The Human Condition

isomorph

The Human Condition

Confucius (551-479b.c.e.) said in The Analects , “By nature men are alike. Through practice they have become far apart.” According to Wing, Analects 17:2 is the only time Confucius talked about human nature. That concise statement by Confucius makes no moral judgment about human nature, it is an observation of human ontogeny which could be interpreted to include human physical and mental make-up, our neuronal structure and the way it is mapped onto our brains and what delimits our human capabilities. We know that in a given population there are individual differences and deficiencies and super efficiencies, but the overall similarities allow us to recognize another human. Confucius is not focusing on the human physique in this aphorism, but our human nature, and just as we are able to recognize another human physique, we are able to recognize another human nature, with its differences. I do not think that Confucius is saying that we are a blank slate, but our nature is influenced by our environment. There are endless stories about whether our nature is good, bad, fallen from grace, lost on the way, etc.; Mencius (371-289 b.c.e.?) …”declared that it [human nature] is originally good.”; Hsun Tzu (298-238 b.c.e.) said that human nature is evil and “his goodness is the result of his activity.” Confucius only emphasized that we have made ourselves different from our autochthonous humanity. Talk of our ‘good nature’ or ‘bad nature’ is a digression and a shallow interpretation of Confucius’ analysis of human nature, and I think leads to dogmatic social and civil policies.

So, the human condition is how we are in the earth and particularly our world, i.e., the artifacts around us that have been created and that we create. Our world , more than anything else, is the lens through which we judge all else (ethnocentricity). It also blinds us to some things as do cataracts to our vision. In the western world, that lens is characterized by Whitehead in Process and Reality: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.” This cultural cloud can become self-referential and excludes any success by other cultures. The authors of Thinking Through Confucius attentive to this: they said that “…our method cannot be predicated on either the irreducibility of cultural or of theoretical differences. It is transcultural in intent…”. They have not attempted a reconstruction of Confucius’ thinking, but “…attempt to change lenses and sharpen our focus in such a manner that we enhance our vision of Confucius from the perspective of the present.”

Fung also tries to clear the lens when trying to compare Chinese philosophy and western philosophy. “In the West, philosophy has been conveniently divided into such divisions as metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, logic, etc…Chinese philosophy, in short, has always laid stress upon what man is (i.e., his moral qualities), rather than what he has (i.e., his intellectual and material capacities.” As Confucius said, by nature we are alike, but through practice we have become far apart. The cloud of civilization dulls the lens as we look at other cultures and eras, and it can only be cleared with conscientious and attentive thought with awareness of our bias, i.e., the examined life.

Western science, springing from the pre-Socratics and up through Aristotle, medieval Muslim civilization, European Enlightenment and into the twentieth century, has been a boon to human health and burgeoning technology. Western industrialized culture has produced analytical humanity and that is the cultural cloud covering autochthonous humanity. However, humanity remains as it has in the past. Nietzsche, in aphorism 11 of The Joyful Wisdom, spoke of consciousness as the “last and latest development of the organic and consequently also the most unfinished and least powerful of these developments. Innumerable mistakes originate out of consciousness…” Nietzsche referred to “the conserving bond of the instincts” and this is what I mean by autochthonous humans. It is what we can not escape, although western philosophy has tended toward escapism with language of ‘real worlds’ above the world we live in.

In the Prologue to Hannah Arendt’s book The Human Condition, she opens by talking of an “event, second in importance to no other, not even to the splitting of the atom…” In 1957 Sputnik was launched into orbit around the earth and Arendt goes on to say, “The immediate reaction, expressed on the spur of the moment, was relief about the first ‘step toward escape from man’s imprisonment to the earth.’” Arendt’s book is not about escaping, but she is presenting a historical “analysis of those general human capacities which grow out of the human condition and are permanent, that is, which cannot be irretrievably lost so long as the human condition itself is not changed.” I maintain that humans originate a mistake covered by the cloud of civilization, and that mistake is that we are something other than autochthonous humans. To accept that we are autochthonous humans does not deny our capabilities and aspirations, but it is an attempt to clear the lens that is clouded by our ethnocentricity, and today, clouded more so by our technocentricity.

T Clark

I have a strong belief in the existence and importance of human nature. I tend to growl when I think someone might be questioning that belief. After reading your post, I don't know whether to bark or wag my tail. By which I mean, I'm not sure exactly what your trying to say.

Confucius only emphasized that we have made ourselves different from our autochthonous humanity. Talk of our ‘good nature’ or ‘bad nature’ is a digression and a shallow interpretation of Confucius’ analysis of human nature, and I think leads to dogmatic social and civil policies. — isomorph

The only thing you've told us about Confucius's thoughts about human nature are "By nature men are alike. Through practice they have become far apart.” I'm not sure I know what that means, but I don't see anything about human nature being intrinsically good or bad. How is what you call our "autochthonous humanity" different from human nature?

So, the human condition is how we are in the earth and particularly our world, i.e., the artifacts around us that have been created and that we create. Our world , more than anything else, is the lens through which we judge all else (ethnocentricity). It also blinds us to some things as do cataracts to our vision. — isomorph

Western industrialized culture has produced analytical humanity and that is the cultural cloud covering autochthonous humanity. However, humanity remains as it has in the past. — isomorph

I maintain that humans originate a mistake covered by the cloud of civilization, and that mistake is that we are something other than autochthonous humans. — isomorph

Are you saying that what you call our human condition keeps us from seeing our autochthonous humanity, our human nature? I guess I'm lost.

I don't think you've clearly stated exactly what it is you're trying to say in simple words. The quotations you've provided seem to cloud your meaning instead of making it clearer.

Tom Storm

I don't think you've clearly stated exactly what it is you're trying to say in simple words. The quotations you've provided seem to cloud your meaning instead of making it clearer. — T Clark

I had a similar reaction.

↪isomorph

Not sure what is expected from a sprawling OP like this. Are you inviting comment or questions? I'm not sure what it is you are saying.

Tom Storm

I have a strong belief in the existence and importance of human nature. I tend to growl when I think someone might be questioning that belief — T Clark

I don't know if I believe in something called human nature, nor to I know what the human condition is meant to refer to. Strikes me that the human condition is a terrible term to describe contingent and diverse situations. I don't generally hold an essentialist view of the human animal. What some consider to be human nature seems to me to be a product of social and linguistic constructs rather than a set of inherent traits. But I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.

jkop

By nature men are alike. Through practice they have become far apart. — Confucius

Men are alike as men, but different by nature. Through practice men become far apart in some respects, but also alike as we have shared interests, cooperate, trade etc. That's how conventions and languages arise. Hence men are alike as men. But also conventions differ and cultures arise that maintain some of the differences.

isomorph

How is what you call our "autochthonous humanity" different from human nature? — T Clark

It's not different. I am saying that humans have confused what their human nature is. Some philosophers have talked about 'authentic personhood', etc., which seems to be an ideal, while autochthonous humanity is what humans are along the whole continuum of human capabilities, i.e., both good and bad, altruism, prejudice, and so on.

Are you saying that what you call our human condition keeps us from seeing our autochthonous humanity, our human nature? — T Clark

No. The human condition is simply our circumstance on this earth. I do say that humans are under a cloud, ethnocentricity, anthropocentricity, technocentricity, etc., that covers our nature which made humans successful for several hundred thousand years before civilization came about,

don't think you've clearly stated exactly what it is you're trying to say in simple words. The quotations you've provided seem to cloud your meaning instead of making it clearer. — T Clark

I'll have to try harder. This is actually introductory. I plan on having more to say on this.

isomorph

Not sure what is expected from a sprawling OP like this. Are you inviting comment or questions? I'm not sure what it is you are saying. — Tom Storm

I'm clarifying my thoughts. Wittgenstein said that when he was writing, he was thinking with his hand. sometimes you have to talk to yourself out loud so you can hear what you're saying, sometimes write it out. I didn't think this OP was sprawling. I'll have to take another look.

Tom Storm

I'm clarifying my thoughts. — isomorph

No worries.

isomorph

I had footnotes on this piece, but they apparently don't come up when I paste the article. Here are my sources:
Bibliography
A History of Chinese Philosophy Fung YU-Lan v. 1&2 Princeton University Press. 1983
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Wing-Tsit Chan Princeton University Press. 1973
Thinking Through Confucius David Hall and Roger Ames State University of New York Press. 1987
Heraclitus: Fragments Brooks Haxton trans. Penguin Book. 2001
Xenophanes of Colophon: Fragments J. H. Lesher trans. University of Toronto Press. 2001
The Human Condition second edition Hannah Arendt University of Chicago Press. 1998
Health and the Rise of Civilization mark Nathan Cohen Yale University Press. 1989
The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche Oscar Levy, ed. Edinburgh, London 1910

Fooloso4

↪isomorph

According to Ivanhoe and Van Norden (Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy) the term 'nature', xing, as it is used by thinkers of the classical period, is what is paradigmatic of a living thing. Those tendencies that are more likely to be realized in a healthy environment. Confucius emphasized the sacred practices, a set of rites or rituals,li through which the lost golden age could be rebuilt.

In the golden age (c. 1045-771 B.C.E) the early Zhou rulers established and maintained a special relation with Heaven, tian. Without getting into the concept of tian for Confucius or others, there is right practice and wrong practice. Practice in accord with Heaven and practice contrary to it. Humans who are virtuous, ren, have realized or perfected their nature.

isomorph

Humans who are virtuous, ren, have realized or perfected their nature. — Fooloso4

Thank you for your elucidation, and as much as I like Confucius, even he is more idealistic than what I am going for. I have the opinion that one of our attempts at suicide will succeed, but if we can uncover our humanity that was so successful before civilization, we will actually be able to implement all of our beneficial accomplishments worldwide. We did it with vaccination in the 20th century, but it seems we have started to regress on even that. Along with altruism being a characteristic of humans, so is greed, deception, etc.

T Clark

What some consider to be human nature seems to me to be a product of social and linguistic constructs rather than a set of inherent traits. — Tom Storm

Careful. Don't make me bark.

I don't disagree that much of what we are is the product of our interactions with the world outside. On the other hand, I think it's important to recognize that much is also built in to us physically, biologically, neurologically. To oversimplify, we humans are creatures of instinct as much, more, than we are of learning and socialization. We are born with the capacity and drive for language. Our minds are structured by evolution to perceive, learn, and act in the world in a way that keeps us alive. I'm reading an interesting book right now - Konrad Lorenz's "Behind the Mirror." In Lorenz's view, it makes sense to look at ourselves as a chain of genetically connected organisms rather than individual creatures or even species. In that sense, the action of evolution over billions of years is us learning to be in the world as much as us sitting in a classroom studying math. I'm trying to decide if I like that way of thinking, but either way, it has forced me to reexamine how I look at all this.

T Clark

It's not different. I am saying that humans have confused what their human nature is. Some philosophers have talked about 'authentic personhood', etc., which seems to be an ideal, while autochthonous humanity is what humans are along the whole continuum of human capabilities, i.e., both good and bad, altruism, prejudice, and so on. — isomorph

Beyond my interest in human nature, I have a strong interest in the works of Taoist philosophers Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. They both are seen as philosophical opponents of Confucius. Taoism has the concept of "Te," translated as virtue or intrinsic virtuosity which I connect with my idea of human nature.

Are you saying that what you call our human condition keeps us from seeing our autochthonous humanity, our human nature?
— T Clark

No. The human condition is simply our circumstance on this earth. I do say that humans are under a cloud, ethnocentricity, anthropocentricity, technocentricity, etc., that covers our nature which made humans successful for several hundred thousand years before civilization came about, — isomorph

I'm not sure I see the difference between what you call the human condition and what you call the cloud. Aren't ethnocentricity, anthropocentricity, technocentricity, etc. part of the human condition? I'm not sure it makes sense to harken back to a past golden age, although, to be fair, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu tend to do the same thing. I guess everyone does.

isomorph

'm not sure I see the difference between what you call the human condition and what you call the cloud. Aren't ethnocentricity, anthropocentricity, technocentricity, etc. part of the human condition? — T Clark

No. The human condition is what we deal with on this earth. You may say that all of those centrisms are part of the human condition, but that is not the point that I am going for. Arendt, in her book, discusses the different phases of man's progress and industry and artifice as part of the human condition, but I want to discover the human condition of successful autochthonous humans on this earth. We have tech that is able to solve more problems than we are. Why aren't we? I think the failure is due to (in the past ethnocentricity has hurt people and benefited a few) technocentricity. If we discover the method of success for the several hundred thousand years before civilization, we may be able to deal with climate change, tectonic plate shift, vulcanism, etc.

T Clark

No. The human condition is what we deal with on this earth. You may say that all of those centrisms are part of the human condition, but that is not the point that I am going for. Arendt, in her book, discusses the different phases of man's progress and industry and artifice as part of the human condition, but I want to discover the human condition of successful autochthonous humans on this earth. We have tech that is able to solve more problems than we are. Why aren't we? I think the failure is due to (in the past ethnocentricity has hurt people and benefited a few) technocentricity. If we discover the method of success for the several hundred thousand years before civilization, we may be able to deal with climate change, tectonic plate shift, vulcanism, etc. — isomorph

I don't know if you've seen it, but there is another discussion now on the forum that addresses some of these issues -

The ethical issue: Does it scale? — apokrisis

isomorph

I don't know if you've seen it, but there is another discussion now on the forum that addresses some of these issues -

The ethical issue: Does it scale?
— apokrisis — T Clark

Thank you. I'll look at it.

Tom Storm

To oversimplify, we humans are creatures of instinct as much, more, than we are of learning and socialization. We are born with the capacity and drive for language. Our minds are structured by evolution to perceive, learn, and act in the world in a way that keeps us alive. — T Clark

Not sure any of that amounts to an essential nature. The fact that we interact with our environment and try to survive (like most creatures) is true. I'm not sure human nature is a useful frame. We can present the notion that we are a social species. Sure. We cooperate. Sure. But we also have a tendency for mass murder, and mass destruction. We also cooperate in order to commit genocides. I think our capacity for violence is as innate as our capacity for benevolence. Who are we really? We are a mess. We seem to be anything and everything and we are nothing in particular.

The human condition is what we deal with on this earth. — isomorph

How is 'human condition;' a useful frame? Do you mean to say that we have levels of cooperation and technology that allow us to do almost anything, except for 'saving' ourselves from bad politics and environmental destruction?

T Clark

I'm not sure human nature is a useful frame. — Tom Storm

A difference of opinion then, or at least perspective.

wonderer1

I don't know if I believe in something called human nature... — Tom Storm

Certainly "human natures" instead of "human nature" would be a step towards communicating with a greater degree of accuracy. However, I don't think we have a realistic option other than the use of fuzzy generalizations, when it comes to discussing psychology. 'Human nature' seems like a useful enough fuzzy generalization for this sort of discussion in many cases. (Though I recognize that using the term might have the unfortunate effect of supporting essentialism in the minds of some.)

Tom Storm

(Though I recognize that using the term might have the unfortunate effect of supporting essentialism in the minds of some.) — wonderer1

I'm one of those minds. Can you briefly sketch how the idea of human nature is of help in our understanding of the world and how it might avoid essentialism? As I said earlier, I am open to changing my perspective I have just never seen any use for this frame before.

isomorph

Not sure any of that amounts to an essential nature. — Tom Storm

I don't know that I would use a word like 'essential' because it would lead to a reification. There are things that are within the purview of being human, some people are better and some worse at those things ( as Jim Jeffries says, we can all do better). There are a collection of traits that may be expressed differently in individuals, so to define an essence ( for instance running is an essence of being human, some people can't run so they are less human) is to create second class citizens. In Plato's time slavery was an institution, their own brand of misogyny, which meant that these people did not qualify as essential human beings.

isomorph

How is 'human condition;' a useful frame? — Tom Storm

we are humans on this earth.

Tom Storm

( for instance running is an essence of being human, some people can't run so they are less human) — isomorph

I find this curious. Does this mean a person in a wheelchair is by definition less than fully human? A blind person?

↪isomorph

So what is your definition of human nature?

In Plato's time slavery was an institution, their own brand of misogyny, which meant that these people did not qualify as essential human beings. — isomorph

Misogyny is hatred of women. Do you simply mean bigotry or misanthropy? The conversation about who we include as citizens has widened over time (some are currently stuck on the trans issue). This is often seen as the hallmark of progress and increasing solidarity.

How is 'human condition;' a useful frame?
— Tom Storm

we are humans on this earth. — isomorph

Not sure this helps much. So the human condition is simply the case that human beings live on this planet?

Fire Ologist

I didn't think this OP was sprawling. I'll have to take another look. — isomorph

It could use a summary but I think I see you saying we in the west have much to learn - in method and in practical wisdom - from the east. And I agree with that.

You may be saying the west has been too narrowly focused to take a better view of the big picture. In which case I would disagree - I see logic, epistemology, metaphysics and early science embedded in Eastern thought, just as I see a mystical One, the essential place of paradox, the Negation (the empty, the nothingness), and the issues with “self” and language, all throughout Western philosophy, as well.

The East is better at pulling pearls of ethical, political, practical wisdom out of it. The West has been better at dissecting it and treating life/experience as a subject of scientific study.

But we are all looking at and for something that would unify all of us, any of us, it we found it. I don’t think East or West are better. Both hold wisdom and both hold mistakes. But I also think each could benefit from each other to build something more illuminating than either alone.

isomorph

I find this curious. Does this mean a person in a wheelchair is by definition less than fully human? A blind person? — Tom Storm

That's exactly what I'm not saying, and what I said can't be construed in that way.

Misogyny is hatred of women — Tom Storm

Misogyny is not simply hatred of women. When an Ancient Greek man said I'm glad to be born a Greek, a man and not a woman, that is a brand of misogyny.

Not sure this helps much. So the human condition is simply the case that human beings live on this planet? — Tom Storm

That is what that means

Tom Storm

Misogyny is not simply hatred of women. When an Ancient Greek man said I'm glad to be born a Greek, a man and not a woman, that is a brand of misogyny. — isomorph

The only part of this that qualifies as mysogyny is the last bit pertaining to women. The first part is ethnocentrism. The quote is a layer cake of bigotry.

I find this curious. Does this mean a person in a wheelchair is by definition less than fully human? A blind person?
— Tom Storm

That's exactly what I'm not saying, and what I said can't be construed in that way. — isomorph

Ok - apologies - your syntax was unclear but I've re-read it a few times now and I see what you were getting at.

There are a collection of traits that may be expressed differently in individuals, so to define an essence ( for instance running is an essence of being human, some people can't run so they are less human) is to create second class citizens. — isomorph

Essentialism (if applied to human nature) is the notion that there are inherent and unchanging human characteristics and behaviours - innate and fixed. I'm skeptical about this or how far this can be pushed. Perhaps we agree on this.

isomorph

But we are all looking at and for something that would unify all of us, any of us, it we found it. I don’t think East or West are better. Both hold wisdom and both hold mistakes. But I also think each could benefit from each other to build something more illuminating than either alone. — Fire Ologist

:up:

isomorph

The only part of this that qualifies as mysogyny is the last bit pertaining to women. The first part is ethnocentrism. — Tom Storm

:up:

unenlightened

We have tech that is able to solve more problems than we are. Why aren't we? I think the failure is due to (in the past ethnocentricity has hurt people and benefited a few) technocentricity. If we discover the method of success for the several hundred thousand years before civilization, we may be able to deal with climate change, tectonic plate shift, vulcanism, etc. — isomorph

"... success for the several hundred thousand years before civilization". Can you say what you have in mind in this phrase?

The way I tell the story, there was some climate instability in Africa leading to rather rapid environmental changes between forest and savannah. This favoured a species with more rapid adaptability than can be afforded by genetic variation. Big brain intelligence provided that adaptability to such an extent, that by means of tools, created shelter, and clothes, intelligent apes were able to survive, and become the top predator in almost any environment, and began to spread across the world.

The secret of this success is that the Inuit can divest herself of a few layers of seal-skin and learn to live in the Amazon from the local experts, whereas the polar bear cannot possibly make that adaptation. It is the ability to learn and adopt adaptive behaviour that is the significant advantage of human intelligence that constitutes "human nature" and explains Confucius' observation that we are alike in our nature, but unalike in our practice (which might be better translated in this context as 'nurture').

Thus human nature is a radical incompleteness that has to be completed by a cultural adaptation to a particular environment, which becomes the essence of humanity such that for us "existence precedes essence", because our essence is now learned.

isomorph

Thus human nature is a radical incompleteness that has to be completed by a cultural adaptation to a particular environment, which becomes the essence of humanity such that for us "existence precedes essence", because our essence is now learned. — unenlightened

"...cultural adaptation to a particular environment..." I agree completely, however I think that the current geopolitical situation obviates adaptation. I certainly think humans have accomplished much but distribution leaves much to be desired. I don't think power structures from any era are willing to relinquish that power. Do you think we will be able to adapt to climate change, tectonic plate shift, areas of famine and poverty in the current geopolitical situation?

unenlightened

Do you think we will be able to adapt to climate change, tectonic plate shift, areas of famine and poverty in the current geopolitical situation? — isomorph

We have changed the climate without intention, but almost certainly not in all regions beyond our ability to adapt to. However, human population is in overshoot. This is an ecological term for what happens when for some reason the normal checks on population growth of a species are absent or circumvented and the population increases beyond the limit of the ecosystem to sustain it in the long term. So, for example if predators are removed from the environment, herbivores will reproduce until they are too numerous for the grassland to sustain; they eat the grass down to the roots, so that it cannot regenerate fast enough, and then they starve and the population crashes.

That is going to happen to humans. So when you ask if "we" will survive, if you mean the current Western consumer society, then the answer is no. But if you mean the human species in some form somewhere, then probably yes is my best guess. But there will be no shortage of famine, forced migration, conflict, and suffering. Tectonic movement is slow enough for even genetic evolution to adapt to apart from localised eruptions, tidal waves, etc.

The anthropocene extinction event, of which the climate change we have instigated by the industrial revolution is a small part, is what our intelligence has allowed our stupidity to achieve. It is very sad, but there is no chance I can see, of geopolitics stopping representing our stupidity, and starting to represent our intelligent adaptability. War, famine, and disease will solve the problem. In the meantime, "Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools"

The Human Condition

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions