The Nature of Man [Archive]

The_Mark

08-30-2005, 12:39

What is the nature of man? Is the basic nature of man good or evil, or something else? What is the view of the Backroom's great minds on this matter?

I haven't seen a thread on good old philosophy around here for a while during my Backroom-lurking (except for the Flying Spaghetti Monster Club), and having a debate over the matter in debating class (having picked the easy subject with my friend :grin:), so I thought to get a thread of it in here.

bmolsson

08-30-2005, 13:15

Nature of man is curious, struggling and with a strong will to do something better......

A.Saturnus

08-30-2005, 15:32

Taken strictly, the nature of man is no subject for philosophy but psychology.

The_Mark

08-30-2005, 16:12

Yes, it is a psychological question, but it's also a quite strong philosophical subject. For example, one of the basic principles of existentialism is that the essence of humanity is what a person decides to make out of it for him/herself, the person is free (and forced) to select his/her nature. Sciences tend to overlap, particularly when a subject (and sciences) can be defined in many ways.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-30-2005, 16:44

Old Willy had it down pretty good.

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.

Aenlic

08-30-2005, 17:16

Warning. Thread hijacking in progress. Warning.

Willy didn't write it. Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote it. ~D

http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/

Besides, I prefer the soliloquy of Jacques from As You Like It

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the canon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

~:cool:

Pindar

08-30-2005, 18:15

Following after Bard quotes;

And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of.

So regardless your natural state:

Assume a virtue, if you have it not.

Hurin_Rules

08-30-2005, 18:34

Man? Bad. But woman, now that's just all good. ~;)

Silver Rusher

08-30-2005, 19:24

The nature of man? Recite the 7 deadly sins and add "curious" to the end and you have pretty well got it.

yesdachi

08-30-2005, 20:32

Man? Bad. But woman, now that's just all good. ~;)
That’s not too far off from what I was thinking!

Nearly everything we do is focused on gaining favor from those we desire. Our curiosity, love of conflict, desire to accumulate things, etc. are all to attract attention from a possible mate. Perhaps the animal instinct to procreate drives us or maybe the nature of man is love? :love:

Now, back to the love of conflict! :rifle: :smash: :knight: :duel: :charge:

Gawain of Orkeny

08-30-2005, 21:51

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Man? Bad. But woman, now that's just all good.

You have got to be kidding. Ever since Eve women have been nothing but trouble. ~D How many fights have been started between men over women? Men who would otherwise be great freinds.

Besides isnt this a woman

http://www.docteurconseil.com/actualite/images/obese.jpg

Kagemusha

08-30-2005, 22:01

You have got to be kidding. Ever since Eve women have been nothing but trouble. ~D How many fights have been started between men over women? Men who would otherwise be great freinds.

Besides isnt this a woman

http://www.docteurconseil.com/actualite/images/obese.jpg

Gawain i believe that is a blue whale in bikini.Do you have any proof that she is really a woman? :grin:

Ser Clegane

08-30-2005, 22:02

We should amend
the forum rules to´
allow for a 2-point
warning for such
pictures
:thinking2:

:fainting:

yesdachi

08-30-2005, 22:05

GAH! I'm Blind! I'm BLIND!!!

PanzerJaeger

08-30-2005, 23:06

The nature of man is greed, which isnt as bad as some people make it out to be.

Devastatin Dave

08-30-2005, 23:13

The nature of man is sin, but through Christ Jesus, you can be saved...

Reverend Joe

08-31-2005, 00:24

The nature of man is sin, but through Christ Jesus, you can be saved...

Is that a joke? Are you suggesting that mankind can be saved by the very thing that is tearing us apart? By the very force that has enslaved and killed more people than communism, facism, and naziism combined?

Anyway, I would love to post here, but I am not in a philosophical mood (too tired), and I'll just end up getting into a brainless argument with someone (probably Devastain Dave here). I will return when I have eaten and rested.

Devastatin Dave

08-31-2005, 00:35

Devastatin Dave

08-31-2005, 00:42

Is that a joke? Are you suggesting that mankind can be saved by the very thing that is tearing us apart? By the very force that has enslaved and killed more people than communism, facism, and naziism combined?

Anyway, I would love to post here, but I am not in a philosophical mood (too tired), and I'll just end up getting into a brainless argument with someone (probably Devastain Dave here). I will return when I have eaten and rested.

I guess since I'm allowed to have a "brainless arguement" you can have you rignorant, intolerant, bigotted rant. The fact is communism and socialistic ideaologies have casued more death than any religious belief, both communism and socialism allieing closer to athiestic beliefs. God also rested, so enjoy yours. Jesus still loves you. ~D

PanzerJaeger

08-31-2005, 00:43

By the very force that has enslaved and killed more people than communism, facism, and naziism combined?

Did you just pull that one of the bottom of your shoe or do you really believe that tripe?

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 00:48

Actually God has 'killed' the most... he made them all their bodies mortal to start with...

Strike For The South

08-31-2005, 00:51

Actually God has 'killed' the most... he made them all their bodies mortal to start with...

God gives us free will and sadly many men are lead into temptation

Soulforged

08-31-2005, 00:55

Maybe we should ask that question that had been asked by the script writer of Planescape: Torment.

"What can change the nature of a man?"

If anybody can answer that, then he'll be close to the response.

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 00:57

Who can change the nature of man?

Themselves. Change starts with an idea. ~D that gets acted upon.

FAB = Focus Achieve Become.

Soulforged

08-31-2005, 00:57

I guess since I'm allowed to have a "brainless arguement" you can have you rignorant, intolerant, bigotted rant. The fact is communism and socialistic ideaologies have casued more death than any religious belief, both communism and socialism allieing closer to athiestic beliefs. God also rested, so enjoy yours. Jesus still loves you. ~D

Do you know that Jesus had socialists tendences? Anyway, this question has nothing to do with this thread, and the question is stupid. Ideas don't shape the world, action does and man.

Soulforged

08-31-2005, 01:02

Who can change the nature of man?

Themselves. Change starts with an idea. ~D that gets acted upon.

FAB = Focus Achieve Become.

~D ~D Not actions. To me is any action that goes against it mortality and inherent passion for individualness. So i guess if that is what i think then i had been always agains the nature of man. Really to me the man is just his genes and his biography, i'm for the historic theory, but the genes could be manipulated, so to me the man is neither inherentely mortal or good or bad.

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 01:03

Ideas don't shape the world, action does and man.

I agree it is the actions that shape the world.

I see ideas as the map and compass for these actions. Those who can think ahead can use their energy more effectively.

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 01:07

~D ~D Not actions. To me is any action that goes against it mortality and inherent passion for individualness. So i guess if that is what i think then i had been always agains the nature of man. Really to me the man is just his genes and his biography, i'm for the historic theory, but the genes could be manipulated, so to me the man is neither inherentely mortal or good or bad.

We are mortal not because it is impossible to be immortal. It just isn't an efficient use of energy making ourselves immortal from ageing if on the savannah we get eaten on average by age 30.

The energy that would be diverted for prehistoric animals to become immortal would be better used in just surviving the environment. If an animal was immune to predators then I guess they can evole an immortal variant... however immortality (immunity to aging) will then mean that the animal has to compete against its own offspring that are immortal. In the end the mortal variants may prove more powerful and kill off the ones with eternal youth.

Genes are only half the story, environment and learning gives a better picture on the nature of man.

Soulforged

08-31-2005, 01:27

Genes are only half the story, environment and learning gives a better picture on the nature of man.

I agree, but i also said hitory didn't I. And I personally will like pretty much being immortal (yes i meant being immune to aging, but also to deceases and poison), don't know about you? Does this say something about our nature, of course, the old premise, we're curious, i'm not an exception.

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 01:41

As far as our genes are concerned they want more in the environment... so more copies is their aim.

Living longer increases the number of copies, as does having longer lifespan.

Reverend Joe

08-31-2005, 01:51

Everyone, sorry for begetting the rhetorical rant. It's silly and embarrassing for either side of the religious issue to be pulled down to that level.

