Human Nature

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Human Nature

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:47 am

Arminius wrote:Naturally humans beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture.
But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.
In another perspective;

If human nature is 100%, it can also be represented as the combination of,
98% animal nature + 2% specific human nature.
Despite the significant difference in the external expressions of humans as distinct from other living things, I think the above combination is applicable to describe human nature.

For example, if we were to transplant that 2% of human properties to our nearest primates, they would like to be very similar to humans in time.
At present primates/dolphins already have some degree of culture that are similar to humans, i.e. the use of tool, games, language, deliberated evil, etc.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Human Nature

Postby Arminius » Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:08 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Naturally humans beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture.
But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.
In another perspective;

If human nature is 100%, it can also be represented as the combination of,
98% animal nature + 2% specific human nature..

That is also my estimation and assessment. But these 2% are not really few - we know it, especially from genetics.

Prismatic567 wrote:Despite the significant difference in the external expressions of humans as distinct from other living things, I think the above combination is applicable to describe human nature.

For example, if we were to transplant that 2% of human properties to our nearest primates, they would like to be very similar to humans in time.
At present primates/dolphins already have some degree of culture that are similar to humans, i.e. the use of tool, games, language, deliberated evil, etc.

The use of tools that do not belong to the own body are alrerady a prestage of luxury; the use of language, if it is close to the value of the human language, as well; games do all mammals have (maybe it is a pre-prestage of luxury). B.t.w.: Luxury can be measured by the degree of insulation. The more living beings are able to live on an own "island" (meant as a metaphor!), the more they are luxury beings. Or, in other words, the more living beings are able to behave against the Darwinistic evolution, the more they are luxury beings. Insulations give those beings a relative (!) independence of adaptation to nature. The adaptation to nature has not vanished but has been added by dissociation of nature. And the only living being that has achieved this independence in a sufficient extent is the human being.

The question is how we value this relative (!) independence. This relative independence is caused by insulation or dissociation of nature with the main effect: luxury. And this insulation is (a) natuarlly caused by the relatively huge brain and (b) culturally caused by the huge consciousness, awareness, knowkedge, language of human beings.

That's an interesting theme.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Human Nature

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:48 am

Arminius wrote:Hello, Project (Machine Project?).

project2501 wrote:
Arminius wrote:When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. Although it is difficult to say whether there is one human culture or several human cultures, I would say, if I had to refer to merely one human culture, that a human being is a luxury being. In another thread I said:

The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially for human beings. Human beings are luxury beings. They make their artificial island of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature, thus about the luxury islands.


Only human beings (thus no other living beings) are able to distance or disassociate themselves so much from nature. Humans live on islands of luxury. They have their human bubbles like hulls / shells, caves, huts / cottages, houses, beyond that: castles, churches / cathedrals, cities, city states, states, nations, empires, global empires ... and so forth. Because they are much more spiritual / mental / intellectual than other creatures, they have not only a bodily but also a spiritual immune system. This spiritual immune system is the main cause of the enormous luxury and the characteristic feature of human culture/s. Because of the fact that there are many different spiritual immune systems of humans possible, one should rather speak about several human cultures and not about one human culture.

So culture is the same as nature?

No. Culture it is not the same as nature, but it is a part of nature. I said: "When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s." That does not mean that nature and culture are the same. They are similar, not the same. There are analogies between them.

Naturally humans beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture. But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.

project2501 wrote:Can you say more about humans being defined apart from animals because of luxury?

Yes. I can.


That's not true, alpha males and their mates get the first resources in almost any species.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11078
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Human Nature

Postby Arminius » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:40 am

Ecmandu wrote:
project2501 wrote:
Arminius wrote:When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. Although it is difficult to say whether there is one human culture or several human cultures, I would say, if I had to refer to merely one human culture, that a human being is a luxury being. In another thread I said:

The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially for human beings. Human beings are luxury beings. They make their artificial island of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature, thus about the luxury islands.


Only human beings (thus no other living beings) are able to distance or disassociate themselves so much from nature. Humans live on islands of luxury. They have their human bubbles like hulls / shells, caves, huts / cottages, houses, beyond that: castles, churches / cathedrals, cities, city states, states, nations, empires, global empires ... and so forth. Because they are much more spiritual / mental / intellectual than other creatures, they have not only a bodily but also a spiritual immune system. This spiritual immune system is the main cause of the enormous luxury and the characteristic feature of human culture/s. Because of the fact that there are many different spiritual immune systems of humans possible, one should rather speak about several human cultures and not about one human culture.

So culture is the same as nature?

Arminius wrote:No. Culture it is t the same as nature, but it is a part of nature. I said: "When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s." That does not mean that nature and culture are the same. They are similar, not the same. There are analogies between them.

Naturally humans beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture. But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.

project2501 wrote:Can you say more about humans being defined apart from animals because of luxury?

Yes. I can.


That's not true, alpha males and their mates get the first resources in almost any species.

What is not true?

