but i see human nature as existentialism

10

I guess that depends on how you view the Great Leap Forward – did one of our ancestors learn how to think, or was there a favourable condition that allowed the ability to think to flourish?