Anyway, I have rested, so here's my take on the nature of man:

Mankind is designed around a cycle. (Before I begin, I did not get this from the Matrix series- it will just sound kind of like I did, but I didn't. Also, references to the Es and Ich come from my Freudian schooling, which focused a lot on the original text, not the english translation. Just to head off confusion, Es=Id, Ich=Ego, Uberich=Superego.) The cycle itself begins with tho aspects of the Es: Eros (life) and Thanatos (death). These two parts of the Es are forever out of balance. Asking where it begins, however, is as impossible to answer as asking whether the chicken or the egg came first (it was neither, by the way; it was a single-celled organism~D - but back to the subject at hand) but this is a moot point, since the cycle is already in motion, and thus it almost certainly cannot be stopped.

The extreme end of the cycle is an overbalance of either Eros or Thanatos. Let us begin, for argument's sake with the Eros end. Mankind is happily propagating itself, civilization is growing, and humanity is expanding. During such a period of expansion, the Es becomes aware of the overbalance of Eros, and thus tries to compensate by kicking Thanatos into overdrive. However, in most humans the direct urge to start dismantling civilization and killing random people is well-suppressed by the Ich, so this urge is translated in various forms, urges which almost always have to do with fanaticism, hatred, or nationalism and the like. The Uberich finds these urges to be satisfactory, and so does not block them. The extremist urges are most violently manifested in those who hold power, whose Thanatonic urge pushes them to destroy the rivals of their own position of power. This results not only in a crime wave, but in ana ge of extremism, wars and violence, which rock civilization to its core. It takes a long time to recover from these periods, but at the end of the violent swings of the pendulum, the Es once again overcompensates for the imbalance by throwing Eros into overdrive and suppressing Thanatos to whatever extent possible. This results in the immediate postwar benevolence so commonly felt by a people who have been through a terrible conflict, as well as an explosion in the number of births following the war- the baby booms.

And thus, by continually swinging from one side to the other, we go through cycles of war, recovery, prosperity, and war again. One may ask, is it possible to stop these urges, to find a sense of equilibrium? It may be, but then again, it is this cycle that keeps humanity going. If it were to suddenly stop, we would all be at peace, there would be no more war or conflict, and within 80 years we would all die of old age because noone would care to propagate the human race anymore. So, as bad as the cycle may be, the best thing to do is ride it out, make the best of it, and as Eric Idle said, "Always look on the bright side of life".

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 01:58

By the way, Devastatin Dave- I'm pretty sure Jesus doesn't love me. After all, I'm half Jewish, so doesn't that mean I half-killed your lord? ~;)

Incorrect. Christians see themselves as the branches and the Jews as the roots of the same tree. Jesus was a Jew after all.

Devastatin Dave

08-31-2005, 01:59

By the way, Devastatin Dave- I'm pretty sure Jesus doesn't love me. After all, I'm half Jewish, so doesn't that mean I half-killed your lord? ~;)

Nope, you and Jesus could hang and smoke a fat one cuz he's was Jewish and liked to party. ~D

Reverend Joe

08-31-2005, 02:06

Man... I write that whole long philosophical treatise (it's not that long compared to real treatises, but I think it's pretty good for off the top of my head) and all you care about is the bad joke I threw in at the end. I'm gonna go edit out the joke.

Devastatin Dave

08-31-2005, 02:07

ICantSpellDawg

08-31-2005, 02:11

I believe that the nature of man is to make the world look as much like him as possible in order to protect himself. This is achieved through war, procreation, and technological advancement. By these things, man can effectivly bend his surroundings to better support him and his progeny (his extension). I believe a fear and hatred of what is different and unknown is natural as well as the consequences of those feelings.

While I believe that this is man's nature, I beleive another part of the nature is the desire to temper the same afforementioned impulses for some unknown reason. I really have no ideas why this is.

One can only truly begin to understand the nature of man if one looks inward. If you get impulses to do certain things, don't discount them just because they don't fit into your ideals regarding percieved human nature.

historical human action is a good compass as well

also - human nature says nothing about human destination or meaning of life.

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 02:24

It may be, but then again, it is this cycle that keeps humanity going. If it were to suddenly stop, we would all be at peace, there would be no more war or conflict, and within 80 years we would all die of old age because noone would care to propagate the human race anymore. So, as bad as the cycle may be, the best thing to do is ride it out, make the best of it, and as Eric Idle said, "Always look on the bright side of life".

