human nature

[Molly Brogan]

"All studies of man, from history to linguistics and psychology, are faced with the question of whether, in the last instance, we are the product of all kinds of external factors, or if,in spite of our differences, we have something we could call a common human nature,by which we can recognise each other as human beings."

What is human nature?

www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm

[Michael]

The proposition requires an either or response, which is dualistic and by necessity invalid.

One of the problems this question presents is that to say 'yes' is to make ourselves separate from the rest of the Universe. I have always opted for the Universal. Human Nature must ultimately be Universal Nature and in that both ends of your peice of thread come together. Which simile is really a one dimensional expression of a Holistic Universe - you know, the old hippy-dippy, I am you and you are me. But true however pejoratively expressed.

Another way of responding to the question is to report that I have looked into the eyes of animals and seen more humanity than I've seen in the eyes of some people.

Scientifically there is DNA which gives us a consistent point of differenciation, though what that actually proves in the larger context I don't know.

But for the time being we each will comfort ourselves with the answer that is most compatible with our individual states of being.

[peterh]

here here id like to hear your opinion as to the challenges a modern collective of humans suffering illness and war on mass face and perhaps some of the astoundingly obvious answers like prayer as the answer to this. I hope to hear from you soon hi everybody!

[peterh]

particularly i would enter a debate about modern drug warfare and terrorism which is using manufactured drugs only present in the human collective for 60 years.

[peterh]

it is human nature to be lost in the universe wondering why we are here and questioning everything including god in an attempt to understand the two thousand years of atrocity commited by rebellious godless people. Thats the answer to me about human nature its not god its godless people!

[kris]

What is human nature?

Human nature is the sum total of the way humans think which finds palpable expression in our speech, behavior and actions.

[Molly Brogan]

Human nature is the sum total of the way humans think which finds palpable expression in our speech, behavior and actions.

I don't think either Chompsky or Foucault would argue with your defination. But Chompsky would say we are born with our human nature and our learning is defined by it. Foucault would say that we are born with a clean slate, and human nature is something we learn as we live. Do you think we are born with any facet of our human nature?

[kris]

On the whole, I agree more with Chomsky's position than with Foucault's, not necessarily for the same reasons as his. All studies of man, from history to linguistics and psychology, are faced with the question of whether, in the last instance, we are the product of all kinds of external factors, or if, in spite of our differences, we have something we could call a common human nature, by which we can recognise each other as human beings.
- EldersIt doesn't take genious to realize that cats and dogs recognize other members of their species as deftly as humans do. There wouldn't be ant and bee colonies if they did not recognize their kind. But since linguistics is an interesting area, I don't mind taking that route to establish human nature, if or as if, it is necessary.The systems that two speakers of English arrive at on the basis of their very different experiences are congruent in the sense that, over an overwhelming range, what one of them says, the other can understand.
- ChomskyI think we learn language because of our implicit faith in inductive reasoning. the child must begin with the knowledge, certainly not with the knowledge that he's hearing English or Dutch or French or something else, but he does start with the knowledge that he's hearing a human language of a very narrow and explicit type, that permits a very small range of variation. And it is because he begins with that highly organised and very restrictive schematism, that he is able to make the huge leap from scattered and degenerate data to highly organised knowledge. - ChomskyMy daughter grew up with exposure to two languages simultaneously, English and Marathi. I never saw her use a Marathi word or structure when speaking in English to English only speakers. She not only recognized her parents as humans, but as humans with a strange way of communicating that the rest of the humans in her experience would not understand. Was she faced with two types of "highly organised and very restrictive schematisms"? Or was it her implicit faith in inductive reasoning? Personally, I think we come equipped with more than language learning skills. Those skills are non-verbal and they make us human.

Of course, I couldn't believe in karma :) and see a new-born as a tabula rasa. My daughter came into this world with lot more than I could ever give her with my limited abilities. My faith in human nature comes from seeing a child grow up from day one.

[peterh]

holistically humans have a body that we think about in the absence of thought the body persists

[carcharanon]

"All studies of man, from history to linguistics and psychology, are faced with the question of whether, in the last instance, we are the product of all kinds of external factors, or if,in spite of our differences, we have something we could call a common human nature,by which we can recognise each other as human beings."

What is human nature?

www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm

Gad ... I read the replies and was zapped by the electric materialism of the modern age!

Honest, my very first thought was that you had said, in so many words, "in all studies of the life force, elan vital, or spirit ...."

The entire basis of philosophy and religion is that in life, there are common unifying factors. Philosophy contends that these common traits, what we call truths, are knowable. Some religion relegates it to faith. I view faith as a request to wait for more concrete answers, and I interpret religion (Christiantiy and Islam) as allegory.

