Human Nature

Arminius · May 13, 2015, 6:06pm

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

project2501 · May 15, 2015, 4:24am

Arminius:

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?

Arminius · May 15, 2015, 3:06pm

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.

project2501 · July 2, 2015, 4:32am

My definition of human nature is…quite extensive.

Orbie · July 2, 2015, 7:03am

Arminius:

Orb:

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?

I did not mean animals literally do not dream, i meant it figuritavely, that they are devoid of aspirations.
That Kafka was ‘mentally ill’ is a conjecture, Arminius, he had probably a behavioral-personality problem, social anxiety, body dismorphism, and such.
Fear underlies neuroticisms, and my pet theory is, that the anolaoulus relationship between man-animal is what of concern here. Some people do supress the idea that they are derived from animals, or even that they are a fom of animal. This anxiety froming notion, reaffirmed by evolutionary theory, gives them supressed content which bubble up in dreams.
Civilization is a form of disassociating man from the animal, to get rid of this inherent natural inclination to re-associate.

…

No.

Orbie · July 2, 2015, 7:04am

Arminius:

Orb:

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?

I did not mean animals literally do not dream, i meant it figuritavely, that they are devoid of aspirations.
That Kafka was ‘mentally ill’ is a conjecture, Arminius, he had probably a behavioral-personality problem, social anxiety, body dismorphism, and such.
Fear underlies neuroticisms, and my pet theory is, that the anolaoulus relationship between man-animal is what of concern here. Some people do supress the idea that they are derived from animals, or even that they are a fom of animal. This anxiety froming notion, reaffirmed by evolutionary theory, gives them supressed content which bubble up in dreams.
Civilization is a form of disassociating man from the animal, to get rid of this inherent natural inclination to re-associate.

…

No.

Arminius · July 8, 2015, 8:35pm

Would you mind explainig it a bit?

Orbie wrote nothing.

Lev_Muishkin · July 8, 2015, 9:07pm

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.

Lev_Muishkin · July 8, 2015, 9:12pm

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.

Amorphos · July 8, 2015, 10:04pm

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.

Lev_Muishkin · July 9, 2015, 9:35pm

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

Amorphos · July 10, 2015, 8:25pm

I was attempting to point out that we are like the rest of nature and not so massively different.

Arminius · July 12, 2015, 1:12pm

Arminius:

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.

Arminius:

project2501:

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 human 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.

Arminius:

Prismatic567:

Arminius:

Naturally human 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:

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.

Arminius:

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.

Arminius:

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!

Arminius:

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.

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

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

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

Arcturus_Descending · July 13, 2015, 4:05pm

Arminius,

Human beings are human beings because we have evolved to being that. Human consciousness is what separates us from animals though they do have their own level of consciousness.
You seem to be saying that the bridge which separates human beings from other beings is culture…unless I’m not understanding you here. What about human psychology, and the way in which human beings are wired, their upbringing, their personal individual journeys, and yes also their culture and their beliefs? You seem to be making culture the highest thing that defines us as humans.

Couldn’t you also say that one of the main things of human culture even above luxury, luxury to me just more being a part of a hedonistic person, is what we humans value, what is meaningful to us, like art, poetry, family, et cetera?

Maybe I’m not understanding culture as you’re meaning it.

Arcturus_Descending · July 13, 2015, 4:17pm

Okay

So this is what lev said:

I don’t think though that we actually depart from our animal nature - it’s always a part of us and this may be one of the reasons why we behave as we do - we forget who we are, human beings who have evolved with consciousness but have still maintained the animal nature within lurking somewhere. We don’t depart from that, I don’t think, culture only tames and refines us.
I think that human beings are far too complicated and intricate to reduce us to “cultural” beings.

That may have said nothing of course.

Lev_Muishkin · July 14, 2015, 10:19pm

Arcturus Descending:

Okay

So this is what lev said:

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.

I don’t think though that we actually depart from our animal nature - it’s always a part of us and this may be one of the reasons why we behave as we do - we forget who we are, human beings who have evolved with consciousness but have still maintained the animal nature within lurking somewhere. We don’t depart from that, I don’t think, culture only tames and refines us.
I think that human beings are far too complicated and intricate to reduce us to “cultural” beings.

That may have said nothing of course.

I agree that under it all we are still animals and did not mean to imply that we can.
In fact I think it is almost impossible to figure out what is out nature and what is our culture. They are so intertwined.
I’m offering the idea that humans are naturally cultural; but that the contents of the specific cultures that we invent, reproduce and so forth is not natural.
The beliefs of religion are not natural, but the tendency to belong to some sort of human group may well be. It is the natural tendency to belong that provides religions with their flocks.
There was a study in the US recently that exposed the idea that voters were far more interested in their party’s success than in the ideological and policy basis that the parties were promoting. So ,where it might be natural to want “your side” to win; the contents of the party policy is more complex and anatural.
I think the same natural tendancy goes with following your team in sport and with nationalism and even racism.

GreatandWiseTrixie · July 15, 2015, 12:08am

If you want to know the nature of human beings go on over to KT forums. Satyr could explain it better than I could.

Zoot_Allures · July 15, 2015, 12:34am

I have a question. Could a human being describing the nature of human beings also be described by that described nature?

If yes, then if part of that nature that is described involves [insert pejorative descriptions], couldn’t the person describing that nature also be described by [insert perjorative descriptions]?

Nothing? Okay. A spartan rides in on horse back as says to you ‘all spartans are liars’. Do you believe him? If you don’t believe him, you must also believe that what he is saying is not true, because he is one spartan you don’t believe is lying. If you do believe him, you can’t believe him, because he is a spartan, and you believe all spartans are liars.

So, if a person tells you ‘all humans are ass rangers’, and you believe this person, you must believe this person is an ass ranger.

If you don’t believe this person, you must be implying that this person is not human. Are you proposing this person whom you believe describes human nature so well is inhuman, then, and not subject to that same nature?

Wait. What the hell am I saying. I’m talking to someone who thinks they’re a blue space alien god.

Nevermind. My bad.

GreatandWiseTrixie · July 15, 2015, 1:09am

Zoot Allures:

If you want to know the nature of human beings go on over to KT forums. Satyr could explain it better than I could.

I have a question. Could a human being describing the nature of human beings also be described by that described nature?

If yes, then if part of that nature that is described involves [insert pejorative descriptions], couldn’t the person describing that nature also be described by [insert perjorative descriptions]?

Nothing? Okay. A spartan rides in on horse back as says to you ‘all spartans are liars’. Do you believe him? If you don’t believe him, you must also believe that what he is saying is not true, because he is one spartan you don’t believe is lying. If you do believe him, you can’t believe him, because he is a spartan, and you believe all spartans are liars.

So, if a person tells you ‘all humans are ass rangers’, and you believe this person, you must believe this person is an ass ranger.

If you don’t believe this person, you must be implying that this person is not human. Are you proposing this person whom you believe describes human nature so well is inhuman, then, and not subject to that same nature?

Wait. What the hell am I saying. I’m talking to someone who thinks they’re a blue space alien god.

Nevermind. My bad.

I never said Satyr was not part of human nature.

phoneutria · July 15, 2015, 1:56am

All ILP posters are hacks.