Human Nature

[Unome]

Before discussing any deep topic, it is best to define the basic terminology. What is humanity? What is nature?

Humanity is a generalization at least and a universality at most. The term 'Human' has a function. In science, humanity is a biological categorization of specie. Specie is type. But in everyday, common parlance, people use 'human' as a sociological tool. Most people mean "he or she is one of us". So "to be human" is the same as "one of us". It is a way for people to relate to each other on the largest scale. It is a way to "overlook race/ethnicity" and see people as similar or the same. There are "7 billion humans" on earth, and by "human", people imply the scientific terminology. People think of humanity as "fact". But is it a fact? Is humanity a "social construct"? Is it both?

Nature is genes, earth, gravity, and other intrinsic forces that humanity experiences being born within this specific (earthly) environment. Nature is a more complex term; because nature includes all animals and organisms outside humanity. So humans know "humanity" more than nature. Nature has many different definitions that severely change from one society/culture to the next. So while people have general ideas of humanity; this is not the case for nature. People are ignorant of nature, and what nature means. But the most common conceptions of nature I've known, coincide with "Law and Order". People (in the US and Western Culture) generally presume "Natural Law". There are forces which determine gravity as well as biology. Nature is instinct. And to understand these (deterministic) forces, is also to understand nature.

So "human nature" specifically refers to the biological, genetic, and instinctive forces within the human specie. If there are natural laws then these laws would apply to humanity.



Nature does not change; nature is resistant to change.

Because of this premise, people can make sense of and understand human nature. Human nature is the commonality and connection between all people, society, culture, ethnicity, and race. It is a very deep, intellectual, and philosophical concept. Most people claim to know more about human nature than they actually do. And people falsely presume it's easy and simple to talk about human nature. Because people feel they represent human nature, but do they? Do you represent human nature? Are you, and how are you, human? What does human mean on a particular, individual level? Does one person represent humanity more-or-less than another? Are some persons/groups "better or worse" humans? And where historically does this idea of humanity arise? If everybody is "human" today then was everybody "human" 1000 or 2000 years ago? Was everybody "human" 10000 years ago?

I personally make sense of 'humanity' as a cultural term. Humanity represents a specific (Western) culture. It is a universal idea, to group people together who may not belong together. Humanists are people who tend to have liberal, ideological views of the world. They believe the world should be a certain way, when it's not. Humanists want to connect all humans together into one mass, one group. Thus humanists tend to be "anti-racist" and against cultures which separate based on ethnicity. Because it is difficult to call everybody "human" while one race has severe differences to the next. Humanism is an ideology that rejects human difference and accepts human sameness. Humanity is an idea with weight, force, and momentum. Because it forces 7 billion earthly people to "be one group".

But what if people don't want to be part of "your group"? What if people are not part of your group? And what if people don't want to associate with each-other?



Human Nature is a powerful force. Because 'Nature' represents genetics, biology, and instinct. You may not want to take part or associate with humanity; but you have a body similar to 7 billion other humans regardless. You are not born with 6 limbs or 3 arms. you are not born with 5 heads or 17 eyeballs. As a human, part of the category, you are born with 4 limbs (2 legs and 2 arms), 1 torso, 1 body, 1 head, etc. This is the scientific classification (context) of humanity. Furthermore, humans have specific genes which differ from other animals. Therefore humans have unique instincts which, hypothetically, distinguish the human specie apart from other species. There theoretically must be some type of "human behavior" that separates humanity from other animals. It is not just bodily difference, but some other types of difference as well. What about intelligence?

The context of human nature is universality. No matter how individual, distinct, disconnected, or separated a single human maybe, a particular individual can become grouped in with 7 billion others. This is first accomplished through the bodily form (shape) of humans. People recognize the human form. And genes perpetuate the human body. Humanists claim that differences between human groups are "Superficial". So some humans are male/female, younger/older, taller/shorter, prettier/uglier, heavier/skinnier, darker/lighter etc. compared to others. Then there are cultural differences: languages, customs, histories, habits, dress style, etc. Despite all these differences, humanists reassert the universal "nature" of humanity. And nature refers to the binding, resistant force. You cannot be "other than human", even if you want to be. You're stuck, as human. You were born human; you will die human. There's no escaping it. And this is known in philosophy as 'Determinism'. You have a fate and destiny, indicated by your nature.

