What We Get Wrong About Human Nature
Summary
TLDRThe script explores the concept of human nature, challenging the traditional belief that it is inherently selfish or competitive. It traces philosophical perspectives from figures like Socrates, Confucius, Marx, and indigenous cultures, highlighting that human behavior is shaped by social, economic, and environmental conditions. The script argues against the idea that hierarchy and oppression are inevitable, suggesting that humans are capable of cooperation and altruism. It calls for an anarchic rethinking of societal structures to unlock humanity's potential for freedom and equality, emphasizing that change is both possible and necessary.
Takeaways
- 🤔 The concept of human nature is complex and varies across cultures and philosophies, challenging the idea of a universal human essence.
- 🌐 Human nature is not fixed; it is influenced by a range of factors including culture, environment, and societal structures.
- 🧠 While some instincts like fear and disgust may be common, their triggers and manifestations differ significantly among individuals and societies.
- 🌿 Indigenous philosophies often emphasize the interconnectedness of humans with nature, contrasting with views that see human presence as inherently destructive.
- 🏛️ Historical figures like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle contributed to the discourse on human nature, with varying views on its composition and potential.
- 📚 Confucian philosophers like Mencius and Xunzi had contrasting views on whether human nature is inherently good or bad and the role of reflection and learning.
- 🌱 The philosophy of Ubuntu from Southern Africa highlights the importance of community and interdependence in defining humanity.
- 🌳 Animist beliefs, which see all life as interconnected, promote a sustainable and reciprocal relationship with the environment.
- 🔄 Karl Marx's view on 'species-being' suggests that human nature is not static but evolves within social and historical contexts.
- ⚖️ The existence of egalitarian and peaceful societies challenges the notion that hierarchy, patriarchy, and competition are inherent to human nature.
- 🌟 The potential for social change and the creation of more cooperative and just societies lies within our capacity to question and reshape our current conditions.
Q & A
What is the main argument against the concept of a universal human nature?
-The main argument is that human behavior and needs are not static but vary according to culture, climate, and identity. It suggests that what is considered 'human nature' is influenced by social, political, and environmental conditions rather than being a fixed, universal trait.
How does the script challenge the idea that certain traits like fear and disgust are universal to all humans?
-The script challenges this idea by pointing out that not everyone experiences fear or disgust in the same way, and what they fear or are disgusted by can vary significantly from person to person, and from culture to culture.
What role does the script suggest hormones play in determining human behavior?
-The script suggests that while hormones may influence our behavior, humans are not slaves to their hormones and can override base impulses when necessary.
What are the 'four beginnings' of human nature’s morality according to Mencius?
-According to Mencius, the 'four beginnings' of human nature’s morality are: a sense of compassion that develops into benevolence, a sense of shame and disdain that develops into righteousness, a sense of respect and courtesy that develops into propriety, and a sense of right and wrong that develops into wisdom.
How does Xunzi's view on human nature contrast with Mencius'?
-While Mencius believed that human nature was inherently good and that virtues develop through reflection, Xunzi held the view that human nature was essentially bad and that learning was necessary to overcome the destructive and competitive tendencies of humans.
What is the concept of 'Ubuntu' mentioned in the script, and what does it emphasize?
-Ubuntu is a form of African humanism that emphasizes the interconnectedness of humanity, encapsulated by the phrase 'I am because we are.' It suggests that one's humanity is tied to the well-being of the community.
How does the script relate the concept of animism to the treatment of nature?
-The script relates animism to a respectful and sustainable interaction with nature, as animists believe all beings are related. This belief leads to a lifestyle that practices reciprocity and sustainability, rather than extraction and waste.
What does the script suggest about the inevitability of war and other forms of oppression?
-The script suggests that war, patriarchy, and other forms of oppression are not inevitable or inherent to human nature, but rather consequences of certain sociopolitical and economic arrangements.
How does the script view the idea that hierarchy is a part of human nature?
-The script argues that while expertise may exist, hierarchy, which relies on authority and the power to command obedience, is a social construct and not a natural law. It suggests that humans are capable of self-governance without hierarchy.
What is the script's stance on the role of social conditions in shaping human behavior?
-The script posits that social conditions significantly shape what is considered 'human nature.' It argues that different societies, such as egalitarian versus hierarchical ones, will foster different behaviors and traits in people.
How does the script conclude about the potential for social change and human liberation?
-The script concludes that change is not only possible but inevitable, and that by recognizing and opposing conditions that favor domination, and by proposing and implementing horizontal social arrangements, humans can liberate themselves and realize their potential for freedom.
Outlines
🤔 Exploring Human Nature
The paragraph delves into the concept of human nature, questioning its universality and suggesting that it is not fixed but varies with culture and environment. It discusses basic human instincts such as fear and disgust and how they manifest differently across individuals and cultures. The paragraph also touches on the influence of hormones on behavior and the universal human needs like air, water, food, and shelter, while emphasizing that the ways these needs are met are culturally diverse. It critiques the tendency to focus on humanity's negative traits when discussing human nature, such as in arguments about systems of oppression, and highlights how different philosophical and cultural perspectives have historically interpreted human nature, from Socrates and Aristotle to Confucian and indigenous philosophies.
🌏 Cultural and Philosophical Variations of Human Nature
This paragraph contrasts various cultural and philosophical views on human nature. It discusses the Confucian views of Mencius and Xunzi, the latter arguing that human nature is inherently bad and needs education to be improved. It also mentions the legalist Han Fei's belief in human selfishness and the contrasting views of Akan and Yoruba philosophies, which emphasize community and selfless contribution. The paragraph introduces the concept of Ubuntu, an African humanism that views humanity as a collective quality. It also discusses the Rarámuri tribe's belief in interconnectedness with nature, and how many indigenous cultures see humans as part of the natural world, not separate from it. The paragraph critiques the rise of capitalism and its impact on the human-nature relationship, suggesting that it has led to a view of human nature as destructive.
🏆 The Illusion of Competition and the Reality of Cooperation
The paragraph uses a satirical skit to illustrate the destructive nature of competition, exemplified by a game show scenario where teams representing different cultures compete for limited resources, leading to the loss of their land, homes, and more. It argues against the common view that human nature is inherently selfish, greedy, and competitive, suggesting instead that humans have a range of possibilities encoded in our biology and that our behaviors are shaped by sociopolitical and economic arrangements. It points out that war, patriarchy, and gerontocracy are not inevitable but are consequences of certain social structures. The paragraph also discusses the existence of peaceful, egalitarian societies and how they contrast with hierarchical ones, emphasizing that human nature is not fixed but is influenced by the conditions in which people live.
🌱 The Potential for Egalitarianism and Social Revolution
This paragraph discusses the potential for humans to organize themselves without hierarchy and to resist injustice. It argues that human nature is not a fixed concept but is shaped by social conditions, and that both egalitarian and hierarchical societies are possible. The paragraph emphasizes the importance of recognizing and opposing conditions that favor domination, proposing horizontal social arrangements to reshape human powers, drives, and consciousness. It critiques the idea of human nature as a tool of social control and argues that anarchists are not demanding too much from human nature but are instead calling for a questioning and transformation of various social aspects. The paragraph concludes with a call for a social revolution that can bring about liberation and emphasizes that change is not only possible but inevitable.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Human Nature
💡Instinct
💡Self-Preservation
💡Hormones
💡Needs
💡Hierarchy
💡Animism
💡Social Constructs
💡Egalitarianism
💡Material Conditions
💡Social Revolution
Highlights
The concept of human nature is a complex and debated topic, suggesting it's not a fixed trait but varies with culture and environment.
Fear and disgust are cited as potential universal human instincts, yet their triggers differ widely among individuals and cultures.
Hormonal balances may influence behavior, but humans are not solely governed by these biological factors.
Basic human needs like air, water, and shelter are universal, but their fulfillment varies by culture and identity.
Human nature is often portrayed as contradictory, with humans capable of both love and hate, creation and destruction.
The concept of human nature is used to argue against societal change, focusing on negative aspects over positive ones.
Historically, philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle contributed to the understanding of human nature through reasoning and the soul.
Mencius and Xunzi offered contrasting views on human nature, with one seeing it as inherently good and the other as bad.
Legalist philosophers like Han Fei and Western thinkers like Emile Durkheim and David Hume emphasized self-interest and egoism in human nature.
Indigenous cultures often see humans as interconnected with nature, emphasizing a kinship with the environment.
Animist philosophies regulate human interaction with nature, promoting sustainability and reciprocity.
Karl Marx's view of 'species-being' suggests human nature is formed within social relations and is not static.
The Rarámuri tribe's belief in iwígara reflects an interconnectedness with all life-forms, challenging the separation between human and nature.
The existence of peaceful, egalitarian societies challenges the notion of war, patriarchy, and hierarchy as inherent in human nature.
Human nature is not a fixed concept but is shaped by social conditions, with both cooperative and competitive behaviors possible.
The potential for social revolution lies in questioning and transforming societal structures, not in expecting perfection in human nature.
