I personally believe that the inherent nature of man is one of extreme selfishness, malice and prejudice backed up by usage of segregation.
No matter what all the propaganda distilled by moralists, religionists, or idealistic philosophies along with other useless conjectures the master slave relationship has been inherent throughout every age of history and is widely practiced in our present.
I figured since everytime I talk on philosophical forums on the internet in contrast to myself everyone likes to put up these delusions of feel great cooperative existences of man where I myself in comparison would merely introduce some realism into the scene to crush these delusional idealisms once and for all.
I’m so sick and tired hearing about morality or cooperation on the existence of people when everyday I myself see the opposite beyond the delusional idealistic fantasies of others.
There are numerous sciences about this subject, from evolutionary neurobiology, to evolutionary psychology, to behavorial genetics, to cross cultural studies, to hunter-gatherer/primate studies, infant studies, cognitive sciences, etc etc etc.
A lot of sciences can provide a lot of helpful knowledge on the ‘inherent nature of man’ what joker does however, is take up all his personal beliefs from life experience/musing and force that concept (in all conversation) as the true nature of humanity, ignoring every tiny shred of evidence to the contrary.
Some kind of ultra left anarchist bullshit that makes him re-paint human-nature to any picture he sees fit as long as it conforms to his vision of it.
At least he rants on about the darker side of humanity though, there is somthing even less tolerable about posters like Chato who rant on about the inherent peacefulness of humans.
In “Origins” Leakey presents the negative view of humans (aggressive, evolved from killer apes, etc., as espoused by Aubry in “African Genesis” ) as refuted by Ashley Montegue. The Montegue/Leakey take on this is that all social progress came about through cooperation. So, if one is to examine survival as ultimately deterministic, one must acknowledge both the self-centered and altruistic contributions to survival. Master/slave mentality carries the seeds of its own destruction.
History and observation. Throughout history and unto the present the master slave relationship has been a ongoing prevailment.
Perhaps one would call me naive for saying so in that one would say that I’m assuming to know the inherent nature of man absolutely nonetheless I can’t think of anyone or anything for that matter that can deny the master slave relationship within every era of man’s entire existence.
And what shred of evidence is that Cyrene that is so contradictory to what I have said in this thread?
Do you deny the master slave relationship of people in every historical era of man in his entire biological existence?
I don’t think you can and it is this historical example of master slave relationships within every generation of man which shows morality’s utter most lunacy or outright deception on things in application.
You may speak of cooperation and in return I will take your notion of cooperation as a illustration of the master trying to coerce his slave into a sort of submission which he then calls such a submissive state of his slaves “cooperation” to get what we wants through desire, of course we all know the relativity in the usage of the term cooperation.
You may speak of morality or ethics and in return I will merely call such symbolic metaphorical imaginary deceptive forms an extension of the will to power by subjugating people’s minds with metaphorical articulated forms of propaganda guided by dualisms of what people call “good” or “evil” used to control the impulses of men daily.
And even more interesting by man’s own examples of hypocrisy in what he calls morality or cooperation by his own account there still exists nonetheless within all of that which he calls virtuous the prevailing master slave relationship even in times where he self worships himself as the justice bringer of humanity in which he labels himself the noble humanitarian absurdly.
Man’s entire biological existence is one of selfishness and malice. I have yet to see anyone prove me otherwise.
The problem with the understanding of cooperation is that there exists no absolute narrow definition of the word.
Cooperation is a relative word created by relative understandings of social interactions.
I cannot think of any single narrow definition in the understanding of what cooperation is.
And we all know how history is written by those with power.
If I was a betting man what the ruling classes throughout history called cooperation was the exact definition of damnation to those lower at the bottom known as the servant classes.
The aristrocrat might fool himself into believing that he lives in a cooperative state considering that he has everything handed down to himself on the backs of others yet from where all those things come from that he acquires on the backs of miserable servants the aristrocrat’s notions of cooperation is simply known merely as damnation in their eyes.
These naive fantastical idealistic notions of man’s existence being entirely one of cooperation or morality simply doesn’t work for me.
I personally believe that present studies of sociology, culture, biology,evolution and history are simply too dishonest on this particular subject especially considering that we live in a generation where propaganda is gold in that naive idealistic fantasies on life describing the moral or cooperative existence of man is supported by whole governments all the while they repress any contrary information that may injure these same collective fantasies to reduce any dissention.
They simply are not honest enough.
Imagine if we had a second Darwin in our present age who wrote a book that just so happened to be a best seller where he revealed this master slave relationship for what it is and then think of the ramifications of dissidence it would bring to the streets carried on by the mob upon discovery.
This is why media or intellectual institutions repress this sort of information by instead supporting idealistic fantasies of a moral cooperative existence of people even when in actuality the existence of billions of people is quite the opposite where in actuality the master slave existence is paramount taking all precedence in form.
If a man even publicly speaks about this master slave relationship through political discourse and government he is labelled a monster but should a person describe social existence in the idealistic fantasies of an entire social existence built upon cooperation within moral premises they are praised in contrast.
The man who described the master slave relationship was only describing existence for what it is through that of which is realism amongst his public ridiculue in our example but given the level of idealism in society his realistic observation of people’s internal malicious psychology becomes heresy for all to speak of.
In this alice and wonderland existence that we live in we exist in an enviroment guided by the master slave relationship where everyone delusionally likes to believe in contrast to reality that they themselves are moral and cooperative in their dealings.
You’re correct Joker; however there are some teachers out there who teach the harsh realities and truths within these subjects. It’s rare, but it does occur, even when they don’t get the whole picture themselves.
From where I observe things all I see is a controlled dishonesty of intellectual institutions.
You will have a few people who will realistically tell you how things really are in brutal honesty but for the most part we have alot of liars and propagandists using double speak who try to fool everyone into believing that man’s existence is a moral or cooperative one even when it is clearly not in actuality.
In this brave new world of ours you can rewrite history and people will foolishly believe you.
A narrow, meaningful definiton of cooperation among humans is now an ecological mandate–join or die. Humans in a sinking boat do not ask for abstract ideas about internal malicious instincts, a phrase IMHO that totally misrepresents both biological, survival instincts, which are mostly ameliorative of the human condition, and any human thought endeavor for realizing a non-utopian, down to earth, real world of inclusion of all kinds and types. Negative competitions about who is moral merely amount to “raisins in the sun”, further deferring the promise (potential) of what can be human and humane. At present our world is divided between haves and have nots, hence the ethnic animosities that fester into cultural, global wars. I, for one, do not look for solutions to this problem in philosophy, religion, politics or science. I look for it in the human need to have personal meaning and value substantiated by agreement from an other! Of course there is no equality of talents and abilities among humans. To see this sort of inequality as defining who deserves what, especially when it comes to who can be fed, clothed, housed or medicated, is the horror of fascism, which a majority of humans loathe. Might does not make right; it too often makes inequality of deserts, which is unethical in any sense.
