Human Nature

Human Nature (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cpK69 -> Human Nature (5/2/2009 7:16:56 PM)
I don’t know I’m beginning to think the idea is a cop-out; an excuse to not have to look into the feelings that inspire action. I guess I just have a hard time understanding how to determine what would be, human nature; knowing how much outside influences affect each individual, and that each responds according to their perception and personality. Maybe it’s just that the idea, to me, appears to overlook the resilience of many, to overcome. Kim

littlewonder -> RE: Human Nature (5/2/2009 7:27:47 PM)
While as humans we are still animals with certain natures about us, as humans we're also cognizant with a conscience and therefore very capable of choice so to put blame on human nature imo is just as you say...a copout. We can decide to act on that nature or to go with a different path that may be the better choice. Because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's always correct.

cpK69 -> RE: Human Nature (5/2/2009 7:40:58 PM)
I am confused as to which attributes can be considered nature. It seems to me, there are many types of people under the heading ‘human’; one group might choose to live in close groups, another prefers distance from each other. Though, I have read about how certain colors and sounds tend to affect people similarly; however, I don’t know if it is always the case. Are they the same thing? Kim

kdsub -> RE: Human Nature (5/2/2009 8:15:40 PM)
Our nature is indisputable and undeniable. To say this is not true is to deny love or hate… Sad but so the rest of our failings as a species are undeniable as well. Our only salvation is that part of our nature is noble and loving…enough so to set us apart from other species on this earth. Our introspective knowledge may one day let us overcome our natural failings and be a worthy representative to the universe. Butch

NorthernGent -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 3:41:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 I don’t know I’m beginning to think the idea is a cop-out; an excuse to not have to look into the feelings that inspire action. I guess I just have a hard time understanding how to determine what would be, human nature; knowing how much outside influences affect each individual, and that each responds according to their perception and personality. Maybe it’s just that the idea, to me, appears to overlook the resilience of many, to overcome. Kim Human nature, a soul etc are simply too abstract to pin down, and to my knowledge no one has been able to apply science to human behaviour to understand the mechanics and springs of the mind. All we can do is watch how people actually act and the activating forces that generate this action - human institutions, poetry, language, crime etc - to understand what we are. Ideas of fate, destiny, human nature are of the same ilk: they provide comfort when the wrong decisions are made; you're in a joint venture with some abstract notion that takes a share of the blame when the risks materialise. I mean, when things go right do people say it's human nature or the individual's doing? In terms of perception and personality, I really do believe that personal experiences shape the individual's view of the world; many views but one world. Take someone like Nietzsche. He lived in isolation for 10 years, a brilliant philosopher, totally withdrew into himself, a failure in love, the crux of his philosophy was/is: "do it for yourself", he was vehemently anti-Christianity and Christian principles, his relationships fell apart over one thing or another. His ideas are only meaningful when placed in the context of his childhood: his father was a pastor who died when Nietzsche was young, and this painful experience set in motion a trend of being withdrawn, isolated and looking for answers to explain his predicament (Christianity was a convenient scapegoat, which is ironic considering he was the ultimate "do it for yourself" philosopher). You will find much of the same in all of the great philosphers - Locke, Hobbes, Heidegger, Machiavelli, Sartre. It would be inaccurate to say that we do not share certain characteristics - the evidence is all around us. We have the capacity for mutual co-operation, war, compassion, envy etc. Yet this doesn't mean we can't channel our postives and control our negatives to get as much as we can out of our lives.