The concept of human nature is critiqued as a tool for social control, simplifying human complexity and reinforcing current societal organization.
Anarchists argue for the potential of human nature to evolve beyond current limitations, advocating for social change through questioning and transformation.
The narrative concludes with a call for recognizing the potential for change and the power of the people to reshape society.
Transcripts
Who are you? Who am I?
What is the essence of humankind? What does it mean to be human?
Human nature refers to the fundamental traits of humanity,
our most basic and natural ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. Human nature is supposed
to be this universal concept that, regardless of nurture, regardless of our environmental,
social, political, and psychological conditions, we cannot truly transcend.
I disagree. There are certain instincts we possess that I
might consider universal to humanity—for instance, fear, as a means of basic survival, or disgust,
as a means of self-preservation from disease. Yet not everyone experiences fear or disgust and what
we fear or disgust varies considerably from person to person, place to place, culture to culture.
Some people fear the depths of the ocean, others fear the peaks of the mountains. Some people are
disgusted by even the idea of eating crickets, for others it’s a healthy treat. The balance of our
hormones may also play a role in determining how we behave, but we are not slaves to our
hormones. We can and do override our base impulses when the situation calls for it.
We also obviously have certain shared needs: things like air, water, food, sleep, and shelter.
We want safety, respect, and connection. We seek pleasure. But how we meet those needs vary
according to culture, climate, and identity. If human nature is just “what humans do,” then
it is a concept of contradiction. Humans hate and humans love. Humans are violent
and humans are peaceful. Humans destroy and humans create. Humans form hierarchies and
humans tear them down. But when people bring up human nature, particularly in arguments
about the viability of liberation from systems of oppression such as capitalism, patriarchy,
and the state, they never seem to highlight our noblest features, only our most despicable.
Humanity is defamed by humans themselves. To the misanthropes and their ilk we are all just agents
of chaos and wanton environmental destruction. They sweep aside the vast antagonisms of class,
gender, and race. They dismiss the distinctions between authoritarian empires and stateless
societies, assigning all equal accusation. Capital H U M A N I T Y overrides their examination of
the social relationships and institutions that have forged our present outcomes.
So the question persists. Our journey begins.
To discover what exactly constitutes human nature.
TITLE CARD (leaves pulling aside like a safari) I’m not the first
person to explore the idea of human nature. Across history and throughout the world,
theorists and philosophers have posited different interpretations of the concept.
Socrates believed that the life most suited to human nature involved reasoning. His student
Plato and Plato’s student Aristotle developed a notion of the human soul in the 4th and 5th
century BCE that consisted of two parts: one home to instinct, passion, and desire, the other home
to logic and reason. Aristotle in particular also recognised man as political, meaning able
to develop complex communities and systems, and mimetic, meaning able to use his imagination to
create artwork. I say man and not humanity because Aristotle saw women as subject to men. Of course.
Elsewhere Mencius, a Confucian philosopher in the 4th century BCE, argued that human
nature was good, with an innate tendency to an ideal state formed under the right conditions.
To him, the four beginnings of human nature’s morality were: a sense of compassion that
develops into benevolence, a sense of shame and disdain that develops into righteousness,
a sense of respect and courtesy that develops into propriety, and a sense of right and wrong
that develops into wisdom. He believed that the development of virtues came from reflection,
and if one didn’t reflect, they wouldn’t develop their moral constitution. According to Mencius,
evil came from a lack of reflection and self-development in one’s natural direction.
However, another Confucian philosopher in the 3rd century BCE disagreed. Xunzi believed human nature
was essentially bad and that learning was the only cure for the destructive and competitive natural
ways of humanity. Later on, the legalist framework of human nature would embrace the notion of it
being inherently evil. However, unlike Xunzi, they didn’t think even education or self-cultivation
could eliminate or alter one’s sick nature. Echoing many of today’s proponents of capitalism,
3rd century BCE legalist philosopher Han Fei argued that everyone is motivated
by their unchanging selfish core to take advantage of whoever they can,
especially when they know they can get away with it. Similarly, Emile Durkheim believed humanity
to be naturally egoistic and David Hume assumed humans were driven by selfishness and emotions
and needed society to be more reasonable. However, Hume also recognized that humans had
an innate sense of honour, beauty, and nobility. In contrast, according to Akan philosophy, what it
means to be a person is to selflessly contribute to one’s family and community, of course adjusted
for one’s level of opportunity. The size or type of contribution matters far less than the practice
itself. Further east along the West African coast, the Yoruba held similar beliefs. To be a person is
to be substantially dependent on others. The community is the basis for the actualisation
of one’s values and personality. This position can also be found in the philosophy of Ubuntu,
a form of African humanism developed in the 1950s that sees humanity as a quality we owe
to each other. It can be neatly summarised by its particularly iconic phrase “I am because we are.”
