RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism.

RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

eihwaz -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 7:03:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz It would seem to me that 'human nature' encompasses a unique aggregate of traits, rather than an aggregate of unique traits. quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster There is the superset of all traits possessed by all animals. There is a subset of those traits, composed of the traits possessed only by humans. Humans possess a combination of the two sets. Hence the unique aggregation of traits. i don't think there's any one trait possessed only by humans. But there is a collection of traits possessed only by humans. For example: Complex cognition, the ability to think theoretically, sophisticated language, sentience, the ability to project into the future, creative thinking, advanced tool making and technology, altruistic behavior, food sharing, the need for companionship, the tendency to mate with one individual for long periods of time, cultural accomplishments such as music, dancing, art, language, the concept of morality and sin, archetypes, the ability to imagine things from another's point of view, long life, high metabolism, etc. Other species may have one or another of these traits, but only humans tend to have them all. pam quote: ORIGINAL tweakabelle The test is a very simple one - for something to qualify as human nature, it has to be shared by all humans and only by humans. Some thoughts on why this is such a hard problem: First, as a construct, 'human nature' is not well bounded. There will always have to be some arbitrariness -- best if explicitly agreed lest discussions founder on semantics -- about which categories of traits and phenomena to include and which to exclude. Second, there are multiple valid frames of reference possible for 'human nature'. The frame of reference affects which categories to include in the definition. Third, which frame of reference and definitional categories used depends upon the application or purpose needing a definition of human nature. Fourth, it is standard procedure to construct and use idealized descriptions of phenomena even though not every instance of a particular class of phenomenon exactly conforms to the ideal. A useful model of human nature need only be substantially, rather than completely, inclusive. Fifth, the uniqueness requirement -- whether individual traits or in aggregate -- depends upon the application -- a taxonomy requires at least aggregate uniqueness, but designing a society, a government, a building, an educational system, or a healthcare system really don't. Sixth, a huge amount of historical baggage has accreted onto the term. I've come to appreciate more deeply the wisdom of using richly expressive modes such as myth and narrative to describe something so complex.

eihwaz -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 7:09:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 [..] For example: Complex cognition, the ability to think theoretically, sophisticated language, sentience, the ability to project into the future, creative thinking, advanced tool making and technology, altruistic behavior, food sharing, the need for companionship, the tendency to mate with one individual for long periods of time, cultural accomplishments such as music, dancing, art, language, the concept of morality and sin, archetypes, the ability to imagine things from another's point of view, long life, high metabolism, etc. Excellent list!

Kirata -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 7:27:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Excellent list! To which might be added confirmation bias and an affinity for logical fallacies. But perhaps most importantly, human nature is what prevents intellectuals with utopian fantasies about what's good for us from getting their way. K.

eihwaz -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 7:50:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ... human nature is what prevents intellectuals with utopian fantasies about what's good for us from getting their way. K. Gotta love such optimism! [:D]

Edwynn -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 7:51:08 PM)
Not everything has to be legislated or imposed, dear sir. Some of us grew up with good manners, others did not. I myself find it unfortunate that the multitude of laws and regulations we have are wasted on those who would be better shoved off the cliff.

gungadin09 -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 8:11:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Excellent list! To which might be added confirmation bias and an affinity for logical fallacies. But perhaps most importantly, human nature is what prevents intellectuals with utopian fantasies about what's good for us from getting their way. K. And let's not forget the tendency to hog the remote. pam P.S.- In spite of all that, i still have to give it up for human nature. Its flaws are also what prevent evil people with totalitarian aspirations from getting their way for too long.

