What is human nature--is there such a thing?

[coberst]

What is human nature—is there such a thing?

“Man transcends all other life because he is, for the first time, life aware of itself. Man is in nature, subject to its dictates and accidents, yet he transcends nature because he lacks the unawareness which makes the animal a part of nature—as one with it.”

Wo/man is both body and soul. S/he is part of two worlds, each in conflict with the other. Fromm describes the essence of man as not being a given quality or substance but as being a “contradiction inherent in human existence”.

What can wo/man do to cope with the fright that accompanies consciousness of existence? How can wo/man find the harmony necessary to free her or him self from the torture of aloneness; thereby permitting her to find a unity with nature?

The answer Fromm seeks is not only a theoretical one, but one in which humans can live with in their thought and action--in their whole being. Any answer is better than no answer or no question. More is to be learned in error than in apathy and ignorance. All possible answers must “help man to overcome the sense of separateness and to gain a sense of union, of ones, of belonging.”

Fromm is not supplying us with the definition of the essence of man but he is saying that “what constitutes the essence is the question and the need for an answer; the various forms of human existence are not the essence, but they are the answers to the conflict which, in itself, is the essence.”

Conflict is the essential characteristic of humanness.

Regression to animal existence is one answer to the quest to transcend separateness. Wo/man can try to eliminate that which makes her human but also tortures her; s/he can discard reason and self-consciousness. What is noteworthy here is that if everybody does it, it ain’t fiction; anything everyone does is reality, even if it is a virtual reality. For most people, reason and reality is nothing more than public consensus. “One never ‘loses one’s mind’ when nobody else’s mind differs from one’s own.”

Regression to our animal form of instinctual behavior happens when we replace our lost animal instincts with our own fully developed symbolic instincts; we can then program our self to uncritically follow these culturally formed instincts without further consideration. We can then do like the elephant parade; we hold the tail of the one in front of us with our trunk and march in file without any other thoughts to disturb our tranquility.

Quotes from “The Heart of Man” by Erich Fromm

Questions for discussion

Is there such a thing as human nature? Can something exist without an essence?

Are humans just animals with insignificant differences from other animals? If so what are these differences? Are they significant or are they basically a distinction without a difference? What does it mean to be a distinction without a difference?

Can a person deny his or her difference and just be an animal, unconscious of a difference?

[RandomPscho]

Fromm gives way to much credit to humans. We are just animals that have (usually) a better mind and more of an ability to change our environment. Our minds are the distinction between us and other animals; we learn through society as opposed to instincts.

Can a person deny his or her difference and just be an animal, unconscious of a difference?

A child probably, but I think that as we get older, we impose limits upon ourselves and we do buy into society. I doubt people, although some might, would be able to just give up everything they've learned throughout there live, it would feel unnatural.

[coberst]

Random

Reading the works of Ernest Becker and Erich Fromm has opened my eyes to a vast domain of knowledge about which I have been totally ignorant. This knowledge is essential to the comprehension of human nature. This domain of knowledge includes the sciences of sociology, psychology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and anthropology.

I have become convinced that an individual who wishes to comprehend why we humans do what we do must develop some general comprehension of the interlocking theories that hold these sciences together. Freud was the master who opened the door and provided the foundation that makes the integration of these sciences possible. Freud has been surpassed in many areas by many great thinkers.

What I find so useful about the work of Becker is that he is a synthesizer who has studied these great minds and has organized their work into an understandable whole. In my opinion this is necessary for the lay reader who wants to comprehend the whole gestalt of human nature but cannot go into great detail.

[sherbtail]

I swear your reply had absolutely nothing to do with RandomPscho's post...

[DARKSAMUS]

Another atheist?

[RandomPscho]

Originally Posted by sherbtail

I swear your reply had absolutely nothing to do with RandomPscho's post...

He is talking about Becker and Freud, while the entire original post is about ideas of Flomm.


Coberst, please act like a person. Do not write generalized pre-typed responses. They are quite annoying and make people wonder why to bother responding to the thread if you don't actually respond about your own inquiries.

Another atheist?

What?

[tsugomaru]

Originally Posted by coberst

comprehension of human nature

It may just be me, but I'm more partial towards the Taoist views of the "comprehension of human nature". To make a long story short, they believe that any discussion about the human nature makes all statements declared in the discussion false.

Human nature cannot really be discussed, there are just so many factors shaping the way we think and the code of morals we follow, which in turn, shape the way we think of human nature.

~Tsugomaru

[coberst]

If human nature is not something that makes us humans and other animals ‘not human’ then what does. If this human nature is not the same where does sameness happen? What makes it possible for us to say that here in time these are humans and later in time this is also human? I agree that in real terms all reality is a continuum but we humans need a demarcation line signifying one container from another. We cannot think without containers but we also must identify these containers.

Generally substance or qualities are used to identify one container from another but in the case of the human species I do not think such a distinction works.

Is there a distinction or is there a difference between the human species and other animals? In other words is there a continuum between the human species and other animal species?

I would say that race represents a distinction among humans; whereas language ability represents a difference between the human species and other animal species. There are distinctions within a species and there are differences within various species within the animal kingdom.

How do we separate one species from another? Is this separation just an artificial reality or is there something that is real separating species and especially the human species from all others. I think that there is and I would call it ‘man transcends all other life because he is, for the first time, life aware of itself’. This is the core characteristic that makes up human nature.