Yoruba philosophy also recognises that while humanity retains certain activities and needs,
the way those activities are carried out and those needs are met are subject to change according to
ever-evolving material conditions. Karl Marx’s concept of “species-being” was similarly
informed by materialist analysis. He argued against traditional concepts of human nature
as incarnating in individuals in favour of human nature forming within social relations. To Marx,
human nature wasn’t permanent or universal, but rather always determined in a specific
social and historical formation. Humans change their environments
and their environments, in turn, change them. The Rarámuri tribe in the Sierra Madres region of
what is now Mexico have traditionally believed in iwígara, the idea that all life-forms are
interconnected and share the same breath. Even the land itself and the winds that blow through
it share kin. Obviously, the sheer variety of the philosophies of indigenous cultures cannot be
painted with one broad brush, but we can identify certain similarities. Many indigenous philosophies
have recognised that we cannot be divorced from our environments. There is no separation
between human and nature. We are part of the same family. Life can only be viable when humans view
nature as kin, all part of the same ecosystem, enhancing and preserving, giving and taking.
Anthropologists refer to this way of seeing the world as animism. Because animists believe all
beings are related, they heavily regulate their interaction with living systems,
for the most part, and asterisks indeed apply. That means that while they may fish,
hunt, gather, and farm, they do so while remaining cognisant of the sustainability of those systems.
They do so in the spirit of reciprocity, not extraction. They live by the principles of
what today’s ecological economists would call a steady-state economy—never extract more than
ecosystems can regenerate and never waste or pollute more than ecosystems can safely absorb.
The decline of animist ontology has coincided with the rise of capitalism,
which has continued to sever our bond with nature, leading to many people embracing
the view that human nature is fundamentally destructive. Human presence has come to be
seen as a threatening corruption of the natural world. We’ve become estranged from our role as a
species of stewards. [SKIT]
“Welcome everyone to the final round of Musical Chairs Death Battle. We’ve got quite the crowd
out here today in the stadium for this fantastic finale as each round more and more teams have been
eliminated. With each round, teams have lost not just a seat on one of the coveted musical
chairs, but also their land, homes, food, livelihoods, healthcare, children and more.
Competition has gotten vicious as the tournament has continued, with former allies turning bitter
rivals as they fight to survive against the onslaught of the prevailing champions.
The Taino, the Yoruba, the Maya, the Wet'suwet'en, the Kalinago, and other fan favourites have been
knocked out by the all-time champions, Team Empire.
However, everything is on the line with this finale, as the question remains,
who will win this final chair? Team Haiti has admirably held its ground throughout
the tournament, but Team Empire looks about ready to take them out once and for all.
Let’s listen in on what’s happening on the field as the two competitors, George Hobbes-Columbus and
Jean-James Ayiti face off for the final chair. “I don't see why we're fighting man, look at all
these chairs. Clearly, there's enough to go around, so what game are we playing? There
are other ways to live with each other, be with each other where life isn't just
a competition for a place to rest. Look at us, what we're doing to each other; it's making ALL
of our lives worse off. And for what? All this violence and devastation, for what?”
“Money, power, control, it is our birthright. We are empire and won’t rest until all this world’s
chairs are ours. You will sit where ww want you to sit, you will stand when we want you to stand.
You will fight viciously amongst each other for a seat at the table like crabs in a barrel. We
will enjoy our thrones of profit, because we will own you and you will take whatever we give you.
You will struggle and you will toil for the mere button on the cushion of our footstool.
And when we win this competition,you will beg us for the right to sit.”
“Wheeww that some good ol fashioned smack talk. Welcome back to the best place you
could be on a weekday, in the presence of the spectacular, stupendous, and intoxicating
spectral of competition. I can't imagine anything more enlightening, more enigmatic,
more ebay than what we have been blessed to observe with our orbital lobes today. Mhmm you
smell that, that's the vivacious energy coming from this glorious crowd as we get ready for This
incredible finale of the Musical Chairs Enclosure Death Battle beginning right after this word from
our sponsor: Chairs for Africa. Chairs for Africa For every chair Team Colonizer wins,
they’ll graciously donate beautiully, reused, refurbished, ready to relove chairs to the
somehow impoverished people of Africa. Truly touches my hearts, we'll see you after this.”
[SKIT] We are told that human nature is selfish, greedy,
and competitive, but the truth is that we have a range of possibilities encoded in our biology.