I have looked into the eyes of animals and I see a living being, fully sentient. Some animals are attentive, some are obedient, some are hungry. If you are not good with telepathy, then communication can be largely lost - most animals are very quick and do not stop long to discuss philosophy. I have looked at an orange tree in my own backyard in utter amazement. All animals are extremely patient and tolerant of the human species, in my view.

I you want to find one thing in common amongst healthy spirits, then look for a game. Dogs are great for games. Their favorites are: sniffing out who or what was where and when (aka, going for a walk); showing off predatory skills (chase the ball); and the all-American passtime, "Let's eat!"

Cats are a bit different. The spirit is there, but the demands of the body (the species) influence behaviors. Take a look at the human species: we spend almost all of our lives caring for the body, housing it, feeding it, clothing it, sleeping it, exercising it, mating it, and so forth. The reasons we as immortal spiritual beings hang onto bodies are many, but principally, to have a game.

Another common factor in life is the attainment of pleasure (and the avoidance of pain). The reason we are interested in philosophy, religion, and the truth about life, is to attain greater pleasure (and avoidance of further pain). We hope to accomplish this throuhg understanding, which allows for greater control.

Interesting topic ... I could go on for another paragraph or so.

[Molly Brogan]

Interesting insights. When viewing the link, which is a discussion between the philosophers Foucault and Chomsky, Chomsky contends that we are born with innate abilities to assimilate and understand language and symbols, Foucault thinks that we are not, that all language ability is learned. I am not sure what this has to do with materialism, except that to think that our human nature is entirely learned from external stimuli might preclude our dependence on the material. However, I tend to agree with Chomsky, that we are born with innate abilities that are essential to our human nature, and to me this means that we become for the inside out.

Gad ... I read the replies and was zapped by the electric materialism of the modern age!

Honest, my very first thought was that you had said, in so many words, "in all studies of the life force, elan vital, or spirit ...."

The entire basis of philosophy and religion is that in life, there are common unifying factors. Philosophy contends that these common traits, what we call truths, are knowable. Some religion relegates it to faith. I view faith as a request to wait for more concrete answers, and I interpret religion (Christiantiy and Islam) as allegory.

I have looked into the eyes of animals and I see a living being, fully sentient. Some animals are attentive, some are obedient, some are hungry. If you are not good with telepathy, then communication can be largely lost - most animals are very quick and do not stop long to discuss philosophy. I have looked at an orange tree in my own backyard in utter amazement. All animals are extremely patient and tolerant of the human species, in my view.

I you want to find one thing in common amongst healthy spirits, then look for a game. Dogs are great for games. Their favorites are: sniffing out who or what was where and when (aka, going for a walk); showing off predatory skills (chase the ball); and the all-American passtime, "Let's eat!"

Cats are a bit different. The spirit is there, but the demands of the body (the species) influence behaviors. Take a look at the human species: we spend almost all of our lives caring for the body, housing it, feeding it, clothing it, sleeping it, exercising it, mating it, and so forth. The reasons we as immortal spiritual beings hang onto bodies are many, but principally, to have a game.

Another common factor in life is the attainment of pleasure (and the avoidance of pain). The reason we are interested in philosophy, religion, and the truth about life, is to attain greater pleasure (and avoidance of further pain). We hope to accomplish this throuhg understanding, which allows for greater control.

Interesting topic ... I could go on for another paragraph or so.

[Monkey butler]

It is hard to deny from an analysis of history and a knoweldge of modern political systems that the 'will to power' plays a significant role in human nature. For good or bad, once a person or an oligarchy have control they are reluctant to let it slide and resist attempts to dissipate power amongst more people.

This, in my view at least, is understandable considering that we are fragile beings with many wants and needs, from the basics, such as food, through to the need to feel valued, such as being told that we are doing a good job. Power, even if only over one's own life, increases the likelihood that these wants and needs will be satisfied and that they will also be satisfied on the individual's terms.

However, beyond this basic premise, it seems evident that human consciousness does allow a large degree of apparent choice in how we act and even provides an opportunity for individuals to remake themselves as if they were blank slates. The real fear is that even here our apparent ability to remodel ourselves as we see fit is an illusion and is heavily limited by cultural factors, such as fashion or expected modes of behaviour.

So, from my own observations anyway, it would appear that human nature is implcitly based on our need for survival but that there is a complex interaction with our highly developed consciousness which suggests that maybe a leopard can change its spots. Hopefully.

[litldrummerboy]

it is human nature to be lost in the universe wondering why we are here and questioning everything including god in an attempt to understand the two thousand years of atrocity commited by rebellious godless people. Thats the answer to me about human nature its not god its godless people!

so you believe that all the negative aspects of human nature can be attributed to atheists? hasn't it been the religious zealots that have caused most of the wars in human history in the first place?