Nature is predictable, to a degree. We know that gravity is constant; it doesn't randomly start and stop. We know that like begets like, zebras do not give birth to humans, and humans do not give birth to fish.

And so human nature is predictable as well, to a degree. How is one person truly, really different than the next?



Human nature ignores difference and focuses on human sameness. This gives opportunity to critique and criticize humanity. Is there any point where a difference becomes so severe between one human to the next, that "humanity" is broken? Isn't humanity like a prison? You are born into it and can never leave. You have no choice but to be human. That is your nature (destiny/fate). People are convinced that they cannot defy nature. How can you, when 7 billion other humans will prevent you from doing so? Well people will prevent you from leaving "humanity" only if you want to go higher, or become better than them. People usually condone and accept a person being "sub-human" and less-than-human.

So you're "allowed" to give up, be less than others, but you're not allowed to be more than, higher, greater. And this is human nature.

[Neanderthal]

First of all, we are all subjects, not objects; you cannot categorize a subject (individual), because doing so would imply imposing whatever perception you gather from observing another individual; said perception can be close to the multi-dimensional reality of another subject or could be a construction of your own perception; your socio-historical baggage, perspective of your primordial sensual organs and your in-ability to translate external estimuly, rationalize it, and make a fair judgment on it.

Second; no such thing as only one human nature; humans are per definition ambivalent and contradictory. Whatever character flaws a subject from X race can have and another subject from Y race doesn't, get's in balance with Y's very own flaws of which X is absent.

And no; the West doesn't represent the whole humanity; it might seem so because is the dominant culture; but hegemony doesn't equal progeny, nor necessary superiority of any kind; rather functionality and imposition.

[Unome]

Natural Law is objective. So by definition for human nature to exist, there must be an objective element/core to humanity. For example it is a common complaint among feminists that "men objectify women". And people complain about being treated as-if objects (slavery).

Also any definition of "human nature" contrary to one generalization, necessarily splits humanity into different groups. Fundamentalist humanists will deny such splits, claiming that differences in human groups are always "social constructs".

For example, many people deny "race" exists. If race splits humanity then 'humanity' as a concept/idea must still retain some common component. And that is the complicated aspect of human nature, to explain the vast similarity or sameness that binds all humanity into "one specie" (as-if the premise were true).

[Neanderthal]

Objectivity does exist; but in the moment an universal objective truth is perceived by a subject (human being), it becomes a subjective interpretation. Is there any human being alive that can take the responsibility of being an objective observer and interpreter? No; for him to be objective would mean to cease being a subject (a human being.)

[de Burgh II]

Human nature in its own sense is a subjective phenomena; whereas universe and nature is inherently objective in its own right. Its just as humans we get discouraged sometimes when "reality", "nature" or whatever you want to call it that manifests around us doesn't add up to whatwe want rather than how it is externally. The reality is that nothing is necessarily "bad" or "good"; all our biological dispositions (personality-wise) that hits our "weak" spot as well as the environmental factors that act on us push us to the point that provokes are more subjective view to come out that skews our perception of reality. You see the manifestation of one's self is constructed very intricately that makes us create different selves to consciously dictate our behaviors depending on "standard" that our social interactions force us to put on. E.g. "Ideal self", "True Self", etc.

The reason why people deem race a "social construct" is because people simply buy into whatever is deemed "right" by societal norms that becomes the "standard" among the masses. That is why people act this way; people's source of confidence is dependent on how people view them (externally) so the motivation manifest more strongly within a "mob mentality" which shuns internal confidence (that motivates us internally) that we genuinely conceive amongst our selves.