ScooterTrash -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 4:17:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 I don’t know I’m beginning to think the idea is a cop-out; an excuse to not have to look into the feelings that inspire action. I guess I just have a hard time understanding how to determine what would be, human nature; knowing how much outside influences affect each individual, and that each responds according to their perception and personality. Maybe it’s just that the idea, to me, appears to overlook the resilience of many, to overcome. Kim My own take on this is that although many outside influences and experiences tend to direct what we do and point us in certain directions of behavour, there still is that deep down animal instinct in all of us. Take for example, and no doubt we all have had at least one of those encounters, where you are so involved in the heat of the moment that you, for the most part, just throw caution to the wind and react, not necessarily think. I would suggest most of these may have been sexual encounters where the "need" simply blocked out the reasoning. I believe that as we get older and have more life experiences that we maintain control better, but as young humans we are more vulnerable to these instinctive reactions. Aside from sexual reactions, basic survival instincts would also fall in this category. Hunger or the need for shelter will drive people to do things they would not normally do, in an effort to, well, survive. Perhaps that's where the phrase "what was I thinking" came from.

CatdeMedici -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 4:27:19 AM)
I agree with littlewonder---Human nature covers things like: talking, walking upright, forming interactive communities, the ability to reason, think, emote--however, its that one little trait called choice that mucks things up--because after those core common elements--it all comes down to choice.

InTonguesslut -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 6:08:38 AM)
quote: I don’t know I’m beginning to think the idea is a cop-out; an excuse to not have to look into the feelings that inspire action. I completely agree. Things are never so simplistic as to be just put down to human nature. It bugs me when people cannot be bothered to think a little further about things so just say 'oh it's human nature'. I find it incredibly lazy and naive. I think people put things down to human nature that are common traits such as jealousy, anger etc. I can understand that and even agree yes its human nature, but to think no further than that, plain lazy.

kdsub -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 7:48:31 AM)
I think most are over analyzing what the human nature is… First it has much in common with the nature of many living creatures. The only difference or what separates us is the ability to communicate and analyze our nature. Love, hate, fear, anger, jealousy, greed, compassion, selfishness, pride…think a few minutes and you could add many more...These are in our nature and each of us have these very same attributes to one degree or another. They can be seen and recognized through the history of our species and will continue until we go the way of the dinosaurs. Butch

NorthernGent -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 12:41:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I think most are over analyzing what the human nature is… First it has much in common with the nature of many living creatures. That's an interesting proposition. If there's more in common with other species than that which separates us, then does this mean that we afford other species the same privileges as human beings? When a crocodile attacks a man, why don't we kill the man for breaking and entering the croc's back garden?

Vendaval -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 12:52:28 PM)
We are part of the animal kingdom and maintain the basic survival mechanisms necessary to protect and defend ourselves and our family members. We also have a consciousness that allows a thought process that may or may not be factored deliberately into human behavior. YMMV, Vendaval

kdsub -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 1:27:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I think most are over analyzing what the human nature is… First it has much in common with the nature of many living creatures. That's an interesting proposition. If there's more in common with other species than that which separates us, then does this mean that we afford other species the same privileges as human beings? When a crocodile attacks a man, why don't we kill the man for breaking and entering the croc's back garden? I think we should respect all life where possible...life is special in the universe. But as the top of the evolutionary chain we have the right and responsibility to determine how the rest of life on this earth interacts with us. We are not doing a very good job with that responsibility. Butch

Rule -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 3:27:01 PM)
People differ. One of the most obvious differences is the male / female difference. One has a male nature, the other a female nature, irrespective of gender. One ex-friend of mine is without conscience. I have concluded that he does not know what a lie is. He is an arrant liar, but since he does not know what a lie is, he is most offended when people tell him that he lies. He knows that other people think that to lie is bad, but in his own perception he never lies at all. He has the greatest freedom of all: the universe is as he decrees it to be. He is a charming man, a nice fellow - and I am convinced that he is able to perpetrate the most heinous crimes and subsequently either justify them to himself or to deny that they ever happened and to believe his own lies about that, for to him they are truths. I am convinced that he would pass any lie detector test with flying colours. People differ, including their human nature.

NorthernGent -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 3:36:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule People differ. One of the most obvious differences is the male / female difference. One has a male nature, the other a female nature, irrespective of gender. Can you expand on this...what are the significant differences?