[carcharanon]

Interesting insights. When viewing the link, which is a discussion between the philosophers Foucault and Chomsky, Chomsky contends that we are born with innate abilities to assimilate and understand language and symbols, Foucault thinks that we are not, that all language ability is learned. I am not sure what this has to do with materialism, except that to think that our human nature is entirely learned from external stimuli might preclude our dependence on the material. However, I tend to agree with Chomsky, that we are born with innate abilities that are essential to our human nature, and to me this means that we become for the inside out.

Professionals (those who make their money in a given field) tend to temper themselves to their audiences ... and tend to try to gain attention. With all due respect for the intelligence and political saavy of Foucault and Chomsky, I do not see where these guys are addressing real issues in the traditions of religion and philosophy. I do see where these guys are "staging" themselves in status. So I find them confusing and boring.

Language is a thing created by beings. The smart guys created it, the rest learned it. It does impact on the material, as YOU correctly surmise. E.g. Let's talk "time." Thought precedes words (in some instances of human behavior). Thought also precedes words in that languages are creations of living beings. It's clear where thought is in this, but where is time, in this? In each instance, both words and language, thought came first, but in "time" the scale of it varies from seconds, to evolutions over many decades. (OK. I'm trying to be funny, tossing in a mind-bender, but there is a very fascinating lie in it all.)

Many decades ago I wrote a philosophy paper for an elective course entitled: "Language Is Latent." The paper proposed that thought precedes language. If the schools of "modern philosophy" according to such as Liebnitz were to accept that, it would be the death of semantical philosophy (trying to rearrange words to think for one is somewhat like trying to create a collection of the material world that can reason for itself - both are prima facie ridiculous). Because I was too stupid to realize that the person reading the paper was a professional philosophy professor, I submitted the paper, got a "C+" for it, a bunch of red ink, and a "C" for the course. I'm still ticked off about that. I'm right.

In summary, I labored through parts of the link, but I recognize that "the money" precedes "the thought" - which is backwards. I'm NOT a very popular guy - I say what I think, not what makes me pleasing to others. Still stupid after all these years.

Carcha.

[abaris]

carcharanon:

Many decades ago I wrote a philosophy paper for an elective course entitled: "Language Is Latent." The paper proposed that thought precedes language. If the schools of "modern philosophy" according to such as Liebnitz were to accept that, it would be the death of semantical philosophy (trying to rearrange words to think for one is somewhat like trying to create a collection of the material world that can reason for itself - both are prima facie ridiculous). Because I was too stupid to realize that the person reading the paper was a professional philosophy professor, I submitted the paper, got a "C+" for it, a bunch of red ink, and a "C" for the course. I'm still ticked off about that. I'm right.


It all depends on how you define thought. I bet you have heard people say "Let me think!" and you have certainly used the phrase yourself, like everybody else. Now what do people do when they say let me think? what do you do?

Assuming that your experiences on the matter are no different than mine, I'll say: You run a joint query through your internal database, filtering and matching data sets against a specific pattern. That's what most people do when they say let me think. Now this sort of thing does not require language. Our brain does that all the time with every bit of audio visual input it registers.

Philosophy professors are not like most people though, or so they think. When they say thinking, they mean running a query that matches certain abstract definitions against others, as you already hinted, and those definitions are verbal constructs. So from your philosophy professors perspective Words precede thought, and your hypothesis is wrong. But that's only because Philosophy's definition of thought is very narrow.

[carcharanon]

It all depends on how you define thought. <...> But that's only because Philosophy's definition of thought is very narrow.

Thanks, you for your reply. I concur, with the exception that a few introverted 'philosophers' do not define philosophy, which is still about finding useful knowledge. Someone should yank quarrelsome semanticists union cards.

The substance of art is, in my view, thought. Cezanne is reputed to have looked at his work-in-process for hours, before adding a brush stroke here and there - and sitting back to look at it some more. Andrew Wyeth replied that he would think about a watercolor for weeks, then execute it in 15 minutes. I sat looking at one of his watercolors for two straight hours, then in a flash saw how he did it (I never get tired or relating that).

The story about Mozart hearing a symphony for the first time, going home and correcting the mistakes - at the age of five - is amply illustrative of thought (presumably) without words.:applause:

[greg]

Thanks, you for your reply. I concur, with the exception that a few introverted 'philosophers' do not define philosophy, which is still about finding useful knowledge. Someone should yank quarrelsome semanticists union cards.

The substance of art is, in my view, thought. Cezanne is reputed to have looked at his work-in-process for hours, before adding a brush stroke here and there - and sitting back to look at it some more. Andrew Wyeth replied that he would think about a watercolor for weeks, then execute it in 15 minutes. I sat looking at one of his watercolors for two straight hours, then in a flash saw how he did it (I never get tired or relating that).

The story about Mozart hearing a symphony for the first time, going home and correcting the mistakes - at the age of five - is amply illustrative of thought (presumably) without words.:applause:

Mozart heard the music in his mind. He composed the music in his mind using each instrument. When he had it right he wrote it down.

Greg