Do you believe that there is such a thing as "human nature"?

[karen]

I have heard terms such as 'human nature' and the ilk my whole life. I can't help but think that its just a cop-out. You always hear the same basic thing: humans are flawed (often paired with some way to become not-flawed). Why are we flawed? Are other animals flawed? Whats flawed about us? I see things that are flawed about our general way of life, the problems are the same in every country; but is there something wrong with us as a species? Is this some kind of world-wide 10,000 year old excuse for some problem that we have long since forgotten? What do you think?

[edalz]

I don't think human nature=flawed. I do think that as a species we share many common characteristics and behaviors (a very broad, simple definition of human nature), but whether there is something wrong with us as a species really depends on your definition of wrong.

[Antares]

I have heard terms such as 'human nature' and the ilk my whole life. I can't help but think that its just a cop-out. You always hear the same basic thing: humans are flawed (often paired with some way to become not-flawed). Why are we flawed? Are other animals flawed? Whats flawed about us? I see things that are flawed about our general way of life, the problems are the same in every country; but is there something wrong with us as a species? Is this some kind of world-wide 10,000 year old excuse for some problem that we have long since forgotten? What do you think?

Some emotions are associated with human nature, from my experience.

-Being irrational
-Indulgence
-Jealousy
-Resentment

I don't know whether these are valid or not.

[rwyatt365]

Yes, I believe that there is such a thing as "human nature". I would characterize it as the system of expected responses to stimuli from the population of human beings. To put it simply; if a person is exposed to "such-and-such" then you would expect them to do "so-and-so" – that is human nature.

Now, to speak to the other question (which, to me, is not necessarily one regarding human nature); yes, humans (and every other thing) are flawed in some way. By "flawed" I mean that humans (whether individually, or as a group) exhibit tendencies that are contrary to completely rational, logical, "perfect" behavior. We all sometimes do things that are stupid, thoughtless, harmful and generally bad. Chalking it up to "human nature" doesn't make it excusable or correct – that's just a cop-out for behaving badly. As sentient beings we should recognize sub-optimal responses and adjust accordingly…but we all know that ain't gonna happen!

[PhoenixRising]

I do believe that there is such a thing as human nature in the context of having instinctual drives and tendencies, as we are still members of the animal kindom despite our trying to claim otherwise. Is it flawed? That's a good question.. I guess the way I look at it is that any instinctual type behaviour has been developed over hundreds of generations or more, so if the world or our environment changes equal to or faster than the rate we are capable of changing then there is no way that it can be completely right for the current situation (perhaps not wrong, just outdated). A perfect example of this is how an animal like a rabbit next to a road will instinctually run, often out in front of a vehicle driving down the road. this "Rabbit Nature" is instinctual and could be perceived as wrong, esp. if it results in the rabbit's demise. But if this same behavior save's it's life from a hungry fox or other predator more often than not wether it is a flawed instinct would depend on which situation has greater odds of happening. You could carry this even farther based on wether a given population lives rurally or in a suburban environment. Is it really any different for us aside from the complexity of our species and the complexity of the environments we have created for ourselves.

[OneBadMother]

I think there is such thing as human nature, and I also know that it is used as a copout. The fact that we are sentient beings means that it's relatively easy for us to alter these innate patterns within our minds. Unless you have a full-blown mental disorder that prevents you from having the normal amount of control over your brain, there's almost no excuse in just quoting "human nature". It's better to just come out and admit that you don't really want to change that quality of yourself and/or that you lack the willpower.

[xhaan]

I have heard terms such as 'human nature' and the ilk my whole life. I can't help but think that its just a cop-out. You always hear the same basic thing: humans are flawed (often paired with some way to become not-flawed). Why are we flawed? Are other animals flawed? Whats flawed about us? I see things that are flawed about our general way of life, the problems are the same in every country; but is there something wrong with us as a species? Is this some kind of world-wide 10,000 year old excuse for some problem that we have long since forgotten? What do you think?

Humans have a nature, in that, they are human.
A tree is a tree, and a rock is a rock, a human is a human.

We do have 'flaws', everything has flaws, that is the 'nature' of existing. We do things that don't make sense, we are inefficient, we get diseases, we die, we have hubris, vanity, ego... people trying to be objective towards subjective perception.. we have certain tendencies which humans generally have, because that is the result of the mechanics which make a 'human'.

flaw1 /flɔ/
–noun
1. a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault: beauty without flaw; the flaws in our plan.

per·fect /adj., n. ˈpɜrfɪkt; v. pərˈfɛkt/
–adjective
2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.