How might extrinsic motivation relate to academic achievement?
On the one hand, it may be that children who are particularly
focused on the extrinsic consequences of their behaviors do
particularly well on objective indicators of performance. Indeed,
recent research conducted with college-student populations has
revealed that performance goals—which arguably have a strong
extrinsic component— can predict positive achievement outcomes
(Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Harackiewicz,
Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002).On the other
hand, such a performance orientation may be less adaptive for
elementary and middle school populations (Midgley, Kaplan, &
Middleton, 2001), as shown in research linking performance goals
with decreased cognitive engagement (Meece, Blumenfeld, &
Hoyle, 1988), a focus on ability rather than effort (Ames & Archer,
1988), self-handicapping (Midgley & Urdan, 2001), and avoidance
of challenge (Dweck, 1999). A third aim of the present research,
therefore, was to examine the relationship between indicators of
both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and student achievement.

http://www.columbia.edu/~ss957/artic...us_Iyengar.pdf

[Linebacker]

Human nature is a big book to read.

They teach us psychology and behaviorism here but its not on an advanced level.

[altin]

...

Nature does not change; nature is resistant to change.

Because of this premise, people can make sense of and understand human nature. ...

Nature DOES change. Humans, for example, and humanity, the laws underneath it and its effect on the rest of Nature didn't exist at some point in time.

[Unome]

Objectivity does exist; but in the moment an universal objective truth is perceived by a subject (human being), it becomes a subjective interpretation. Is there any human being alive that can take the responsibility of being an objective observer and interpreter? No; for him to be objective would mean to cease being a subject (a human being.)

There are degrees of objectivity-subjectivity, like 10-90, 50-50, 80-20, etc.

Maybe it is impossible for a person to be 100% objective, or 100% subjective. Instead people balance the two values at different degrees (44%-56%).




**********************

Nature DOES change. Humans, for example, and humanity, the laws underneath it and its effect on the rest of Nature didn't exist at some point in time.

Nature is constant, resists change, and represents objectivity and permanence. For example, when a violent man with bad temper gets angry, yells, and hurts others, then people excuse him by thinking "It's in his nature to be violent and angry." So this expression indicates that nature does not change. And expressions of "nature" are also genetic, immovable, innate, inherited, Reflexive.

For example, humans have automatic reflexes, simply by being born, like recoiling from a hot fire that burns the skin. The action requires no thought nor education. It represents deeply embedded genetic behavioral coding.

You can "teach" a shaolin monk to burn his skin and arms. But he must resist his inner nature, his reflexes, to achieve the feat. Humanity, humanism, is very much a denial of nature. Humans attempt to escape or conquer nature by defiance. However, it seems futile. Because no matter what humans attempt, no matter how miraculous a feat, nature remains unchanged.

[altin]

Nature is constant, resists change, and represents objectivity and permanence. For example, when a violent man with bad temper gets angry, yells, and hurts others, then people excuse him by thinking "It's in his nature to be violent and angry." So this expression indicates that nature does not change. And expressions of "nature" are also genetic, immovable, innate, inherited, Reflexive.

For example, humans have automatic reflexes, simply by being born, like recoiling from a hot fire that burns the skin. The action requires no thought nor education. It represents deeply embedded genetic behavioral coding.

You can "teach" a shaolin monk to burn his skin and arms. But he must resist his inner nature, his reflexes, to achieve the feat. Humanity, humanism, is very much a denial of nature. Humans attempt to escape or conquer nature by defiance. However, it seems futile. Because no matter what humans attempt, no matter how miraculous a feat, nature remains unchanged.

How exactly Nature doesn't change? Humans didn't exist at some point in time and every thing you wrote about humans above didn't exist either. Now the do, so something has changed. No?

[Unome]

How exactly Nature doesn't change? Humans didn't exist at some point in time and every thing you wrote about humans above didn't exist either. Now the do, so something has changed. No?

Example: Pain

Pain is an automated reflex. You don't need to think about it. You don't need "Education" to pull your hand away from hot fire. This represents genetic, preprogammed, instinct. Instinct is nature. Almost all animals, if not all, operate and behave based on instincts. Therein what people refer to as "Nature" or "Natural" are the permanent inheritance of these basic instincts. They don't change. They never change. There is never a generation of humans born who put their hands in fire and keep it there. There is never a generation of human, or any animal, that truly defies nature and instinct.

Nature refers to the 'unchanging', permanent aspects of biology and life.

Nature always stays the same, cannot change.


In 3000 years, humans may change in small ways, but human "nature" stays the same. Nature is predictable. Nature is predicated on "Natural Laws".

Philosophy and Science are both predicated on discovering these Natural Laws.

Natural Law is the law of all life.