Is There A Universal Human Nature?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Can't you read?

― the pinefox, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

My, what a big question.

I try to be as agnostic as possible about this, because as far as I've seen people's beliefs about whether there is one, and what it's like, are always off-base and usually badly justified or would be so, if they tried. It seems an important enough thing that I'd rather not turn in my answer sheet early, if you get me. That said, I tend toward anti-essentialist stances in lots of ways, probably because it seems "safer". If there is a universal human nature, I think it's a lot more basic and/or hard to grasp than most people who throw around theories of human nature seem to think.

― Josh, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

If there was a universal human nature, would humans get along better? Probably not, as it would be bound to be a broadly negative human nature. Personally, I don't believe in universals, I have no reasons that explain this.

― james e l, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think the only universal human need is nuture. Is this a Nature .
I am too big to make that joke.

― anthony, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Consciousness = random firing of neurons

― tarden, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Consciousness = a consequence of random neuron firing maybe, but the qualitative isn't reducible to the quantitative (i.e. the subjective to its objective precedents).

― scott, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yes: but the net has a built-in firewall, which deliberately excludes it. Hurrah!!

― mark s, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

For what it's worth, I agree with Josh K - insofar as what he said could be 'agreed with'.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Do you mean, is it possible to agree with such a nonposition? ;)

― Josh, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

No. Unless "human nature" is to be completely mutable and changable under whatever circumstance. Oh, that's a paradox and my head hurts.

― masonic boom, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It could be a paradox, but (and?) there could be something in it. Terry Eagleton, of all people, taught me that. (I say 'of all people' cos other folk don't like him: but I don't care, cos I do.)

― the pinefox, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Universal needs are obvious: eat, drink, sleep. Universal human nature, erm, yes if you take broad definition = everything everyone on Earth thinks/does. And betwixt need & want, some desire to procreate or rather fuck = universal (tho' exceptions exist; do they disprove universal or be excluded as anomaly?). If by "human nature" it's meant certain tendencies, emotions, reactions, etc, & those being intrinsic rather'n learnt, again, depends how broad yr parameters are, ie. = toss until such things are defined. To paraphrase Josh (cf. Meaning of Life), this is a cuntish question. Here's another: are more people selfless or selfish? (A: more people are both = universal human nature.) Wheeez, ffzzz, plop ... [sorry, that's my brayn].

― AP, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Brilliant thing that Steve Jones re culture/nature intellectual capability etc etc. (From memory) "Of course there are limits, and culture can't breach these. A composer might write a song that is beyond the ability of any singer alive, but not the capacity (Xenakis = a good handy example).. But no composer will write a sing which calls for notes which only a bat could sing OR hear..."

But was it Steve Jones the geneticist, or Steve Jones the Sex Pistol?

― mark s, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The essence of human nature is survival. I think that all people are motivated by selfish desires and there's no such thing as a true altruist.

There's nothing inherently negative about this.

― Dan Perry, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I believe Steve Pistol's sole area of expertise is "birds", esp. "tits". Of [other] Jones's quote (w/ MS's "from memory" as caveat) basic point = questions are asked beyond our ability to answer? (My ability: yessir!) Some quote-related pedantry: wurds "ability" & "capacity" are vague, poss. interchangable in that sentence. Plus if bat noises were recorded and assigned to synth keys, shirley not hard to then write choon? And broadcast to invited bat-only audience?

― AP, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Also agree w/ Dan. Selfishness oft. produces selflessness as by-product to better survival. (Tho can "true" altruism be rooted in opposite? More to point, does motive matter vs. action? A: wheez, trrrrrrr, klonk, [mostly] no.)

― AP, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I agree with AP's challenge to Jones. I don't know why he / she called my question 'cuntish'. I hope I shouldn't take it too personally.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Pinefox: erm, "cuntish" was twatty cross-reference to thread [started by me] titled "Meaning of Life" which Josh sullied by raving about Kant. Not directed personally. I have a penis.

― AP, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Doesn't the somewhat unique human capacity to be overwhelmed with consciousness to the point of becoming suicidal, totally negate that whole 'survival instinct is universal' idea? It would seem that we've evolved beyond that even? Maybe the whole evolutionary circle is beginning to close in on itself, and this is just the beginning of the end? Nice day isn't it?

― Kim, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Doesn't the somewhat unique human capacity to be overwhelmed with consciousness to the point of becoming suicidal, totally negate that whole 'survival instinct is universal' idea?

No. I will explain why when I a) have time; and b) figure out how to articulate why I feel this way.

― Dan Perry, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Suicide = survival, eg. defence mechanism to prevent [additional] harm in life, ie. "survival" more about type-of-life than actual life-meaning-"alive" (???). Suicidal impulse v. likely part of "universal human nature".

― AP, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I wonder if there are any cases of animals that were in great pain, putting themselves out of their misery... lemmings don't count.

― Kim, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I once thought there was no one universal human nature but now I feel there are both certain biological and existential circumstances that unite us all , and also we are all free to do what we want and think is better. I think if anything there are human natures(cultures, biological necessities) and there are individuals, both.

― Mike Hanle y, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Comparing humans w/ other animals — emotional, intellectual, perceptive depths unknown — re: suicide not valid; maybe they would carp 'emselves if capable of conceptualising it? But yr 1st point wuz v. good Kim, & on surface refutes "human nature = survival" equation. May well be true, eg. I don't nec. agree w/ what I suggested re: suicide above. I don't know, spleeeep, fffft.

― AP, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

well for a start, we're talking human, so it can't be universal...but apart from being pedantic/semantic, I think we'd have to look at what was meant by universal and nature, both of which are in my opinion, constructs that enable certain arguments/discourses to be made. thus the question, already answers itself

― Geoff, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What was the old bit of cod-philosophy from Dune?