It is all very puzzling.

[aperson]

This is what I've been saying to you in all my other posts because it's what your posts are converging around:

The only element of human nature we have is emptiness. We are all empty processes that have arisen over time for some reasons or other, be it by evolution or intelligent design or whatnot. The only essence we have is this lack of essence.

So then, how do we become illuminated in this empty sea?
Meaning itself is derived from self-reference. You 'transcend' the process of the world when you divide it into subject and object, because then meaning can be developed. However, I think it is a brash notion to think that "man transcends all other life because he is aware of him/herself." I have no doubt that dogs and some other life forms are self-aware; they display social and empathic traits that I believe are only developed in self-aware processes.

[Lamoc]

You all think on this way too much.

[loukata]

Human nature is hard to describe. Depending on which philosopher you listen to they argue on what is human and not.
Classical theisim ( christianity) says that humans have a soul and this constitutes human nature, that animals have a lesser or don't have a soul
However the Philosopher Aristotle argued that every living thing has a soul. Human nature was therefore knowlage and purpose, he theorised that everything has a purpose but human knowlage on a higher level ( appreciation of the arts, science ect) made them different form animals

[coberst]

Human nature is something that the great thinkers have been trying to get a handle on for a long time. If we wish to create a better social structure it is essential for us to comprehend what is human nature so that we know what we are starting with. It seems to me that the human sciences should be able to give us the best answers to that question. Such sciences as sociology, psychology and anthropology should have a good insight into such things.

[loukata]

Originally Posted by coberst

Human nature is something that the great thinkers have been trying to get a handle on for a long time. If we wish to create a better social structure it is essential for us to comprehend what is human nature so that we know what we are starting with. It seems to me that the human sciences should be able to give us the best answers to that question. Such sciences as sociology, psychology and anthropology should have a good insight into such things.

unfortunatley it seems like a definition of human nature will be a hypothetical question for many years. A thought on this is that different cultures class human nature and normality differenty

[Blazze yes]

Coberst, what is the square root of 144?

[The_Q]

Originally Posted by coberst

Reading the works of Ernest Becker and Erich Fromm has opened my eyes to a vast domain of knowledge about which I have been totally ignorant. This knowledge is essential to the comprehension of human nature. This domain of knowledge includes the sciences of sociology, psychology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and anthropology.

And this is the reason I rarely reply to your posts. Not once have you stated an absolute. Surely, you've defined your parameters for discussion, but always you make philosophical conclusions part of your assumptions.

Not once have you attempted to use empirical data to support a point, only quotations and citations from sections of "science" that are barely considered to be scientific.

What you're missing, dear sir, is economics. Rational, reasonable, mathmatical economics.

Q

[coberst]

Q

There is only one absolute and this is it "there are no absolutes".

Math is useful when studying things that are pattern like. The object of study of the human sciences are humans and humans are not very pattern like.

Mathematical economics is not useful for studying human motivation and human nature.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by The_Q

And this is the reason I rarely reply to your posts. Not once have you stated an absolute. Surely, you've defined your parameters for discussion, but always you make philosophical conclusions part of your assumptions.

Not once have you attempted to use empirical data to support a point, only quotations and citations from sections of "science" that are barely considered to be scientific.

What you're missing, dear sir, is economics. Rational, reasonable, mathmatical economics.

Q

Sorry, Q, but his response that "the only absolute is that there are no absolutes" is spot on for his discussion. You are suffering from tunnel vision, and believe it or not, empirical evidence is not sufficient to analyze this discussion.

Math is useful when studying things that are pattern like. The object of study of the human sciences are humans and humans are not very pattern like.

This, however, is absolutely absurd. If I'm not mistaken we wake up in much the same place day to day, have similar day to day routines, and are incredibly patterned individuals on pretty much any level from which you can examine us: The biological level is patterned from well-controlled, repeatable cell development and consistent methods of neural firing and wiring, the mental level is patterned in that we create concepts, abstractions, and analogies to which we constantly refer and use as heuristics in our mind, and the social level is patterned on a clearly observable level (just look at language, that's about as clear of an example as you can get; language is just patterns).

Coberst, you are also suffering from tunnel vision. The pure sciences such as mathematics, metamathematics, logic, and physics do say a lot of the same things about knowledge and observation; if they don't directly speak to it, then they do address it on the first meta-level analysis of the subject. They say the same things that the "human sciences" do, in fact they all point back to larger issues of epistemology.

I suspect you need to open your resources up or you are going to lock yourself into the same pits as Q has.

[perkeyone]

Originally Posted by aperson

empirical evidence is not sufficient to analyze this discussion.

! is there any other kind of evidence worth using?

[aperson]

Originally Posted by perkeyone

! is there any other kind of evidence worth using?

So now we are saying that only valid knowledge is based on evidence? Sorry, we're addressing something that draws back behind human perception, so observational analysis is not sufficient to address it.

[perkeyone]

Originally Posted by aperson

So now we are saying that only valid knowledge is based on evidence? Sorry, we're addressing something that draws back behind human perception, so observational analysis is not sufficient to address it.

umm. isnt observation based on perception? i think your talking in circles. besides the definition of empirical knowledge makes it pretty clear that it is the only valid type.