NorthernGent -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 3:46:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I think most are over analyzing what the human nature is… First it has much in common with the nature of many living creatures. That's an interesting proposition. If there's more in common with other species than that which separates us, then does this mean that we afford other species the same privileges as human beings? When a crocodile attacks a man, why don't we kill the man for breaking and entering the croc's back garden? I think we should respect all life where possible...life is special in the universe. But as the top of the evolutionary chain we have the right and responsibility to determine how the rest of life on this earth interacts with us. We are not doing a very good job with that responsibility. Butch Then is it responsible to act ethically when deciding the fate of animals? If, as you say, we share the same nature, then the fact that humans and animals belong to different species is not in and of itself a justification for treating them differently; and where you agree with this it opens up all sorts of ethical issues such as should we sacrifice the life of an animal in order to save the life of a human in a persistent vegitative state? Surely where we share the same nature we should make an ethical decision based on the quality of life of the being, whatever species?

kdsub -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 7:00:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I think most are over analyzing what the human nature is… First it has much in common with the nature of many living creatures. That's an interesting proposition. If there's more in common with other species than that which separates us, then does this mean that we afford other species the same privileges as human beings? When a crocodile attacks a man, why don't we kill the man for breaking and entering the croc's back garden? I think we should respect all life where possible...life is special in the universe. But as the top of the evolutionary chain we have the right and responsibility to determine how the rest of life on this earth interacts with us. We are not doing a very good job with that responsibility. Butch Then is it responsible to act ethically when deciding the fate of animals? If, as you say, we share the same nature, then the fact that humans and animals belong to different species is not in and of itself a justification for treating them differently; and where you agree with this it opens up all sorts of ethical issues such as should we sacrifice the life of an animal in order to save the life of a human in a persistent vegitative state? Surely where we share the same nature we should make an ethical decision based on the quality of life of the being, whatever species? Another subject...you should start a thread...I said we had the right and responsibility as top of the evolutionary chain to determine how we interact with other species… This statement has nothing to do with morality… We only share some attributes they are not our equals. But their health and existence will affect our health and existence. Butch

cpK69 -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 8:10:09 PM)
~fr~ quote: Human nature is the concept that there are a set of characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that all 'normal' human beings have in common.[1] The branches of science associated with the study of human nature include sociology, sociobiology and psychology, particularly evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology. Philosophers and theologians have also carried out research on human nature. I copied the first paragraph off of Wikipedia, just to have some sort of basis. I was having a hard time keeping the idea straight in my head. Am I right in thinking the concept is attributed to the parts of human behavior that is unique to humans? When I looked up ‘nature’ (Microsoft word look-up) I got this: quote: Natural state of humankind; the natural and original condition of humankind, as distinguished from a state of grace … and quote: Universal human behavior. Looking up animal (same place); quote: Instinct-driven inner self; the instinctive inner self as opposed to the one subject to self-restraint. Am I mistaken in thinking ‘human nature’ would be something that cannot be changed? Also, would unexercised capabilities count; making it possible that some are unknown? quote: Sad but so the rest of our failings as a species are undeniable as well. Now I am curious as to what our “natural failings” are. Kim

FangsNfeet -> RE: Human Nature (5/3/2009 9:20:46 PM)
The Ten Comandments were written for reason as well as The Seven Deadly Sins. Budist phlosophy is also about taking control of your human instincts. It's always been mind over matter. How many cheating husbands like to say "Well, I'm only a man."

NorthernGent -> RE: Human Nature (5/4/2009 3:32:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 Am I mistaken in thinking ‘human nature’ would be something that cannot be changed? No, I don't think you are. A human nature implies that there are a set of in-built laws that govern us and are common to us all.

kittinSol -> RE: Human Nature (5/4/2009 6:34:07 AM)
You should look into the concept of tabula rasa.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125