|
MrNemo posted:So your own position would be that there's no such thing as a shared human nature beyond us generally having the same body shape? Any kind of society is not only possible but sustainable? A lot of people react against human nature because they don't like its use as a defence of the status quo. As you point out, "no human nature" can be used to defend anything. It certainly undermines marxism for example which considers certain results to be inevitable when humans are combined with capitalism.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:A lot of people react against human nature because they don't like its use as a defence of the status quo. As you point out, "no human nature" can be used to defend anything. It certainly undermines marxism for example which considers certain results to be inevitable when humans are combined with capitalism. Yeah "human nature" is a bad argument because a stalinist can argue it in humans nature to live in collecctive communities and if you don't want to you need to be persecuted for going against it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
The usual "human nature" argument associated with conservatives is basically that without the guiding natural institutions of the state church and the monarchy people will spiral into degeneracy because reasons
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The usual "human nature" argument associated with conservatives is basically that without the guiding natural institutions of the state church and the monarchy people will spiral into degeneracy because reasons
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The usual "human nature" argument associated with conservatives is basically that without the guiding natural institutions of the state church and the monarchy people will spiral into degeneracy because reasons
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
no but people using the "socialism can't work because human nature, checkmate libtards" are in fact recycling arguments from 1792 vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv more specifically I'm saying that the human nature argument for traditional power structures and institutions is literally the exact same argument used by the political right since the very beginning of modern politics icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:The state church and the monarchy? Are you posting from the 1700s? He is making fun of conservatism by saying that since the regressive rethuglikkkans espouse conservative values, they want to go back to the dark ages. It's actually a very smart joke. ^^^^^^ pretty sure I've heard quite a few progressive argue that whatever brand of social progress they were in favor off was more in tune with man's nature. Let's be honest, "man's nature" argument are just dumb, no matter who say them, and I don't even know why we're having that derail. Creamed Cormp fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
You're all ignorant westerners who've insulted the mighty Chinese people for the last time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:So your own position would be that there's no such thing as a shared human nature beyond us generally having the same body shape? Any kind of society is not only possible but sustainable? i might be more sympathetic to your argument if it wasn't just a bunch of assertions pulled out of your rear end that sound nice as long as you don't think to hard about it. i totally believe there is something intrinsic to human nature, and i also believe that no one in this thread has the remotest understanding of the fundamental nature of all of humanity. jesus man this is communism, an absolute failure of an ideology for a bunch of demonstrable reasons, and you choose a thomas friedmen impression for your attack.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:no but people using the "socialism can't work because human nature, checkmate libtards" are in fact recycling arguments from 1792 "Can a large society actually be organized like this and still function" is an extremely important question, particularly after several attempts have been made without great success.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Mm. I don't know that I agree, at least with the implication. We may not need a monarch specifically, but Hobbes still seems rather relevant in explaining the importance of a strong state to keep people from eating each other. Right and answering that question requires assumptions about humans and their behavioral predispositions (aka Human Nautre).
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Right and answering that question requires assumptions about humans and their behavioral predispositions (aka Human Nautre).
