Of course, Human Nature doesn't "exist" in a materialistic concrete sense. It's a generalization, and an abstraction. So, it's not a testable empirical "thing" to be studied by scientists. But it's certainly amenable to philosophical study. "The writer" must be a hard Materialist, who doesn't accept immaterial things, such as Minds, to be Real. For them, the only things that "exist" are Atoms & Void. But Unfortunately, speculations on generalizations & universals are always somebody's Opinion, not hard facts. What's yours? :smile:The writer queried my use of the term human nature, questioning whether it exists. . . . — Jack Cummins
As far as I can see it ideas about human nature have always been central to philosophy, ranging from the thinking of Aristotle to the present day. Even the neuroscientists work from assumption about the importance of the brain and the biological thinkers explain behaviour in terms of chemicals, including hormones. — Jack Cummins
See if you can spot the implicit contradiction in this paragraph. — Wayfarer
I have wondered if my statement about the neuroscientists and biologists could be the contradiction because neuroscience is a part of biology itself. — Jack Cummins
Are you familiar with the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico? It's a think-tank and research center for Complex Adaptive Systems. And that includes humans. It consists of a variety of physical scientists, but their common approach to their subjects is Holism, rather than Reductionism. A more technical term for that kind of science is "Systems Theory".As I have just said to Wayfarer I am in favour of a holistic model, or systems view of life. — Jack Cummins
I thought that you were coming from the point of view of thinking that human nature is an unnecessary construct whereas you think it is immutable, but think that the role of nurture is the main issue. — Jack Cummins
Of course, we could say that genetic factors play a role too. — Jack Cummins
If it is part biological or shaped by the environment is it not the case that we are different from people from earliest times. — Jack Cummins
I suppose I am just wondering about the core constructs of what it means to be a human being and whether this is distinct from the culture in which the person belongs. — Jack Cummins
Your view of “human nature” as something that exists as a “fixed” and “unalterable” structure of perceptual cognition easily falters under the mounting history of a fluidly changing cognitive and societal existence. Our “nature” wasn’t always as it exists today. As such it cannot be “fixed”. — JackBRotten
I accept the idea of the collective unconscious described by Jung but not as some supernatural pool but perhaps as a memory inherent in nature, along the lines described by Rupert Sheldrake in his idea of morphic resonance. In fact, I think Sheldrake may be a missing link in connecting psychology and biology — Jack Cummins
Marxism: man is primarily a labourer: physical labour being the only way leading to the fulfillment of his physical needs with all other needs being denied or rated as inferior. — Daniel C
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.