[rocksteady]

The term "Human Nature" is just used to describe a set of behaviors. These behaviors are relative and subject to change, so yes, it is a cop-out :)

and to use the term flawed, you need the context of what "perfect" is, and I don't think we have an example of that to study.

[xhaan]

The term "Human Nature" is just used to describe a set of behaviors. These behaviors are relative and subject to change, so yes, it is a cop-out :)

and to use the term flawed, you need the context of what "perfect" is, and I don't think we have an example of that to study.

Depends on which definition you use. You are correct, it is about context. Something that is ideal can be perfect, e.g. a saw for cutting wood would be the perfect tool, as opposed to say, a spoon... until something better comes along.

Also, something that can not improve anymore, is perfect, as I showed in my previous post.

[BadMojo]

I have heard terms such as 'human nature' and the ilk my whole life. I can't help but think that its just a cop-out. You always hear the same basic thing: humans are flawed (often paired with some way to become not-flawed). Why are we flawed? Are other animals flawed? Whats flawed about us? I see things that are flawed about our general way of life, the problems are the same in every country; but is there something wrong with us as a species? Is this some kind of world-wide 10,000 year old excuse for some problem that we have long since forgotten? What do you think?
Original sin, :laugh:

[thod]

Have you ever seen a horse that does not behave like a horse? How about a cat that doesnt behave like a cat?

Of course there is human nature it would be unreasonable to suppose we are so different from every other animal. The questions of what that nature may be is another question.

[rocksteady]

Something that is ideal can be perfect, e.g. a saw for cutting wood would be the perfect tool, as opposed to say, a spoon... until something better comes along.

Also, something that can not improve anymore, is perfect, as I showed in my previous post.

I wonder if it would be possible to even agree on an "ideal" human nature.

I do think human nature is still improving though. We have really gotten some manners these past 500 years.

[karen]

Thanks so much for all of your comments...
I feel I should kind of clarify my meaning...

At the base of every major religion (christianity, buddism, islam, etc.) is the concept that we are sorry creature. Sure we can think and love and build, but we are empty and without meaning. We are told about this thing called sin. We are told that unlike a horse or shark or rabbit or orangutan, there is something wrong with us something that can only be fixed by something we have to find or acheive. All around us is the message that we have to strive to change our nature, as if it wasn't good enough and never will be. People take these ideas as truths, without questions. I have just never understood where this comes from. I don't see it. Sure there are problems, but thats because everyone on earth is trying to live the same way and use the same materials and resources and of course there isn't enough of anything to provide for all of us.

Can anyone explain it?

[rwyatt365]

At the base of every major religion (christianity, buddism, islam, etc.) is the concept that we are sorry creature. Sure we can think and love and build, but we are empty and without meaning. We are told about this thing called sin. We are told that unlike a horse or shark or rabbit or orangutan, there is something wrong with us something that can only be fixed by something we have to find or acheive. All around us is the message that we have to strive to change our nature, as if it wasn't good enough and never will be. People take these ideas as truths, without questions. I have just never understood where this comes from. I don't see it. Sure there are problems, but thats because everyone on earth is trying to live the same way and use the same materials and resources and of course there isn't enough of anything to provide for all of us.
A lot of religions do suggest that the human animal is "defective" in some way; scarred by sin, corrupt in thought, impure in motive, etc... I think that this has been a major source of anxiety and depression in mankind. The pressure of having to always live up to some ideal, to achieve the unachievable perfection has distorted the perception of untold millions throughout the ages. It's like a race where the finish line can never be crossed but where you are judged every step of the way. This view, to me, constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment".

The sooner that people recognize and accept their humanity, the sooner that human-kind can start making some real progress. We are what we are, with limitations and quirks and inconsistencies. But none of the (necessarily) makes any of us "flawed", it makes us unique. Now some might consider this "word-play", trading negative for not-so negative words. But if you think of yourself as "flawed", or "sinful" then the tendency will be to take on a negative mind-set.

Where does this come from? I could start the whole "conspiracy theory" treadmill going with this question. "It's the church". "It's the power-elite". "It's a secret society of Capuchin monks". I think it's just a trait of humans to want to attach labels to everything to short-hand our thought processes. So, making this action "good" and that action "bad" helps us to neatly pigeon-hole things. By extending that labeling to the entire group of "bad" things and calling them all "sin" makes it easy to talk about them as a whole.

[blueback]

I think it's evolution. If you look at the structure of the brain it is obvious that the brain expanded outwards from the spinal cord. The areas responsible for lower functions are closer to the spine and the areas responsible for higher functions are further away. That implies that higher functions were added incrementally, sort of stacked on top of lower functions which remained unchanged.

The lower functions have more control over the body then the higher functions. Breathing and blood flow are good examples compared to sight and mathematical ability. A good portion of the brain is essentially unchanged from 100,000 years ago, while a small portion is comparatively brand new.

The new areas, like concious thought and imagination, are very capable but they have much less influence on the body then the old areas. When people talk about the unconcious mind they are refering to the middle areas of the brain that preceded the relatively new concious areas.

All that structure means that the part of the brain that "I" exists in has to bargain with the rest of the brain for control of the body. In a sense, "I" am a passenger in my own body. "I" have control over some of it, when I care to direct my attention there, but I will never have control over most of the systems in my own body.

When you look at it that way, is it any wonder that we are all confused? We are taught that our brains are simple things, powerful, but simple. We are encouraged to disregard the fact that we evolved one piece at a time, we weren't created by a designer. Each system in our body interacts with every other system, we are a system of systems, which means when you study one system at a time you will never understand how the systems interact together.

[rocksteady]

I think it's evolution. If you look at the structure of the brain it is obvious that the brain expanded outwards from the spinal cord. The areas responsible for lower functions are closer to the spine and the areas responsible for higher functions are further away. That implies that higher functions were added incrementally, sort of stacked on top of lower functions which remained unchanged.

The lower functions have more control over the body then the higher functions. Breathing and blood flow are good examples compared to sight and mathematical ability. A good portion of the brain is essentially unchanged from 100,000 years ago, while a small portion is comparatively brand new.

The new areas, like concious thought and imagination, are very capable but they have much less influence on the body then the old areas. When people talk about the unconcious mind they are refering to the middle areas of the brain that preceded the relatively new concious areas.

All that structure means that the part of the brain that "I" exists in has to bargain with the rest of the brain for control of the body. In a sense, "I" am a passenger in my own body. "I" have control over some of it, when I care to direct my attention there, but I will never have control over most of the systems in my own body.

When you look at it that way, is it any wonder that we are all confused? We are taught that our brains are simple things, powerful, but simple. We are encouraged to disregard the fact that we evolved one piece at a time, we weren't created by a designer. Each system in our body interacts with every other system, we are a system of systems, which means when you study one system at a time you will never understand how the systems interact together.

great post! While reading it I couldn't help but think that "free will" is just an illusion, and our bodies actually control our minds, it's all an illusion!

[xhaan]

great post! While reading it I couldn't help but think that "free will" is just an illusion, and our bodies actually control our minds, it's all an illusion!

Not quite. I consider it symbiotic. We have quite a bit of shared control. (you could stick your hand in a fire and let it be burned, if you REALLY wanted to).

That was a very, VERY good post though (bluejack's), one of the best I have read on here.

Edit:
For a REALLY interesting view on how the mind and body works, look at different cases of conjoined twins.

[ssfanatic]

I have heard terms such as 'human nature' and the ilk my whole life. I can't help but think that its just a cop-out. You always hear the same basic thing: humans are flawed (often paired with some way to become not-flawed). Why are we flawed? Are other animals flawed? Whats flawed about us? I see things that are flawed about our general way of life, the problems are the same in every country; but is there something wrong with us as a species? Is this some kind of world-wide 10,000 year old excuse for some problem that we have long since forgotten? What do you think?
I think human nature is just human instinct. Just like animals have instinct so do we. No human who does not have a mental disability will confidently say that murder is good. Im not talking about kill of be killed, just cold blooded murder.

[xhaan]

I think human nature is just human instinct. Just like animals have instinct so do we. No human who does not have a mental disability will confidently say that murder is good. Im not talking about kill of be killed, just cold blooded murder.

I wouldn't say 'no', because not all humans have been tested for this tendency. But by default logic, I think it could be said of humans in general, yes.

[ssfanatic]

I wouldn't say 'no', because not all humans have been tested for this tendency. But by default logic, I think it could be said of humans in general, yes.
I figured that someone would give me an example of a culture some where in a remote corner of the world that has not been influenced by civilized life, saying that they think butchering people is ok.
Now, the only thing that came to mind instantly without excessive thought was the Aztecs sacrificing the Mayans to their god, but i still think that would not be considered murder.

[xhaan]

I figured that someone would give me an example of a culture some where in a remote corner of the world that has not been influenced by civilized life, saying that they think butchering people is ok.
Now, the only thing that came to mind instantly without excessive thought was the Aztecs sacrificing the Mayans to their god, but i still think that would not be considered murder.

Well, there's some discussion in another thread going on, about how if one decides that morals are irrelevant, and that you can theoretically gain by any amount, however small, and if there is no downside (no getting caught, no consequences), one could murder.

[ssfanatic]

Well, there's some discussion in another thread going on, about how if one decides that morals are irrelevant, and that you can theoretically gain by any amount, however small, and if there is no downside (no getting caught, no consequences), one could murder.
Ive had enough debate already in the religion threads for a month, sorry but ill skip. I need some time alone to recharge :)

[Metanoia]

Isn't it that human nature is the set of logical characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that all normal human beings have in common.


Although human beings are rational, they could not create a possible theory of themselves because of their complexity and freedom. The need to explain the being of man is accompanied by man's experience.

The complexity of humans are hard to encompass and their ideas and actions are inherently unpredictable because of the freewill of each individual so no theory of human nature will ever be adequate to the nature of human beings.

Francisco Miró Quesada Cantuarias, contemporary Peruvian philosopher who disputes the summary of human nature on the basis that any collective assumption of human nature would be unfulfilling and leave the public with a negative result. He suffests that theories about human nature have been all too often used to support absolute ideologies that leave no room for real human beings. What we need is not a "theory of man" but a decision to struggle against exploitation and suffering and for the betterment of humankind.

[Antares]

To me, human nature is basically animalistic instinct bestowed upon us by evolution. Nothing inherently flawed with it. Its not very fair to called us "flawed" when nothing is actually perfect.

[Homini Lupus]

Human nature seems flawed since we compare it to our ideals. Also, the concept of human nature has been generally used to explain social contracts and the need to create moral systems wich means that the concept of human nature has been often based on a negative conception in order to legitimate a system wich forces humans to be more than they are. Still, I think those theories aren't totally wrong, even if based on a subjective theory.

[Beery Swine]

Well, yeah, we're just another species of ape.

[Antares]

Human nature seems flawed since we compare it to our ideals. Also, the concept of human nature has been generally used to explain social contracts and the need to create moral systems wich means that the concept of human nature has been often based on a negative conception in order to legitimate a system wich forces humans to be more than they are. Still, I think those theories aren't totally wrong, even if based on a subjective theory.

Very true. We have high hopes but we achieve a little. Would that be human nature too? Being too idealistic? Our ideals are so unachievable (say Communism) that I don't see why we have to always supress our nature. Especially us INTJs, I suppose. Our ideals are somewhere in the stars. No one will ever get there.

[Homini Lupus]

Maybe it's a blessing not to be able to reach our ideals. We would have no more drive for self improvement if we did.

[Sara27]

Human nature is just human behavior. It's just a matter of placing our own value system on the actions of others.

[NephilimAzrael]

Much like animal nature only susceptible to calamity, discontentment and chaos due to consciousness.

[Nightelf]

I think human nature consits of instincts, inherited from former development stages of humans as a species. But for emotional and mental respones I would not claim the same. The thing I patricularly despise (because in my opinion it is false) is when certain thoughts or emotions are labeld as contradictory to human nature.
On the basis of this I can't accept humanity is flawed, though humans may do not comply with certain ideals.

[Nexus]

Human nature is defined by our genetic makeup and how we have evolved. Many of the thing we consider to be human nature, however, can be seen in other species of animals. So in a sense, a lot of it can be considered more animal behavior than exclusively human. Human nature is generally used as an easy term to sum up the tendencies that we as human being have. We are aggressive animals, and this is due to how our brain is made up. We are emotional animals, but we (arguably) have more intelligence than any animal on the planet.

[zibber]

Perhaps it is human nature to resent our animal nature?

[lookit]

there is no human nature.

[Antares]

Perhaps it is human nature to resent our animal nature?

Well, I don't know if you feel the same, but I don't resent my "animal nature". I've made my peace with it and acknowledged that it exists; I just try to control it.