Is Human Nature Inherently Destructive or Not?

Jack Cummins

I have been wondering about this in relation to the discussion which arose in the thread on the Bible, in which discussion began about the dark ages. I have been thinking that independently of the Bible or any other system of thought, the underlying issue is human nature.

I have often thought of human nature in terms of Freud's tension between Eros and Thanatos, the life and death instincts. However, I am aware that this is a psychoanalytic view. There are many different theories of human nature, some more pessimistic than others. Certainly, Hobbes did not have a very pessimistic view of human nature. I am wondering about balance, and the extent of the tendency towards destruction.

This is a question which applies on an individual level and on a social level, the extent to which we are destruction towards ourselves individually and towards others, and other lifeforms. I do believe that it is probably not simplistic and there are ways in which people can develop their better nature, but this may be a consciousness choice. But I am asking about the underlying human nature, and the factors which come into play in leading towards personal and wider destructiveness, because understanding of these may be beneficial.

View Answer

SimpleUser

Yes. The animal does not kill for fun.

Tom Storm

↪SimpleUser

You haven't seen my cat.

Tom Storm

↪Jack Cummins

Is this really a question worth asking?

Is human nature inherently creative or not?

You can find evidence for any question you care to pose. The answers that resonate are usually the ones that reflect a person's preexisting disposition.

Jack Cummins

↪Tom Storm

So, maybe my question is a about myself. It actually arose in thinking about atrocities committed by human beings in the dark ages, in the name of religion. I believe that religion is not the key factor, but human nature, because it is not as ìf humanity has been transformed by losing religion. And, if my question is not worth discussing the thread will probably die by the end of the day, or should I say, it will self destruct.

Jack Cummins

I have just moved my discussion to the lounge because it may be too depressing, but t, if I find that people are interested in it I will transfer it back. It may be something which I think about, and perhaps others, but it may be that there is no point talking about it all.

Tom Storm

↪Jack Cummins

I wasn't intending to be negative; just asking the question. As you can see I think you can argue that the opposite is as true as your initial question.

Jack Cummins

↪Tom Storm

I don't know. It just seems that on the forum people project so much onto other groups and that was really why I raised it. But, I did feel that I may appear really stupid asking the question.

Tom Storm

I often find that when you get stuck on an idea in life it is surprising how often, if you check, the opposite may also be true. (And I am not aiming for some sort of dialectic here) One of my central beliefs is that we are drawn to ideas that confirm what we already think. I wonder how much of our study is really an attempt to shore up and embolden our prejudices, preconceptions or bigotries?

Jack Cummins

↪Tom Storm

I do think that my own answers to such questions do reflect my own mindset. If I am feeling stressed I often feel negative in my own thoughts about where the world and humanity is going. I find that my thoughts are like waves. But, generally, I do believe that the most important factor is to make conscious choices to overcome destructiveness helps rather than being dragged along by destructive tendencies subconsciously.

Judaka

↪Jack Cummins

Give a man power and take away consequence and watch the transformation from a good man to a tyrant. We confuse fear and concern of consequence with decency, power reveals this mischaracterization.

Jack Cummins

↪Judaka

I definitely think that power is a critical factor. However, I do wonder if it is possible for individuals to develop themselves in such a way that power does not lead to people becoming tyrannical. Some individuals do manage this, and, the ideal would be for a greater number of people of people to hold positions of authority without abusing the power.

Judaka

↪Jack Cummins

Through transparency and oversight, methods of holding those in positions of power accountable, a system of consequence for abuse of power can rein in this tendency to abuse. That is likely the only practical approach, we can not hold out hope for better.

Nils Loc

This is a question which applies on an individual level and on a social level, the extent to which we are destruction towards ourselves individually and towards others, and other lifeforms. — Jack Cummins

Joseph Campbell said myth had to help us psychologically reconcile an unavoidable fact, that life feeds on life. We're very hungry animals for all kinds of things, whether food, sex, love, status, types of experience, types of knowledge and the list goes on. Such things require energy/mass conversion which might generically be framed as a kind of destruction for the sake of renewal/maintenance.

Getting the balance right such that one person's consumptive acts aren't t by the standard of "do unto other as you would have them do unto you" undesirable is challenge. But this is a particular stance which can differ from person to person. We also might get off in a battle to the death (zero sum) of the winner eats the loser. Come (e)at me bro...

Jack Cummins

↪Nils Loc

I think that Joseph Campbell is a very useful thinker for enabling people to think about the mythic aspects of existence. I believe that he and Carl Jung do enable people to explore their own subconscious pathways, and become more conscious of deeper aspects of the self. I do think that the more conscious one become of the subconscious, a person is more likely to be able to try to find ways of not being destructive. Jung spoke of becoming more conscious of the shadow, although he did not think that this was an easy task at all.

180 Proof

Human Nature? Well, from cradle to grave, we're all cunts. Whatever else each individual makes of him or her self, we're always that, a congential, 'species trait' – self-immiserating, though not always or competently "self-destructive". Fuckin' homo cuntian twats.

(Maybe too much Pryor, Carlin & Jonathan Pie lately? :smirk:)

Is Human Nature Inherently Destructive or Not?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions