Human Nature


As I said (for example: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here): Human beings are luxury beings.

Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, to environment, but also about distancing from nature, from environment, thus about the “luxury islands”.

Human beings are the only living beings that can disassociate themselves from nature in such a dimension that they do not completely have to adapt themselves to nature, to their natural environment. They can destroy the nature just for fun. Other living beings can also have a little bit luxury, but their luxury is always embedded in their immediate nature, their natural environment. They are not able to overcome their dependence of nature. They remain living creatures in the sense of Darwinism: those that are successful have the most descendants, and those that are not successful have the less or no descendants and die out. Luxury beings are the only living beings that can show also the opposite direction: being successful and having less or no descendants (children) and beeing unsuccessful and having the most descendants (children). This two cases would immediately lead to extinction, if they were completely embedded in nature, in natural environment. In the case of human beings it does not lead to extinction, if they are in situations of independence of nature; they often are in such situations, and then It depends on human decisions whether a group of human beings or even all human beings die out or not. Humans have two natures: (1) the real nature which all other living beings also have, (2) their own nature as their culture(s) which is (are) much independend of the real nature.

So when I say “human nature is human culture/s”, then I mean that - in a pure natural sense - humans are 98%-animals; so in this sense they have a 98%-animal nature and merely a 2%-human nature, but this 2% are their culture/s. And in a pure cultural sense this relation is inversely proportional.

If humans are humans to 100%, then merely to 2% because of their nature; but to 98% because of their culture/s!

Rabbits and cock roaches do that. Does that make them superior? :mrgreen:

The most implicit distinction between Man and cockroaches is in his ability to dream. If cockroaches could dream, they would look like armored, iron men by now. Perhaps this is somewhat what Kafka may have had in mind.

Well, … “in mind”? Perhaps you know that Kafka was not a philosopher but mentally ill - like many others of his “sort”.

Kafka wrote down what was in his mind, yes, but in his mind was no contribution to the solution of the problem of human nature. In his mind was merely he himself. So, metaphorically spoken, he himself was the beetle (you say: “cockroach”). But a beetle (and also your “cockroach”) is definitely no human.

It is not true that “the most implicit distinction” between humans and cockroaches is in the “ability to dream” (Orb). Many animals can dream.

Do dreaming animals dream typical human dreams?


Hey, Project, where is your response? You are a very slow “machine”. Are you “a windmill in a desert”?

Higher quality takes more time, your interpretation is being processed.

That version of computation has long been outdated.

[size=107]1) The prestage of the human luxury beings was the upright walking which leads to the possibility of using hands in many other ways than walking which leads to a more voluminous brain with very much more capacity which leads to the birth of the luxury being.

  1. The "birth" of the human luxury beings was the use of fire which was associated with the use of language.

  2. The "youth" of the human luxury beings was the sapientisation.

  3. The "adulthood" of the human luxury beings began when they were left alone, thus with the Neanderthal extinction (since then there has been being merely one species of the humans).

4a) The "early adulthood" of the human luxury beings: from the Neanderthal extinction to the transition (the so-called “Neolithic Revolution”) to the agriculture.

4b) The "middle adulthood" of the human luxury beings: from the agriculture to that probable date in the future when machines will take over (=>).

4c) The "late adulthood" of the human luxury beings: from the probable date in the future when machines will have taken over to the death of the last human.[/size]

[size=90]So currently we at the stage 4b.[/size]

Arminius, very insightful, won’t you say more?

Perhaps, yes. It depends on how you (want to) go on with your interesting thread.

Humans seem like the earthly animal most disconnected and separated from nature. Thus human nature is an oxymoron, mutually opposed definitions. Humanity is artifice and artificial, unnatural. The creation of man, and evolution, both lead to further disconnection and separation from nature. This becomes more apparent through the analogy of gods, as creative beings with unlimited power. The connection between man and god is obvious then. Man attempts to defy nature, calling it your sense of “choice”.

Choice is unnatural.
Choice is the result of luxury and culture.

What do you think?

Humans can never be 100%-animals but “merely” 98%-animals, and humans can never be gods but godwannabes, although no 100%-godwannabes but “merely” 98%-godwannabes. :wink:

My definition of human nature is…quite extensive.

Would you mind explainig it a bit?

Orbie wrote nothing. :-k

It’s a generalisation of what makes a human, a human, but with human culture and learning deleted.
In practice this is actually impossible.
It is easy enough to demonstrate what is the nature of a species of ape. Humans are apes with the capacity for culture. But the adoption of culture - and that includes, moral laws, arts, belief systems - allows us to depart from our natures.

As humans are part of nature and not apart from it, then as animals we find what we are naturally. Thus our instinctual behaviours that we share with animals are as human to the same degree that we share these things.
What makes us different from animals is a capacity to create a world of our own imagination and design. This is our special nature. But the culture itself is not natural. In the same way that paint might be natural, the painting is not; food is natural, but not the meal; iron is natural but not the sword.

Human nature isn’t a thing.

We are simply more complex than other creatures, thus human nature = nature, but more complex than previous evolutionary trends.

What utter gibberish.
Are we simply complex or complexly simple. If human nature is not a thing, then why are you commenting on it?