gungadin09 -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 8:29:19 PM)
Humanity i love you because you would rather black the boots of success than inquire whose soul dangles from his watch-chain which would be embarrassing for both parties and because you unflinchingly applaud all songs containing the words country home and mother when sung at the old howard Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your intelligence to buy a drink and when you're flush pride keeps you from the pawn shop and because you are continually committing nuisances but more especially in your own house Humanity i love you because you are perpetually putting the secret of life in your pants and forgetting it's there and sitting down on it and because you are forever making poems in the lap of death Humanity i hate you (with apologies to e.e. cummings)

tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 8:36:21 PM)
quote: Another is that AFAIK, there's universal agreement that the languages humans use are human inventions. (I've never heard of a contrary suggestion.) To agree that language-based achievements constitute human nature would be to agree that human nature is a human invention. Is that what you wish to argue? Sort of. What i wish to argue is that at some point in evolution, primates developed a larger brain and with it the potential to become human, to develop those distinguishing traits that we regard as "human nature". It was upon realising that potential that they actually did become human from monkeys. So, yes, human nature is an invention, or an accomplishment of the mind. Or, in other words, so far humans alone have had the potential to develop sophisticated language and the other traits we associate with human nature. If you're saying in order for that claim to be valid i have to be able to identify the exact point that primates became "human", or that it had to have happened all at once instead of by degrees over time, i'd say that's pretty unreasonable. Saying that human human nature is a human invention is an oversimplification. The development of any trait is a process of becoming one thing from another. It would be more accurate to say human nature is a set of traits that early humans developed over time, just as those fish developed the ability to breathe air and walk on land. You could just as easily call that an "invention". pam Yes. Just about all of the above is pretty close to the mark I suspect. Even the over-statements are over-statements! (I was playing a kind of Devil's Advocate role up to this point). For mine, the way you outlined the process whereby development of traits and their gradual accretion into what most people understand as human nature is perceptive. And I really like "accomplishment of the mind" - it conveys so much more than human invention. I'd like to take this perspective a little further. It seems to me that human nature can be understood as a social fact. By that I mean a belief that is held by enough people with enough conviction that it generates a truth value of its own. This passes no judgement on the inherent truth of the belief. So, for example we can say that Thailand is a Buddhist country as c97% Of Thais are Buddhists, without making any judgement on the truth value of Buddhism itself. In this sense, for Thais and Thailand, Buddhism is a social fact. So, for most people, human nature can be seen as a social fact. It may or may not have an inherent truth, but it's believed in by enough people with enough conviction that it is, for all intents and purposes, a fact. FWIW at an academic level, the question of whether human nature has an inherent truth will probably only be settled if and when a universal of human behaviour is identified. But we aren't under such constraints here. Thus far here, two broad classes of candidates have been nominated ... cognitive complexity and emotional complexity. As people seem happy to accept generalisations, isn't the ability to successfully communicate cognitive and emotional complexity critical? It's seems to me that these things rely on our ability to communicate as a necessary pre-condition. Other animals seem to have developed communication codes, and to possess emotional ranges. But AFAIK none have been shown to be able to successfully communicate these qualities at a complex level. Even Descartes' famous doubting de-sensitised creature that eventually proposed 'I think therefore I am' seems to somehow have acquired an ability to successfully communicate thoughts ordered into sentences such as "I think therefore I am' (Perhaps it wasn't quite as de-sensitised as Descates claims [:D] ). So this ability could be a candidate that seems to me to include all the specific suggestions so far. Emotional complexity is more difficult. Not because it's inherently a less likely candidate, but because so little research has been done on emotions. Emotions are difficult to measure or quantify so researchers tend to shy away from them. However, there's no doubt that humans are capable of successfully communicating emotional complexity. Finally apologies for the hijack. It wasn't my intention and I have tried to get back to the OP but it seems to have developed a life of its own. It could also be said that the question of human nature is fundamental to the OP too I suppose.

tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 8:49:09 PM)
quote: I've come to appreciate more deeply the wisdom of using richly expressive modes such as myth and narrative to describe something so complex. All the points you raise are valid. I wanted to start off with a simple definition, if only to make the discussion as broad as possible. The difficulties seem to have been recognised and the discussion seems to have moved onto how does human nature operate in society as much as any thing else. The discussion started as a tangent to a post claiming some political such-and-such was against human nature. The points I wanted to explore - that political accounts of human nature are very disputable, that things commonly ascribed in this context to human nature aren't immutable - have been aired. And I find your suggestion of viewing these phenomena as myths or narratives an excellent one. There is quite a bit of terrain to be covered between starting off with a statement like: 'greed is human nature' and ending up there.