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
hobbes was a dork
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:hobbes was a dork Much like Marx 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Where did this "fundamental human nature" start? Did cavemen have it? Did monkeys? Do we share this nature with our chimp relatives?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Great point! Find me a monkey herd/tribe/whatever that doesn't have an alpha. Checkmate beta commu-tards.  You guys you guys communism only killed 60-100 mil depending on who you ask so I think we should give it another go before we drat it as non-viable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:47
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:Where did this "fundamental human nature" start? Did cavemen have it? Did monkeys? Do we share this nature with our chimp relatives?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
All I'm saying is that nobody has anything close to a working definition of 'fundamental human nature', its origin is "it's always been there", and every example provided is one of shared human experiences. I can relate to an ancient Roman writing about his awful hangover because I too have had bad hangovers; and even if I had never had alcohol in my life I can still compare my similar experiences of having a headache or feeling nauseous, not because this is some fundamental understanding we share.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:All I'm saying is that nobody has anything close to a working definition of 'fundamental human nature', its origin is "it's always been there", and every example provided is one of shared human experiences. I can relate to an ancient Roman writing about his awful hangover because I too have had bad hangovers; and even if I had never had alcohol in my life I can still compare my similar experiences of having a headache or feeling nauseous, not because this is some fundamental understanding we share. Treating alcohol as important is an example, although it's very specific. Pretty much everyone eats and fucks. Lots of people will have relationships and eventually children (biological or otherwise). Every culture involves social interaction of some sort, and most of them feature conflict between the powerful and the weak.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:All I'm saying is that nobody has anything close to a working definition of 'fundamental human nature', its origin is "it's always been there", and every example provided is one of shared human experiences. I can relate to an ancient Roman writing about his awful hangover because I too have had bad hangovers; and even if I had never had alcohol in my life I can still compare my similar experiences of having a headache or feeling nauseous, not because this is some fundamental understanding we share. The latter count as a "shared human experience," of course, but it's shared precisely because there is a psychological consistency (not absolute, but nevertheless real) across people that cannot simply be wished away. quote:VIII (Street of the Theaters); 64: A copper pot went missing from my shop. Anyone who returns it to me will be given 65 bronze coins (sestertii). 20 more will be given for information leading to the capture of the thief.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Treating alcohol as important is an example, although it's very specific. Everything you've listed is true, but those things are in no way unique to humans. You might as well say "being made up of atoms" is part of fundamental human nature. Strudel Man posted:Why do you mention having an awful hangover, a largely physiological phenomenon, rather than the far more apt emotional commonality that we can find in ancient peoples? The evidence of similar drives, reactions and desires? And I would argue that many shared psychological drives we have with say the Romans or Greeks come from the experiences of being born, raised, and living in a civilized society similar enough to our own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Why do you mention having an awful hangover, a largely physiological phenomenon, rather than the far more apt emotional commonality that we can find in ancient peoples? The evidence of similar drives, reactions and desires? That still doesn't amount to a good definition of what human nature is. There's a broad spectrum of what you can feel that is human. some people are jealous, some people aren't. Both are human. There doesn't have to be any overlap, though there likely is, between any two humans, beyond the most basic needs and drives. I know people with no interest in romance, people who utterly lack intellectual curiosity, people who are physically fearless, people who don't care about the opinions of others, etc. The insistence on a fundamental 'human nature' is most often a definition of what characteristics the society you're from holds as important. computer parts posted:Flying isn't a unique part of a cardinal but I would call it part of their fundamental nature. A cardinal with a broken wing who can't fly is still a cardinal. And anyway the physical is not a good comparison to the emotional/mental. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:Everything you've listed is true, but those things are in no way unique to humans. Flying isn't a unique part of a cardinal but I would call it part of their fundamental nature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:Everything you've listed is true, but those things are in no way unique to humans. You might as well say "being made up of atoms" is part of fundamental human nature. quote:And I would argue that many shared psychological drives we have with say the Romans or Greeks come from the experiences of being born, raised, and living in a civilized society similar enough to our own. Obdicut posted:That still doesn't amount to a good definition of what human nature is. There's a broad spectrum of what you can feel that is human. some people are jealous, some people aren't. Both are human. There doesn't have to be any overlap, though there likely is, between any two humans, beyond the most basic needs and drives. I know people with no interest in romance, people who utterly lack intellectual curiosity, people who are physically fearless, people who don't care about the opinions of others, etc. The insistence on a fundamental 'human nature' is most often a definition of what characteristics the society you're from holds as important. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
