RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it

RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (Full Version)

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

Message

Edwynn -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/23/2011 8:49:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The running time on this refreshing and scholarly BBC video (linked below) is 49 minutes. Trust me, it's worth it. The Mother City of Caral K. That is an excellent short film. Thanks for that.

Edwynn -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/23/2011 8:53:31 AM)
It's a bit amusing to see some here trying to escape responsibility for their own propensity towards violence and fear and vengeance by claiming that it is 'human nature.' As the old Native American Chief once asked; "What you mean 'we,' white man?" If I recall, tweakabelle already cracked this one in Stella's OP.

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/23/2011 11:11:27 AM)
quote: I have never seen any animals playing hopscotch, so that get's my vote as to what separates humans as being truly unique. not only is that witty and cute, it does make a real point. we've all seen kittens and puppies playing, but their "play" is actually honing their hunting/survival skills. as far as i know, only humans play games that have no such training purpose (and yes i know that hopscotch is "training" play). imagination is the thing that makes the difference i think. hannah lynn

Edwynn -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/23/2011 12:04:39 PM)
I hung out with this large group of feral cats for almost 2 years some time ago. They taught me a lot. They didn't play hopscotch, and there is not much they 'know' in the normal sense. But it took me awhile to see what they are capable of learning, and 99% of it has to do with social issues. They start with the simple nuzzling or paw slapping for 'like/don't like' then gradually move into the most complex body/breath/look etc. communication I have ever seen. Humans recognize the stark and obvious, but the subtlety is there in spades, it's just that it takes a good bit of acceptance into their inner circle to see it. Watching the slow stages that it took for a feral cat to approach a human was something. Slow movements I learned. But the even better part was seeing how they were relaxed enough to be themselves in my still and quiet presence, though still aware of me. I felt more flattered by that than anything.

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/23/2011 12:53:27 PM)
that's really pretty cool edwynn. not sure what it has to do with the topic, but i liked it anyway. hannah lynn

luckydawg -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/23/2011 2:05:49 PM)
what games have no training purposes?

Edwynn -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/23/2011 4:02:56 PM)
Comparative sociology.

vincentML -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/23/2011 4:06:07 PM)
quote: It's a bit amusing to see some here trying to escape responsibility for their own propensity towards violence and fear and vengeance by claiming that it is 'human nature.' Escape responsibility? Not at all. Owning it is more the point. Human history is littered with victims. The Twentieth Century alone overwhelms with tribal violence. How soon we forget [sm=anger.gif]

Edwynn -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/23/2011 4:22:48 PM)
I own what I do, not what others do that I have no control over or effect upon. One could claim that it is human nature to get cancer or play darts, both of which there is evidence of human participation of sorts. I do not take the aberrant behavior of the few that are drawn towards the power/destruction game as being indicative of 'human nature.'

vincentML -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/23/2011 5:03:26 PM)
quote: I do not take the aberrant behavior of the few that are drawn towards the power/destruction game as being indicative of 'human nature.' The few? Depends on when you are counting. Maybe when the bombs are falling, the cities are on fire, the mass of people are driven from their homes and THEN they say "oh shit, now see what the few, the ruling clique has gotten us into!" But back up and have a look at the mobs before hand - when the sun is shining, the bands are playing, the uniforms are clean, the boots are shiny, the Evil Other has been identified, our cause is just and the crowds are cheerfully urging the lads on. A few? I don't think so. Not at that moment. Not in throes of that passion is the power/destruction game an aberrant behavior. Not at all. Hell, just have a close look at the crowd at a football match, a hockey match or a boxing event and tell me that bloodlust does not lie just below the thin veneer of "civilization." I think the case can be made that our organized sports are to a great extent a divergence of violent human nature.

Edwynn -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/23/2011 6:59:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Hell, just have a close look at the crowd at a football match, ... If you are talking European football, you got me on that one! I cannot dispute some of what you say about the armies, the crowds, the rabble having been roused, etc. So I should possibly retract what I say about it being 'the few.' But that still does not equate to such behaviour as being ascribable to all. I myself pay as much or more attention to those who are proactive against such tendencies. Even if we count all that attend those sports matches in person and those watching on TV, what is the total there and what percentage of the population is that? My reading of German history is far from adequate, but I have read enough to assure you that there were a number of people in that country dead set against the military's belligerence in WWI, from all classes, and likewise in WWII. And to this day there are Europeans still questioning what took the US so long to get involved. Why is that? If lust for blood is so prevalent among mankind, why did Woodrow Wilson run his re-election campaign on a promise of the US not entering the war? If things are as you claim he should have done the opposite, and won by an even wider margin. Likewise in the case of the American civil war. There were plenty who made efforts against outright conflict on both sides, but unfortunately there were Rumsfeldts and Cheneys and Wolfowitz's of their day on both sides too. Any efforts towards conflict avoidance were summarily hounded out of the discussion by the war mongers. It has ever been thus. Are you claiming that we are ALL of violent nature because those who are in fact not of that nature did not shoot those who are when it mattered? To the extent you might have a point in that venture you would also have to consider the logical conundrum there. It's not that you focus so much on the worst of mankind, but that you seem to be oblivious to the other side of it. You focus on the rabble that cheer war, and use that as evidence. Maybe you are oblivious to the many who got their face bashed in by the police in the US during Vietnam war protests, likewise those in Germany and other countries in other wars. You claim the bashers as evidence for your argument, I claim those who got bashed as evidence for mine. Though the media did their best to marginalize it, there were numerous protests of over 20,000 in the US against the Iraqi invasion prior to the event and at least three of them had well over 100,000 people in attendance. Guess they missed out on the football match that day, huh? And pardon if a new war is not started every week so as to allow those against it to prove their worth by sheer consistent numbers in attendance to outmatch the sports attendees thuswise. Though it might be not possible for either of us to come up with conclusive numbers that prove mankind is either 51% for or 51% against war, that doesn't matter nearly as much to me as it does to you. If I find myself in the 49% or even only 20% then so be it. But when you claim that such belligerence is an inherent property of 'human nature' then you are also claiming that I and many others possess a trait which we in fact do not have, all the attempts at justification for your own notwithstanding. This is one war that you and your ilk will NOT win, flail away all you like. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Human nature is primative predatory violance hidden only by the thin cloak of socialization. The running time on this refreshing and scholarly BBC video (linked below) is 49 minutes. Trust me, it's worth it. The Mother City of Caral K. It is obvious that you have not watched this video. I will only point out that the oldest civilization discovered thus far thrived for over a thousand years with out need for war. You will win the battles for arguments for invasion, your kind always do. But if you think this inherent belligerence accomplishes anything other than pooping next to your plate in any logical argument you are sadly mistaken. Pick whatever percentage of minority you wish to place others in, but we have always been here, we will always been here. Deal with it in some other manner than to attempt the sort of foolishness you and others propose here.

NorthernGent -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/24/2011 6:58:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 A late attempt to un-hijack another thread. pam I'd go with there being a popular misconception. The tendency, from Hobbes to Nietzsche, is to see ourselves as fearful and power driven. And then you have Rousseau, who, although he believed we are essentially good, believed that society poisions us. I don't agree with any of 'em. I think we, or at least me, are/is characterised by a quest for peace and harmony, and society need not taint this basic human need. I don't agree with Nietzsche's 'will to power' or any of his Christianity, democracy, utilitarian ethics = slave stuff. To me, human nature is essentially characterised by constructive co-operation: for every minute there's a war, there are a thousand minutes of peace, whether that be international relations or home life. If power and fear are the prime human instincts, then why don't we all just kill one another?

vincentML -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/24/2011 10:46:32 AM)
quote: Maybe you are oblivious to the many who got their face bashed in by the police in the US during Vietnam war protests, likewise those in Germany and other countries in other wars. You claim the bashers as evidence for your argument, I claim those who got bashed as evidence for mine. Though the media did their best to marginalize it, there were numerous protests of over 20,000 in the US against the Iraqi invasion prior to the event and at least three of them had well over 100,000 people in attendance. Guess they missed out on the football match that day, huh? And pardon if a new war is not started every week so as to allow those against it to prove their worth by sheer consistent numbers in attendance to outmatch the sports attendees thuswise. My goodness, you seem a bit agitated by this discussion. I recognize there were many anti-war protestors. Of course. That is the beneficial effect of social compact. But the OP was not about "civilized" human behavior. In the state of nature, as Hobbes said, "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Every man is at war against every man because of competition, fear, and glory. It is for this reason that Hobbes argued that men must be willing to give up some of their liberty to establish a commonwealth, so that peace and governance would have a chance. Let me remind you again, because it seems to so easily slip your grasp, the OP was about human nature not social nature. If you keep that in focus perhaps you will not be so distraught by my simple and humble observation. quote: You will win the battles for arguments for invasion, your kind always do. It is so freakin amusing that you assume to know me so well from my observations on the uncivilized condition of human nature. As a point of fact I am quite left leaning progressive and anti-war in my political orientation. Your efforts at turning this into an ad hominem debate are hilarious and sophomoric. Please deal with the OP and not what you wrongly imagine about my personal philosophy. Let me give you another metric which supports the Hobbesian view of human nature. There are, I have heard, 300 million fire arms owned in the United States including everything from hand guns to assault weapons. Almost one weapon for each citizen actually. Surely, you don't think they are all collectors' articles, do you? [sm=rofl.gif]

vincentML -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/24/2011 10:51:34 AM)
quote: If power and fear are the prime human instincts, then why don't we all just kill one another? because we have entered into a social compact to avoid civil war.

NorthernGent -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/24/2011 12:16:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML But the OP was not about "civilized" human behavior. In the state of nature, as Hobbes said, "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Every man is at war against every man because of competition, fear, and glory. It is for this reason that Hobbes argued that men must be willing to give up some of their liberty to establish a commonwealth, so that peace and governance would have a chance. Let me remind you again, because it seems to so easily slip your grasp, the OP was about human nature not social nature. If you keep that in focus perhaps you will not be so distraught by my simple and humble observation. Hobbes held a certain view of human nature, one at odds with certain philosophers. Bear in mind that Hobbes lived in a time of religious and civil strife, and this circumstance influenced his opinion: he saw war all around him and concluded human beings were war mongers above all else. If you accept that any viable system must fit human nature, and you accept that Hobbes's system (absolutism) failed, which it did, then by extension Hobbes's view of human nature is wide of the mark. Yes, Hobbes proposed a social contract, but unlike Locke's proposal, the contract did not include the sovereign; it was a contract undertaken by and between the people only. Hobbes's main contribution was to apply reason to rule, i.e. sovereigns do not have a divine right to rule, rather they rule in the interests of peace. And this brings us neatly to another proposition: 1) Hobbes was aiming for harmony, as all political philosophers do, which should tell you something about our nature. 2) Hobbes's contribution that has stood the test of time is not his 'war monger' proposition, but rather his application of reason to rule, which again should tell you something of what we're about. Animals can fight, as can humans, but the thing that marks us out from any other living being is our ability to reason. Edited to add: In sum, and in the interests of clarity, Hobbes's political philosophy clearly left no room for democracy as he believed that when invoked with the right of appeal, we could not be trusted to be reasonable. The beauty of it is this: his own country has proven him wrong; there has been something like 400 years of stable democracy in England; our differences have been resolved at the ballot box; the state has not been overthrown; in-fighting and power struggles have been subordinated to reason.

gungadin09 -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/24/2011 3:03:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I think we, or at least me, are/is characterised by a quest for peace and harmony, and society need not taint this basic human need. I don't agree with Nietzsche's 'will to power' or any of his Christianity, democracy, utilitarian ethics = slave stuff. To me, human nature is essentially characterised by constructive co-operation: for every minute there's a war, there are a thousand minutes of peace, whether that be international relations or home life. If power and fear are the prime human instincts, then why don't we all just kill one another? i don't know. i would have said that the need for peace and the need for aggression are both human nature. pam

NorthernGent -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/24/2011 3:19:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 i don't know. i would have said that the need for peace and the need for aggression are both human nature. pam Peace is what we strive for every day; aggression is a defensive mechanism utilised when our peace is disturbed?

Kirata -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/24/2011 3:45:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Let me remind you again, because it seems to so easily slip your grasp, the OP was about human nature not social nature. If you keep that in focus perhaps you will not be so distraught by my simple and humble observation. Man is a social animal. Human infants begin their lives in a social environment, arguably even before they are born, and fail to thrive in conditions where social interaction is lacking even if they are fed. You cannot separate our "human" nature from our "social" nature. Human nature is social. K.

Real0ne -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/24/2011 3:48:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Hobbes held a certain view of human nature, one at odds with certain philosophers. Bear in mind that Hobbes lived in a time of religious and civil strife, and this circumstance influenced his opinion: he saw war all around him and concluded human beings were war mongers above all else. false premise, governments are warmongers specifically the British imperialists, they have a no resource island to maintain after all. If you accept that any viable system must fit human nature, and you accept that Hobbes's system (absolutism) failed, which it did, then by extension Hobbes's view of human nature is wide of the mark. Yes, Hobbes proposed a social contract, but unlike Locke's proposal, the contract did not include the sovereign; it was a contract undertaken by and between the people only. Hobbes's main contribution was to apply reason to rule, i.e. sovereigns do not have a divine right to rule, rather they rule in the interests of peace. He did not carry it far enough as they have no right to RULE what so ever And this brings us neatly to another proposition: 1) Hobbes was aiming for harmony, as all political philosophers do, which should tell you something about our nature. 2) Hobbes's contribution that has stood the test of time is not his 'war monger' proposition, but rather his application of reason to rule, which again should tell you something of what we're about. Animals can fight, as can humans, but the thing that marks us out from any other living being is our ability to reason. my dog can reason. not at a high level but definitely displays reason. Edited to add: In sum, and in the interests of clarity, Hobbes's political philosophy clearly left no room for democracy as he believed that when invoked with the right of appeal, we could not be trusted to be reasonable. The beauty of it is this: his own country has proven him wrong; there has been something like 400 years of stable democracy in England; our differences have been resolved at the ballot box; the state has not been overthrown; in-fighting and power struggles have been subordinated to reason. you have a parliamentary monarchy that the queen can abolish anytime she wants. if you believe I am incorrect show me the stip.

NorthernGent -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (4/24/2011 3:54:29 PM)
Except England's resources enabled her to become the world's richest nation. But, Real0ne, let's not get into this discussion as it will lead nowhere. I'm sure you will have a response; whatever it is I direct you to the industrial revolution and its causes - don't take it from me, read about it. Let's have an example of your dog's reasoning capacity.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875