That an animal caught in a trap will chew its own foot off to get out of the trap. But a human caught in a trap will stay in the trap and bear the pain in order to kill whatever *set* the trap, and thus eliminate a future danger.

Not sure what that's in aid of, or, indeed, if it's even anything approaching right...

― Kate the Saint, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

AP's point is similar to one that was percolating in my head: suicide occurs when people feel that living is causing more harm than dying would. Because humans are irrational, subjective creatures, the fact that the opposite is true most of the time ends up being irrelevant.

― Dan Perry, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

No. Not one worth speaking of, anyway.

― Sterling Clover, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Geoff: OK, maybe the question could have been better phrased. I was just trying to get a debate going re. an issue that I think we broadly recognize. I agree with you that re. matters like these, semantics matter. But I think you are being unreasonable in (effectively) dismissing the question as a 'merely semantic' matter without offering an alternative / way forward yourself.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

three months pass...

If 'human nature' = a set of character parameters defined by species gene bank, specific arrangements of which determine each individual's 'nature' (which then undergoes environmental influence which may or may not, depending on POV, override that nature) then I don't believe such a thing exists.

how can nature be fixed when genes, the supposedly determining factors underlying our characters, operate thru the medium of neural networks and brain chemistry [i.e. objective precursors to consciousness]? as such it's not even a case of genetic factors requiring an environment to operate within for our 'nature' to be 'realized' as some would have it but rather of genes and their consequences being merely a part of the quantifiable, modifiable (and valueless) environment with which our real 'nature' of shifting qualifiable subjective (value-) states interacts.

― scott, Wednesday, 7 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

-that isn't to say there aren't fine distinctions to be drawn when describing different aspects of environment [e.g. body/house], their different degrees of importance and different means of modification. nor is it to say that our actions are no more than the result of deterministic process, because in the context of felt value all actions are a genuine expression of desire, however much that desire is circumscribed by environment (in all its forms) as far as both the cause & effect of the choice-making process AND the context of available choices are concerned.

― scott, Wednesday, 7 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think it's worthwhile challenging the idea that nature can be delineated in order to - a) highlight possibilities of action which notions of fundamental limitations to ones 'nature' obscure, b) undermine moralistic assertions that ways of acting are 'unnatural' (taking drugs, genetic engineering, homosexuality, body modification etc (not that I'm looking to defend multiple nose piercings)

[re: distinction between a) and b) - the idea of bounds which we CANNOT overcome is different to, but given the vague way we think about such things, helps bolster the idea of bounds which we SHOULD NOT contravene - as supposedly decreed by external natural/divine/whatever order]

c) undermine sociological generalisations about human behaviour (which are essential for the establishment of pseudoscientific 'laws' of social interaction) d) help turn much psychoanalysis on its head (if there's no 'nature' then what of its supposed dark mysterious side, the subconscious.. e) redefining 'nature' would also help rid evolutionary theory of all the crap which implies, whether intentionally or not, the existence of intent and design in biological process - i.e. there is no 'nature' to have been designed. etc etc

― scott, Wednesday, 7 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

eek, just realised i was asked a question months ago and never replied...um, I guess what I was aiming at, was the fact that if both human and nature/natural are constructed, then they have to be constructed within temporal/cultural discourses, and therefore, the idea of anything being universal, ie transcending these discourses could be seen as being, well, non functional at the best. I also think perhaps that terms such as human (as opposed to? well, I don't know, man, being etc) are, when used like this, part of the post0- nelightenment/rationalism eera, and they carry aburden that suggests cetrain assumptions that, wehn looked at closely, aren't that easily assumed.... more later, me thinks.

― Geoff, Wednesday, 7 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

three months pass...

Screaming fucking bloody mess.

― Frank Kogan, Saturday, 2 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Frank, you are reducing all of creation to four words! And I love it.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 2 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

frank - that's the nicest thing anybody's evr said to me...thank you.

― Queen G, Sunday, 3 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Genetic coding is largely responsible for the receptiveness to external environment of our physical selves, so, as members of a species, there’s naturally a great consistency to our scopes of experience. But not only is receptiveness nothing without stimuli - which are endless in their variety - our receptive capabilities themselves are an aspect of objective environment and as such can be modified as can any other part of the world. As far as stimuli goes, mankind changes as culture, and the thoughts and feelings it provokes, change – we may have reached a state of evolutionary stasis, as some biologists argue, but the only meaningful measure of change for sentient beings is in terms of their conscious experience not of one particular set of factors which contribute to that experience arising. In addition, there’s the potential for altering the receptive side of the equation, which has only just begun to be exploited through GM or more directly through the modification of the physical/chemical end-product of genetic process. Although there are limits to such change – whatever neurochemical qualities are essential for there being a consciousness at all must be retained - there’s no clear cut-off point separating a fixed ‘human nature’ from any other conceivable nature, only a range of experience held in common at any given time.

― neil, Sunday, 3 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

four months pass...

Human Nature is not universal. Humans through out time and space have behaved diferently and have used what was in their individual nature to create their societies. I propose that this means that the human nature is variable. Another thing that makes me doubt the existence of a universal human nature is the answer to the question ¿What is it?. The probability of finding two philosophers which agree in the definition of human nature is 0.00000000000001!!!!! If someone with real disposition wants to talk about this you are welcome.

― Igñaki Sheck, Thursday, 1 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, in exactly the same way as there is a universal human height and weight.

― Martin Skidmore, Thursday, 1 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Well there kind of is, int the grand scheme of things. I mean, to ants or whatever.

I can't decide if this is remark is pertinent or stupid.

― N., Friday, 2 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

five years pass...

What was I thinking?

― the pinefox, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 19:34 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.