This really is not difficult. Humans seek advantages for themselves, and a limited in-group with which they identify, being relatively indifferent or even hostile to outsiders. The in-group is most commonly family, and often by by extension tribe or ethnic group. Lacking a blood connection, it seems people need a personal acquaintance. Kibbutzim worked because they were small enough that everyone knew each other. The Soviet Union failed because an ethnic Russian from Moscow usually couldn't be convinced to consider a Tajik from outside of Dushanbe the same way he considered his brother or daughter, and sacrifice for him. The only time the Soviets succeeded as Soviets was in time of great crisis, like WWII, when there was an overwhelmingly compelling common purpose. Human nature is to be selfish, to consider one's own needs and the in-group's needs first. The function of law is to block the basest expressions of this nature, and otherwise channel it to its most productive expression while still acknowledging it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:Everything you've listed is true, but those things are in no way unique to humans. You might as well say "being made up of atoms" is part of fundamental human nature. So apparently it's nothing but luck then that our societies resemble theirs enough we can relate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Ah the old essentialist/universalist/relativist debate. Science is actually making a (little) bit of progress on it. I'd recommend checking out the work of Terry Regier who has done some excellent work on how language influences behavior and shows both universal and relative properties interacting. He also delves into category formation and it's role in communication. A talk for undergrads, so nicely approachable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8GXN-HDNeg AFAIK there is no one particularly good looking into selfishness, but I've been outside academia for a bit. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:
Okay, if you just argue from a position where you're sure you're right you're always going to be right. I know people who aren't jealous--who don't even compare themselves or what they have to other people--and I know people who are physically fearless--in fact, who are the opposite, who actively court life-threatening situations over and over, and I know people who do not want to know the reason 'why' behind anything. they're not in a psych ward, they're fully functional people. At the very least, you don't believe that someone can be physically fearless? That there are some people who respond to physical danger with excitement, rather than fear? There are people who respond to change with negativity, and people who love change. There are people who are energized by group situations, and others who are drained by them. Some people hate travel, others love it. One of the things that makes me valuable in my professional role is that if something I'm working on fails, it doesn't upset me in the least, it kind of excites me to try it again. If something completely succeeds, I don't feel triumph, I just check it off the list and go on to something else. What excites me is figuring out the failure, not the actual success. A lot of other people get drained by failure, especially repeated failure. There's a beautiful breadth and depth the human experience, and anything you declare as 'fundamental' is either going to be so broad as to be basically useless, or exclude people who are definitely human.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
I define human nature as the set of genetic behavioral predispositions that most humans have. I think it's intelectually untenable to believe that this group of traits doesn't exist, can't be identified or are necesarily overly broad. Exceptions don't mater. The statement "humans have two arms" isn't invalidated by the minority who have 1. Autism or gender dysphoria help highlight just how powerful underlying predispositions are to defining our experience in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I define human nature as the set of genetic behavioral predispositions that most humans have. We don't have any genetic behavioral predispositions. That's not how genetics works. And even in your definition, by saying 'most humans', you admit there are humans who don't have whatever behaviors you're talking about, but are still human. quote:Exceptions don't mater. The statement "humans have two arms" isn't invalidated by the minority who have 1. Yes, it is. What you mean is that people generally understand when you say "Humans have two arms" you implicitly mean "in general". To put it in genetic terms, when people say "Humans have two sexes" we don't mean that intersex people don't exist and aren't just as much a normal, if rare, outcome of genetics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
You guys are using two different systems of categorization. It's a debate that has been done to death. Here's a few wiki links to help you catch up, or you can look at my previous link to see one example of where the science is at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemplar_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Great point! Find me a monkey herd/tribe/whatever that doesn't have an alpha. Checkmate beta commu-tards. I don't like communism ewither, I just think "natural rights, or natural law arguments make sense and can be easily twisted to argue for which one is trying to disprove making them bad arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:The take away from this is not whether or not China is worse than the US or that the US is equal to China but rather then presuming to tell other countries how to do things, we should consider what is happening in our own backyard. Another reason to hold America to a high standard is that I live here. As is said in the bible, "Physician, heal yourself." Or maybe we could just accept the fact that arguing over who gets to criticize who isn't going to help anyone, and speak out against human rights violations wherever and whenever they happen. I'm pretty sure that most of the people calling out China on their latest act of wanton repression aren't trying to excuse or downplay anything their home country might have done. Invisible