Whether "alpha males and their mates get the first resources in almost any species" or not is obviously not important for luxury beings. Are Occidental humans alpha males and their mates? Do they have the most descendants? No! The reverse is true: They have the least descendants. Do the humans with the most descendants (thus currently the Black humans in Africa) get the first resources? No!

Humans do not completely fit in the scheme of the Darwinistic evolution theory!
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Human Nature

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:28 am

Arminius wrote:What is not true?

Whether "alpha males and their mates get the first resources in almost any species" or not is obviously not important for luxury beings. Are Occidental humans alpha males and their mates? Do they have the most descendants? No! The reverse is true: They have the least descendants. Do the humans with the most descendants (thus currently the Black humans in Africa) get the first resources? No!

Humans do not completely fit in the scheme of the Darwinistic evolution theory!
I cannot see how luxury is a significant difference animal nature and human nature.
Another difference between animal and human nature is the degree of self-consciousness on a continuum.
If the highest degree of self-consciousness in animals (e.g. primates, dolphins, elephants, etc.) are say 10/100, then humans could be rated 60/100.

Many animals are driven to extravagance by their procreation impulses.
Some birds go to the extreme of decorating their nests and themselves to attract the other sex. As mentioned the alpha male/female will also engage in excesses as selfish indulgence in order to dominate.
They do not regard it as 'luxury' only because their degree of self-consciousness (self-awareness, ego, etc.) is significantly lower that those of humans.

Humans also engage in the same excesses like animals but the difference is due to their higher degree of self-consciousness and egoism. Where they do it to the extreme, that is not normal human nature but rather it becomes a mental disease of obsession, compulsive disorder behavior, addiction, etc.

It is true humans do not conform to Darwinian theory of adaptation in full.
However humans still conform to general evolution theory and the preservation of the species in terms of large numbers, i.e. 7 billion++ and growing. I think the human species is quite secure until the Earth is physically inhabitable* for all humans.
*Singed/charred by the Sun coming near to Earth or destroyed by a rogue meteor, etc.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Human Nature

Postby Arminius » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:54 am

Prismatic, please correct the quotations in your last post!

Prismatic567 wrote:I cannot see how luxury is a significant difference animal nature and human nature.
Another difference between animal and human nature is the degree of self-consciousness on a continuum.
If the highest degree of self-consciousness in animals (e.g. primates, dolphins, elephants, etc.) are say 10/100, then humans could be rated 60/100.

Many animals are driven to extravagance by their procreation impulses.
Some birds go to the extreme of decorating their nests and themselves to attract the other sex. As mentioned the alpha male/female will also engage in excesses as selfish indulgence in order to dominate.
They do not regard it as 'luxury' only because their degree of self-consciousness (self-awareness, ego, etc.) is significantly lower that those of humans.

Humans also engage in the same excesses like animals but the difference is due to their higher degree of self-consciousness and egoism. Where they do it to the extreme, that is not normal human nature but rather it becomes a mental disease of obsession, compulsive disorder behavior, addiction, etc.

In the case of the humans self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon egoism is one aspect, yes, but the main aspect is the insulation (dissociation of nature) which leads to luxury and is naturally caused by the brain. So we have (1) the brain, (2) the insulation (dissociation of nature), (3) the luxury and also the self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon egoism and many other features, but it is more the luxury that leads to the self-consciousness than it is the self-consciousness that leads to luxury. Some animals have self-consciousness in almost the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have, but these animals do not have luxury in the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have. And human children become egoistic in that typical human way (you said: "extreme") after that age, usually when they are older than 2 years. Luxury is more a communal than a personal matter.The human development is more a communal than a personal ("individual") development. The human development is more a cultural than a natural development, because the natural development of the humans is more (about 98%; see above) an animal development than a human development.

Naturally you need a relative large and a very complex brain, if you want to become a human being, but then, when that brain exists, your further development is more a cultural than a natural development. The huge consciousness (with its accordingly huge self-consciousness), the huge knowledge, the huge and complex language, ... were naturally caused by the brain but would be totally useless, if their development were merely a natural development. The humans are humans very much more because of their cultural development than because of their natural development. Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Human Nature

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:20 am

Arminius wrote:Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.

So is, naturally primates are 99.9%-animals, but culturally primates are 99.9%-primates.
(primates do have 'culture' but very insignificant if compared to humans)

What about this;
Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but 'nurturally' humans are 98%-humans.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Human Nature

Postby fuse » Tue Feb 10, 2015 7:40 am

project2501 wrote:Define Human Nature in your own words.
Do not use the dictionary.
Instead think for yourself.

My intuition is that it's way too reductive to say human nature boils down to this one trait, or any one trait that I can think of, but the human ability for sophisticated abstraction and shared abstraction comes to mind. Our mental categorization and schematism of the world set us apart from the beginning and have only become more prominent since.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4594
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Human Nature

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:33 pm

fuse wrote:
project2501 wrote:Define Human Nature in your own words.
Do not use the dictionary.
Instead think for yourself.