Edwynn -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 8:57:29 PM)
quote: And let's not forget the tendency to hog the remote. That which would best serve humanity by being tossed into the landfill, given a last hour reprieve in the cause of equality.

tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 9:02:29 PM)
quote: P.S.- In spite of all that, i still have to give it up for human nature. Its flaws are also what prevent evil people with totalitarian aspirations from getting their way for too long. pam That may well be true. In the countries we live in, it is used far more frequently by the rich and powerful to justify and 'naturalise' their greed and to deprive others of reasonable living standards it seems to me.

eihwaz -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 9:57:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It could also be said that the question of human nature is fundamental to the OP too I suppose. Quite so. I thought the relevant questions were: What definition of human nature should one use when designing or envisioning an optimal human society? What aspects of human nature should one consider? To what extent can desirable qualities be cultivated, to what extent must they be enforced? Can undesirable qualities and behaviors be eliminated or must they be designed for or around and managed? For example, the United States founding fathers were explicit about the model of human nature they were designing the government for. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle That may well be true. In the countries we live in, it is used far more frequently by the rich and powerful to justify and 'naturalise' their greed and to deprive others of reasonable living standards it seems to me. So, basically you're saying the rich and powerful are hogging the remote?

gungadin09 -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 10:05:18 PM)
(this is for stella, wherever she is...) How do you think capitalism has subverted human nature? If personal property is the carrot on the stick that the ruling class currently holds out to enslave workers, what do you propose to replace it with to keep them motivated? Without a revolution, how is man supposed to find independence and identity though work when he works for corrupt people? Short of dictatorship, how can any political party that comes into power avoid compromising its ideals? How can capitolism and socialism be melded into a workable plan for government? pam

Edwynn -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 10:21:00 PM)
"Without a revolution, how is man supposed to find independence and identity though work when he works for corrupt people? " I'm not understanding the given prerequisite there, but "how is man supposed to find independence and identity though work when he works for corrupt people? " is a monster of a question. Bad as things are, I still take this system over the latter imposed dictatorships elsewhere, but the question you propose looms ever larger in the current situation nowadays.

gungadin09 -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/22/2011 11:14:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn I'm not understanding the given prerequisite there, but "how is man supposed to find independence and identity though work when he works for corrupt people? " is a monster of a question. Fair enough. Stella said, she doesn't believe a revolution is necessary. quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk There is no need for a revolution, armed struggles, or indeed civil unrest... She also said that she believes work, employment is the key to socialism. quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk Without labour there is... no commodity and nothing to trade. This explains why the work ethic is central to Marxism. Without labour and activity the worker has no power... As i understand it, Marx advocated revolution because he believed as long as wealth and property were held by a few, that workers would always be enslaved to the ruling class as well as to their own greed and desire for personal possession. He also believed that man achieves his independence and creates his own identity through labor. from Kirata's link: quote: ...Marx speaks of man as essentially free...for the meaning of human labor is that man transforms the external world of nature, which in turn appears to him as his mirror. He sees in the products of his labor...himself, as his own product, he does not depend for what he is on anything outside himself. He is absolutely free of God, of nature, and of those men (the owners of bourgeois private property)... and quote: From here we turn to...an account of "universal human emancipation" or communism, the goal of the revolution... Communism is that condition in which no individual man is dependent on any other man. This requires him to be completely in control of his external world as well as of himself. The existence of private property... not only makes the nonowners dependent on the owners for their subsistence; property also enkindles the artificial passion of avarice in the heart of the owner, a passion that attaches him to something outside himself, his property. Stella seems to be advocating the blending of capitolism and socialism. i guess what i'm saying is that i don't see how that works. Specifically, i don't see how she reconciles the idea that working in the absence of private property is "freedom", with the idea that working for capitolists is "enslavement", and yet maintains that there is no need for revolution. quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk Workers have no property and can only theoretically gain property by working for capital, selling their labour power like any other commodity. Fear of unemployment is a permanent threat. Capitolism forces workers together in large workplaces where they are organised like armies under the command of a hierarchy of 'officers and sergeants'... the vast mahority of people are 'wage slaves', forced through circumstances to serve the global ruling class, bossed around at work, and threatened by the fear and social stigma of unemployment and social rejection... quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Bad as things are, I still take this system over the latter imposed dictatorships elsewhere... So would i, but it strikes me that the OP is asking whether our system could be improved, not whether it is better than dictatorship. pam