We can be aggressive or we can be peaceful. We can be patriarchal or we can be egalitarian. We can be
cruel or we can be kind. We can be competitive or we can be cooperative. Some claim that war
has been a fact of human life basically since we carved the first spear. But war is not inevitable.
It’s a consequence of certain sociopolitical and economic arrangements. Some stateless societies
knew only peace for centuries before having to defend themselves from waves of colonization,
enslavement, genocide, invasion, disease, and more. Others claim that patriarchy and
gerontocracy are baked into human nature. They are, after all, some of the oldest forms of
oppression. But the existence of longstanding gender- and age-egalitarian societies,
such as the Mbuti and the Hadza, as well as the fluidity of gender as a concept recognised even
in prehistoric art, highlights that neither patriarchy nor gerontocracy are unassailable.
Is hierarchy human nature? Expertise may always exist in some form or fashion, but
hierarchy relies on the principle of authority, which is a social construct, subject to change,
that empowers the ruler in an ongoing hierarchical relationship to give commands and make the
subordinate obey under threat of violence. Humans have cooperatively self-governed their lives for
thousands of years without rulers. We are capable of both authoritarian and anti-authoritarian
behaviour. Avoiding authoritarianism and maintaining egalitarianism relies on a conscious
understanding of one’s material conditions and an anarchic determination to resist social
arrangements that give some people the advantages and ability to impose their will on others.
Peaceful, egalitarian societies have existed alongside patriarchal warmongers throughout
our history. Which traits predominate in our society is determined by what our material
conditions incentivise. Everyone can learn cooperative behaviour when they have the need or
desire to do so. In nearly all natural disasters, cooperation and solidarity among people increase,
and it is common people, not governments, who volunteer to do most of the work carrying out
rescues and protecting one another throughout crises. Without our capacity for altruism,
built upon the evolutionary foundation of mutual aid and cooperative child rearing,
we would not be human. That isn’t to deny the role of mutual struggle,
but it must be stressed that the dominance of greed, selfishness, and competition are an outcome
of specific social arrangements and material conditions. Whether acting in one’s self-interest
to pursue personal well-being produces cooperation or oppression is determined by the systems an
individual is embedded within. As Bri’ish philosopher Andrew Collier wrote in Marx:
A Beginner's Guide, “To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human
nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs
and saying that it is human nature to cough.” Ultimately, the conditions in our society are what
shapes what “human nature” is, how it develops, and what aspects of it are made manifest.
Egalitarian societies and hierarchical societies will shape people in radically different ways.
Both are within the realm of future possibilities. We know that human beings have the ability to
think and learn for ourselves, that we are social creatures capable of organising ourselves without
hierarchy, and that we can recognise and oppose injustice. With these three characteristics in
mind, by recognising and opposing the conditions that favour domination and proposing horizontal
social arrangements to actively reshape our powers, drives, and consciousness,
we can bring forth our liberation.
Human nature is a mythology of social control weaponised to simplify our complexity and reify
the way that present society is organized, whether via divine right, original sin, or sociobiology.
Human nature is a lazy mental shortcut to avoid confronting preconceived notions,
prejudices, and assumptions. Human nature is an effective propaganda tool limiting our
recognition of our possibilities and serving the constriction of our education and imagination.
Anarchists are accused of demanding too much from human nature. I think it’s quite the opposite.
We’re told that without the state, the world would descend into chaos. “The state protects us from
bad people.” No. As Kropotkin rightfully argued in Are We Good Enough, “both rulers and ruled are
spoiled by authority” and “both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation.”
The powerful are corrupted by power and the powerless become either servile or rebellious.
Even if human nature were as wicked as some say it is, providing avenues to power over others
would be a terrible mistake. We don’t need perfect people to spark a social revolution,
we just need people willing to question and transform our economy, politics, relationships,
technologies, cultures, philosophies, education, and identities in an anarchic
manner. It won’t happen overnight, nor will it entirely eliminate conflict between people,
but slowly and surely, fuelled by the indomitable human spirit, the social revolution will
bring out the untapped potential of freedom embedded within our so-called human nature.
We have not arrived at the end of history. Change is not only possible, it is inevitable.
All power to all the people. Peace.
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
DDIP | Pandangan tentang Hakikat Manusia
Hobbes and The State of Nature | Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan
People say altruism is selfish. They’re not wrong | Abigail Marsh
Skeptic STORMS Off the MOMENT the Preacher Says This
Retelling the story of humans and nature | Damon Gameau | TEDxSydney
🔴Os "Felizes" estão Adoecendo! Pondé
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)