My intuition is that it's way too reductive to say human nature boils down to this one trait, or any one trait that I can think of, but the human ability for sophisticated abstraction and shared abstraction comes to mind. Our mental categorization and schematism of the world set us apart from the beginning and have only become more prominent since.


I can go along with that - and do.
fuse, if you could compare humanity to only one animal, which would it be? I'm being serious here.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15689
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Human Nature

Postby project2501 » Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:17 am

James S Saint wrote:I don't think in terms of "superior" when it comes to species (nor genders for that matter). There is a level and type of intellect that causes foolishness to the point of extinction. Prior to that event, anyone might think of that creature as superior.

Homosapian has the collective strength and intellect to design his own replacement as a species and thus willfully bring about his own extinction. Is that a "superior" creature?

A superior creature ought to be able to reproduce endlessly and survive eternally.
Image
User avatar
project2501
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:58 am

Re: Human Nature

Postby project2501 » Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:18 am

Arminius wrote:No. Culture it is not the same as nature, but it is a part of nature. I said: "When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s." That does not mean that nature and culture are the same. They are similar, not the same. There are analogies between them.

Naturally humans beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture. But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.

So luxury is culture, and culture is luxury?


Arminius wrote:
project2501 wrote:Can you say more about humans being defined apart from animals because of luxury?

Yes. I can.

Will you?
Image
User avatar
project2501
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:58 am

Re: Human Nature

Postby project2501 » Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:19 am

James S Saint wrote:Human means the "Hue-of-Man" wherein Man is the higher order of the species of homosapian. Animals do not have that higher order (national, world, and eugenics governments) that creates human cultures.

What are examples of the higher order of humanity?
Image
User avatar
project2501
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:58 am

Re: Human Nature

Postby fuse » Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:09 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:
fuse wrote:
project2501 wrote:Define Human Nature in your own words.
Do not use the dictionary.
Instead think for yourself.

My intuition is that it's way too reductive to say human nature boils down to this one trait, or any one trait that I can think of, but the human ability for sophisticated abstraction and shared abstraction comes to mind. Our mental categorization and schematism of the world set us apart from the beginning and have only become more prominent since.


I can go along with that - and do.
fuse, if you could compare humanity to only one animal, which would it be? I'm being serious here.

A cat/dog hybrid. Part lion, part wolf, and in modern times I feel rather like it's part house cat, part domesticated dog.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4594
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Human Nature

Postby Arminius » Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:44 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.

So is, naturally primates are 99.9%-animals, but culturally primates are 99.9%-primates.
(primates do have 'culture' but very insignificant if compared to humans)

What about this;
Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but 'nurturally' humans are 98%-humans.

If you consider "nurture" as a main aspect of human culture: yes. Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.

project2501 wrote:
Arminius wrote:
project2501 wrote:Can you say more about humans being defined apart from animals because of luxury?

Yes. I can.

Will you?

Yes.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Human Nature

Postby project2501 » Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:30 pm

Arminius wrote:Yes.

When?
Image
User avatar
project2501
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:58 am

Re: Human Nature

Postby Arminius » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:44 pm

project2501 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Yes.

When?

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!
Last edited by Arminius on Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Human Nature

Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:49 pm

project2501 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:I don't think in terms of "superior" when it comes to species (nor genders for that matter). There is a level and type of intellect that causes foolishness to the point of extinction. Prior to that event, anyone might think of that creature as superior.

Homosapian has the collective strength and intellect to design his own replacement as a species and thus willfully bring about his own extinction. Is that a "superior" creature?

A superior creature ought to be able to reproduce endlessly and survive eternally.


Rabbits and cock roaches do that. Does that make them superior? :mrgreen:
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15689
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Human Nature

Postby Orbie » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:39 pm

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.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Human Nature

Postby Arminius » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:38 pm

Orb wrote: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?

....

No.

Image Image Image Image Image
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Human Nature

Postby Arminius » Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:52 am

Hey, Project, where is your response? You are a very slow "machine". Are you "a windmill in a desert"?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Human Nature

Postby project2501 » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:45 pm

Arminius wrote:Hey, Project, where is your response? You are a very slow "machine".

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


Arminius wrote:Are you "a windmill in a desert"?

That version of computation has long been outdated.
Image
User avatar
project2501
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:58 am

Re: Human Nature

Postby Arminius » Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:49 pm

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.

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

3) The "youth" of the human luxury beings was the sapientisation.

4) 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So currently we at the stage 4b.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Human Nature

Postby project2501 » Fri May 01, 2015 5:57 pm

Arminius, very insightful, won't you say more?
Image
User avatar
project2501
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:58 am

Re: Human Nature

Postby Arminius » Wed May 13, 2015 7:06 pm

project2501 wrote:Arminius, very insightful, won't you say more?

Perhaps, yes. It depends on how you (want to) go on with your interesting thread.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Human Nature

Postby project2501 » Fri May 15, 2015 5:24 am

Arminius wrote: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!

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?
Image
User avatar
project2501
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:58 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron