The Fundamental Nature of Humans

Here's a heavy one.

From Rousseau to Hobbes, different philosophers have had various points of view on what Humans are like at their core. What is your view, and how do you justify it?

Now, what exactly do I mean by "Human Nature"? I'm not talking about anything spiritual or metaphysical in nature, I mean what people are like by their inherent Human biology. What are we, as Humans, immutably characterized by, if such a definition even makes sense or applies?

This is a topic of particular interest to me and on which I have some opinions of my own, but before I say my piece, if I say my piece, I want to hear what all of you think.

edited 20th Sep '11 1:04:21 AM by Gault

As for what I believe humans are like, true neutral. We can be saints or devils, or anything in between.

edited 20th Sep '11 1:04:48 AM by MarkVonLewis

Well now I'd guess the nature of humans is to be unnecessarily confrontational.

At the core, I believe human beings are driven both by the search for purpose, and the fear of death. Everything else we do stems from one of these two urges; our religious and metaphysical world from the former, and any actions pertaining to survival, and prosperity in the natural world comes from the latter.

I stated perfectly unambiguously that I had my own opinion on this issue. I am not by any means "neutral" on this issue. This is simply a case of science invalidating an outdated point of view, and I didn't want him to bring it up in the thread because it would be a waste of time.

Touche. I'll fix it.

edited 20th Sep '11 12:56:27 AM by Gault

The classic debate of human nature. Queue for someone to say "humans are greedy", without looking at circumstances or the bigger historical picture. At the same time, what is "human nature"? When you ask what we are at the very "core" of our "being", what do you mean? Is it a soul that you're referring to? A strand of DNA? Is it a metaphysical platonic idea, knocking about in a celestial world of ideas?

If we must go with the common "definition", that is to say the popular way of understanding the concept of "human nature", then I believe human nature is mutable. Nothing in nature is static which includes us humans, regardless if we live in urban centers or in the countryside.

Done.

edited 20th Sep '11 1:04:42 AM by Gault

Gault: fair enough. I was just saying it came across kind of poorly to me to single out and exclude one person in the opening post.

I'll admit, that assessment is similarly fair. I have excised it.

There ain't no such thing as "Human Nature". There is Monkey Nature which we share with our cousins. Anything distinctly Human eg Fire, Language, Iron, Trousers is by definition artificial.

The only thing you listed that's artificial is Trousers. Everything else can be found in other species or the world at large.

edited 20th Sep '11 2:40:00 AM by Deboss

Tabula rasa (is that how you spell it?) but with no moral inclination (because morality is relative) so much as an "apathy and selfishness" inclination.

edited 20th Sep '11 4:22:28 AM by USAF713

At their core humans are just another animal. Thus I tend to agree more on Hobbes view.

Blank slate yeah, that's correct Latin.

I am a horrible, filthy idealist occasionally, so I'm firmly convinced that Rousseau Was Right - sure, we may do some horrible things to each other, but all the same we do some very splendid, goodhearted things - and that, to me, is more than enough to balance out the bad.

And anyway, unyielding cyncism gets rather dull and dreary after a while. C'mon, admit there's a good deal of great things too!

edited 20th Sep '11 5:00:47 AM by Flanker66

Humans Are Flawed, but we are neither good or evil. Those too concerned with being one or the other tend to end up dead or miserable.

My thoughts are that we have the capacity for good and evil, but we tend to skew toward the latter on account of a marked propensity toward setting up hierarchies of leadership that reward screwing people over. This produces a general populace pressured to do the work of the worst of us.

edited 21st Sep '11 2:20:18 AM by Pykrete

For me the fundamental nature of humans is "All Of The Above". Whether biologically or socially, each human is different. In fact, one does not need to worry about the blue and orange morality of some off-world civilization when you can find it in your own species. I find it foolish that extremist or revolutionary leaders would assume that one mode of government or religion will benefit ALL of humanity, when in facet each will have it's share of rebels and opposition. It's true humans are often selfish towards others (especially when we believe that they, in some fundamental way, follow our judgements and feelings), but there are people just as likely to selflessly endanger their own lives for the sake of others. In fact, I think it can be harmful if a person cares about others too much to the detriment of their own lives. Constantly thinking about other peoples' feelings and not hurting them makes one unwilling to make bold or risky decisions

Humans can be defined as rational animals. As animals, we're genetically programmed for selfishness, which does not preclude altruism toward close kin. As "reasoners", we're capable of thinking this is wrong. As Beholderess would say, this is what makes humans bastards: our intelligence gives us moral agency that a lion lacks when it defeats a pride leader and kills all his cubs so he can breed with the loser's mates.

I believe humans rightfully deserve their title of the world's superior species. We're the only animals who have anything resembling morality; that alone is reason of pride.

And if you honestly think wars, rape, mutilation et cetera are mankind's doing and that animals are inoccent, well, you clearly have not observed the world around you.

The nature of humanity can not be defined. We are not a static species: our thoughts always evolve, our morality is a kitchen sink, we manage to both be super intelligent as well as super stupid and we have managed to develop a structural notion that is Cthulu to other species on this planet. It can be said that we do not have a fundamental nature: we are not static. We are evolving not in millions of years but in seconds as our collective constance changes. We... our not of a solid or liquid but a gas and like a gas our nature cannot be easily contained.

I'd agree with you, except for the point that humans are the only species with anything resembling morality. Most social animals have some sort of recognizable moral custom, just not one as complex and nuanced as ours.