Does Human Nature Change?

A search for Abraham Lincoln's 1860 Cooper Union address turned up this question, which a philosophy professor once asked his class.

How would you have answered it?

Views: 280

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by TJ on April 21, 2017 at 12:41pm

Without a context, knowing what is meant here by "human nature" is not as useful.

If human nature is, essentially, how humans act, then, if it changes, its changing to reflect how humans act.

:D

Humans act differently in different scenarios though, with a huge cultural influence being involved.

Permalink Reply by Davis Goodman on April 21, 2017 at 2:54pm
One decade of terrible luck and disaster and the great-incredible- humanist experiment is gone. So no. Unfortunately.
Permalink Reply by Jake LaFort on April 22, 2017 at 1:27pm

Tabula rasa imprinted by the monkey god...

But over the eons one may assume changes have occurred. 

Permalink Reply by Gregg RThomas on April 22, 2017 at 9:45pm

"How would you have answered it?"

I would have lied.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on April 23, 2017 at 12:42am

What is the question? 

is it...

Can the nature of an individual human change?

or...

Can the nature of the human species change?

The answer, I think, is yes in both cases, but the time scale of course is somewhat different.

To say the very least.

Permalink Reply by TJ on April 23, 2017 at 11:39am

That's a good point...given that we do not have a context as to when we are "human" vs "Non-human" to start the comparison.

:D

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on April 23, 2017 at 12:34pm
Si, TJ. Did the nature of the last non-humans differ from the nature of the first humans? How can anyone know?

That was my reply but I stated it less clearly, ...with the limited ability a kid has after 12 years in Catholic schools. They didn't deny evolution; they denied only that non-humans (= animals) have souls.



:X
Permalink Reply by Unseen on April 23, 2017 at 11:12pm

Are you familiar with the thinking of Jean-Paul Sartre and his dictum "existence precedes essence"?

Let me explain (this is according to Sartre):

With all other creatures besides human beings, they are born with their essence (their nature). A dog has a dog essence. A fish a fish essence. A bird a bird essence, etc.

Humans on the other hand create their essence through their free will choices. Only mankind has free will, and each individual is like an unfinished novel or painting until the day they die. Only then is their nature truly established.

Obviously, according to Sartre. Humans as a species have no "human nature." 

(Now, I'm not a believer in free will, but any discussion of human nature without a discussion of Sartre's notion of "existence precedes essence" would be incomplete.)

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on April 24, 2017 at 11:13pm

Note Sartre's choice of two nouns favored by philosophers: existence and essence.

His dictum reads so much like a trite "life precedes living" that he might have been gaslighting a muddle-headed Catholic who'd read Plato.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on April 24, 2017 at 11:36pm

Thank you for that obfuscation.

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on April 25, 2017 at 12:03am

Catholicism and philosophers obfuscate.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on April 25, 2017 at 12:09am

Philosophy does the opposite of obfuscation by clarifying concepts and forcing folks to use well-defined terminology. Politicians obfuscate. Don't mistake confusion and misunderstanding on your own part for obfuscation on the philosopher's part.

It's popular for people who don't like philosophy or just can't get into it to trot out slanders like this to justify their attitudes. I'm sad that you've become one of them. 

RSS

© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service