dexkaden wrote:
Among intellectuals who consider themselves "scientific," the phrase "the nature of man" is apt to have the effect of a red flag on a bull. "Man has no nature!" is the modern rallying cry and typical of the sentiment of political philosophers today was the assertion of a distinguished political theorist some years ago before a meeting of the American Political Science Association that "man's nature" is a purely theological concept that must be dismissed from any scientific discussion.
If you're aiming this at me, you don't even understand my position. Obviously man has two goals in his life: To survive, to replicate. He has also inherited through evolution, the biobehavioural baggage of the past, and genetic influences that cause ignorance (i.e. religion, etc).
Define the nature of man, what is it to you? If you can't define it then it proves you don't even much understand it except on the level of vague generalities. In that somehow its tied to evolution and evolutionary psychology, (of which I agree).
Slavery was once a part of "human nature", so was discrimination against blacks, gays, etc... so if human nature (prejudice) is so malleable, what else is?
Human nature, or rather HUMAN NATURES (plural) are individual personality characteristics, that are ultimately about the guiding principles within a man's head he uses to make decisions, and ultimately are a demographic issue. There are superior men and women who are not infected with the lower barbaric half of "human nature" (guiding principles that govern behaviroual decision making, i.e. inferior genetic programming). As this thread very well proves.
Last edited by Mordy on 05 Feb 2007, 6:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.