kdsub -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 8:41:28 AM)
Not for you specifically pam...but just a comment in general. Am I just naive? How come I don’t see this mysterious ruling class that is enslaving me? Do I see greed…yes. Do I see corruption… yes. Do I see a problem with living my American dream…No. Do I have reasonable freedom to pursue my dreams…educate my children…live a comfortable life…YES There is no ruling class… at least in America… yes there are the rich but not all, not even most, are greedy and trying to enslave you. Most are hard working creative people with good hearts and as honest as you. I feel many people like to blame their inadequacies on others and those that are successful in life are good targets. We would be much better off to open the closet door and check for boogiemen then get on with life. Butch

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 9:07:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Am I just naive? How come I don’t see this mysterious ruling class that is enslaving me? Do I see greed…yes. Do I see corruption… yes. Do I see a problem with living my American dream…No. Do I have reasonable freedom to pursue my dreams…educate my children…live a comfortable life…YES There is no ruling class… at least in America… yes there are the rich but not all, not even most, are greedy and trying to enslave you. Most are hard working creative people with good hearts and as honest as you. I feel many people like to blame their inadequacies on others and those that are successful in life are good targets. I think you are right Kd. A lot of people see conspiracy in almost everything. It is a good example of people seeing what they want to see, sometimes (not always AFAIK) with a hate agenda. For example the media talks a lot of shit at times and gets it simply wrong a lot but there is no genuine reason to think it is trying to manipulate and control our lives.

Edwynn -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 10:07:27 AM)
Another denier. Honestly, you puds are even worse than the anti-climate change or birther folks. I'm sure that Westinghouse (CBS) and GE (NBC) and Murdoch, et. al. all have our best interests at heart. Simple search will tell you all about the US media and who owns it. Who do you think keeps propagating this notion of 'conspiracy' in the first place? Some of us just look at what is happening and look into how it is happening, no 'theory' needed.

Edwynn -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 10:23:15 AM)
Unless someone here is trying to claim that the media told us all about the revolving doors of every important federal agency appointment for more than 30 years. Do you know who Jim Miller is? Wendy Gramm before the fact? They had fun helping railroad her out of town when the Enron feathers hit the fan, but had the media been doing their job she never would have found her way into such position in the first place. Anybody know who Arthur Hayes was? Michael Taylor? Am I a 'conspiricist' because I know who these guys are despite media efforts to the contrary?

kdsub -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/23/2011 10:49:09 AM)
Of course you have explained it all...how could I be so blind...Now I know why the guy across the street bought that black SUV...I should have known after all he is a business owner...oh I feel soooo enslaved. We had better be careful talking about it I heard a click on my phone last year…bet the CIA is compiling a dossier on me as we speak. Damn another black helicopter just flew over I know I shouldn’t have bought that GE light bulb. Please help here in Missouri… GE is taking over our lives…it is futile to resist.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.736328E-02