Handjob posted:hey whatever happened to pro PRC laowai i miss that guy sometimes I was just thinking about him. The OP article wasn't even just talking about locking up dissidents, but locking up the lawyers who represented them for the heinous crime of doing their loving jobs. It would've been amusing to seem him try to spin that as a legitimately necessary action towards maintaining social order or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:We don't have any genetic behavioral predispositions. That's not how genetics works. And even in your definition, by saying 'most humans', you admit there are humans who don't have whatever behaviors you're talking about, but are still human. DNA doesn't define behavior? Of course. quote:Yes, it is. What you mean is that people generally understand when you say "Humans have two arms" you implicitly mean "in general". To put it in genetic terms, when people say "Humans have two sexes" we don't mean that intersex people don't exist and aren't just as much a normal, if rare, outcome of genetics. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, if you just argue from a position where you're sure you're right you're always going to be right. Perhaps more relevant, though, is that this variance among people is precisely the problem for noble utopian enterprises - they typically require a great degree of uniformity within the society they intend to construct. I've no doubt that some people are capable of empathy and altruism enough to devote themselves to the common good, or patriotic enough to adhere to the ideals of their country, or whatever other avenue may exist for overcoming narrow self-interest. There are plenty of examples of this, both contemporary and historical. A social organization that relies on everyone doing that, though, or nearly everyone, is setting itself up for disaster, because of that very breadth of human behavior.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I don't like communism ewither, I just think "natural rights, or natural law arguments make sense and can be easily twisted to argue for which one is trying to disprove making them bad arguments. Sorry if I'm unclear. I don't claim to know what human nature is and I don't have to. But I know a few things it isn't. Communist systems pretty conclusively are one of those things outside the set. It was inimical to its populations. E: I'm defining inimical as 60-100 million corpses in its home countries in a few decades. Before I hear about how this one time there was an ethnic cleansing somewhere and capitalism didn't step in to wave its magic wand and end some multigenerational strife. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Sorry if I'm unclear. I don't claim to know what human nature is and I don't have to. But I know a few things it isn't. Communist systems pretty conclusively are one of those things outside the set. It was inimical to its populations. Then just say, "the human suffering that Communism tends to bring with it makes it a unmitigated disaster and thats why it should not be inflicted on societies". It be like myself arguing that "the result of the British attitudes regarding famines in their territories in the 19th century which resulted in the deaths of millions was in large part exasperated by their slavish belief in laissez faire and this suggests that someone who slavishly believes in laissez faire should not be allowed to implement it being that when disaster hits it exasperates the problem of suffering on the population at large."
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
welp D&D: was the Soviet Union worse than the British Empire discussion #29345
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Typo posted:welp D&D: was the Soviet Union worse than the British Empire discussion #29345 They were really about equal in their horribleness. But then I shouldn't be criticizing them because you see America today possibly stops a critic of it at airports therefore that makes what they did and China do perfectly fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Then just say, "the human suffering that Communism tends to bring with it makes it a unmitigated disaster and thats why it should not be inflicted on societies". It be like myself arguing that "the result of the British attitudes regarding famines in their territories in the 19th century which resulted in the deaths of millions was in large part exasperated by their slavish belief in laissez faire and this suggests that someone who slavishly believes in laissez faire should not be allowed to implement it being that when disaster hits it exasperates the problem of suffering on the population at large." Which is fine until you remember this whole argument started with someone who is aware of all that and was fully in favour of it all as a positive development towards True Communism as exemplified by such glorious Socialist states as China, Vietnam (both pretty good examples of entrenched oligarchies practising crony capitalism) North Korea (just lol) and Cuba (I'd argue more a socialist dictatorship and largely has avoided market capitalism because of its deliberate exclusion). The human nature argument came about because he was also arguing that there's no such thing, while also accepting that we share a common biology. So either he believes that brain plasticity means every human being is a totally blank slate in terms of development (and it's pure chance we've ended up with things like common emotions over common experiences) or his concept of a human nature is the incredibly strawman idea of it requiring all human beings be 100% identical. People are right that human nature arguments get twisted a lot, I was trying to make a purely negative one that suggests a particular vision of human society would be unworkable under current material conditions. I specifically tried to avoid making any particularly detailed or controversial assumptions about human nature, basically we have a natural tendency towards social hierarchies and, currently, material goods with some level of scarcity will become associated with said hierarchy. True Communism would require shedding at least the latter element and properly speaking also the former. Which is the lengths you have to go to when you're arguing with someone who sees the deaths of 100s of millions as a positive step in human development.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 01:38
|
|