Rubbish. I do not believe for an instant that we only procreate in response to wars and conflict.

How did life first procreate if there was no life to have wars and conflict?

If a niche opens then life will spread into it. After a conflict there are a lot of niches to fill.

Reverend Joe

08-31-2005, 02:38

Rubbish. I do not believe for an instant that we only procreate in response to wars and conflict.

How did life first procreate if there was no life to have wars and conflict?

If a niche opens then life will spread into it. After a conflict there are a lot of niches to fill.

Aha- a proper challenge!

When I referred to the cycle being needed to continue human existence, I meant it as specifically pertaining to a human construct. It developed from the response to being hunted by predators; after a species' numbers were reduced by predation, their natural instinct was to reproduce and replenish the ranks. They had a natural Thanatos; they did not need to create one of their own.

When humanity rose above the predators, it lacked a natural destructive force; so, to keep Eros from spinning wildly out of control, the Es created its own limiting and destructive factor, Thanatos. Thus the human race could continue on its natural evolutionary path without needing external predators to control its numbers.

Predators, by the way, have a very different setup: their Eros and Thanatos are both rather dormant, because their pool of natural resources is much more limited. When their Eros does get too active, their natural resources become exhausted, and the dormant Thanatos only activates once the resource pool is critically low. The result is fighting amongst the predators, and a subsequent reduction of numbers back to appropriate norms.

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 03:00

Put in the context of resource depletion which is more general then war that cycle is more apt. Also all species compete for resources not just predators, and the compete more fiercly when they perceive a shortage of resources or they are close to getting what they want.

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of humans who are quite happy to procreate without a death threat.

Reverend Joe

08-31-2005, 03:21

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of humans who are quite happy to procreate without a death threat.

That seems to be a different issue entirely, having to do more with the Lustprinzip. Then again, not every theory is without its flaws.

Also, I feel it necessary to complement the poster of this thread. It is the most interesting one I have seen in the backroom in a while.

Aenlic

08-31-2005, 03:44

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of humans who are quite happy to procreate without a death threat.

It would take the threat of imminent and violent death to get me to procreate with my ex-wife. Not even last two people alive on the planet and the future of the human race at stake would do it for me. I'd be screaming for the insects to get their chance at the top of the food chain.

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 03:49

A lot ain't 100% now is it?

Byzantine Prince

08-31-2005, 03:58

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 04:00

There is no nature in man. We have gone passed nature. The only thing that remains is etenity of entity, or non-entity. That is the true self of man, or overman.

And yes I guess you could assume, if you really had to, that egoism is the center of man. And no Jesus will not save me. I don't need to be saved, I'm me. I don't need to be anyone else.

Try not eating for a week and see if you can bypass nature?

Oh and no more looking at the Babe thread...

Soulforged

08-31-2005, 05:34

There is no nature in man. We have gone passed nature. The only thing that remains is etenity of entity, or non-entity. That is the true self of man, or overman.

And yes I guess you could assume, if you really had to, that egoism is the center of man. And no Jesus will not save me. I don't need to be saved, I'm me. I don't need to be anyone else.

Is not that nature we're talking about. This's phylosophy not positive science. We're talking about the nature that Aristoteles spoke sometime ago when he said the man zoon politikon (the man is sociable).

Aenlic

08-31-2005, 06:09

A lot ain't 100% now is it?

Nope! Just making sure I wasn't being entered on some list which might come back to haunt me. ~D

Papewaio

08-31-2005, 06:19

You weren't before you listed your weakness...

:devil: :wink2:

Aenlic

08-31-2005, 06:24

Heh. Yes, but I learn from my lessons! Redheads bad. Burn fingers. They should come with warning labels.

bmolsson

08-31-2005, 07:57

God gives us free will and sadly many men are lead into temptation

Well, he did create temptation as well, so I can't see he can blame us...... ~;)

Soulforged

08-31-2005, 08:21

Well, he did create temptation as well, so I can't see he can blame us...... ~;)

Well actually the temptation wasn't created by him. The dogma sais that all "evil" is the ausence of God, wich means the devil.