> Andrew_Sawtelle at brown.edu:
> > I'm firmly in the camp that "human nature", at least a large
> > part of it, is no help at all if we're trying to create an
> > egalitarian and anti-authoritarian society. Ernest Becker has
> > some very good insights on the nature of social evil and
> > attempts to change society in "Escape from Evil". His thesis
> > is (sort of) the psychological equivalent of Dawkins: we need
> > to understand what really drives human activity at the most
> > basic level if we're going to try to create a society that
> > (probably) works in spite of those forces. > > /andrew
>
> What do you mean by "works"? Feudalism, capitalism and even
> Naziism work perfectly well for certain visions of the good
> life. Presumably you have some fundamental desire, anterior
> to utility and instrumentality, for an egalitarian, anti-
> authoritarian society, which must emanate from _your_ "human
> nature". If we're really _evil_ there's no need to change
> the world; we just need to make up our minds to enjoy it
> fully. It would be foolish to do anything else.
>
> -- Gordon
I should have said "works in opposition to" those forces. To be more specific, I mean the human need to confirm one's own importance in a seemingly indifferent universe, and to find various ways of denying one's own mortality (culture, religion, money, political power, physical force, etc.) You're right, I shouldn't have used "human nature". I don't think it's meaningless to say that people are intrinsically good or evil; I do think that certain qualities of our existence (i.e. our mortality and consciousness) will tend to produce self-aggrandizing behavior, which often leads to "evil". It can also lead to "good"; many people feel an intense need to do good in their lives, to feel that _their life means something_ in the larger scheme of things. I think it's more this force, the desire to validate one's existence (Becker usually talks about it in terms of expiation of guilt), that drives people. You could make an argument that Hitler and Gandhi (uh-oh, I'm using Hitler as an!
e! xample...) were both motivated by the same basic principle, however radically different almost everything about them is.
I only brought this up to try to make a point about revolutionary (and not so revolutionary) attempts to change society for the "better" (define that as you will). Ideologies of any stripe are powerful because they provide something that people can identify themselves with, something that exists outside of their physical bodies. You can be killed in battle, but "your cause" lives on! This kind of thinking leads to a lot of movements either going nowhere or becoming totalitarian, since they didn't really realize what was happening to them, that their ideology or revolutionary culture became an end in itself. I think that's one reason for the proliferation of partisan sects; once you've got "the" right answer to society's ills, you have to worship it tirelessly. It's very hard to accept the fact that you may be wrong, since it digs into the very core of your identity. If someone were to suddenly provide me with irrefutable proof that the many must toil away for the interests o! f ! the few and no other society is possible, I would feel as if I'd been hollowed out. And if nobody can be certain about anything, then what? It means that the universe is uncertain, that not everything has a reason for being, that we ourselves might not have any particular reason for being. Most people no longer believe that illness is caused by demons or spells cast by your enemies, but the germ theory doesn't provide that same sense of security that things, especially things we don't like or that might kill us, happen for a reason.
> From: "Brian O. Sheppard x349393" <bsheppard at bari.iww.org>
> The "human nature" debate is immensely problematic as well. I have a
> fairly large quote file of various scientists' and philosophers' opinion
> on the matter.
>
> It's hard for me not to agree with Erich Fromm here:
>
> "These and many other strivings and fears to be found in man develop as a
> reaction to certain life conditions.... None of these needs is fixed and
> rigid as if it were an innate part of human nature which develops and has
> to be satisfied under all circumstances." - Erich Fromm on greed, the
> desire for fame, and powerlust.
>
> As well as:
>
> "[The] most beautiful as well as the most ugly inclinations of man are not
> part of a fixed and biologically given human nature, but result from the
> social process which creates man."
I agree. My take on the debate is that it's at least a good idea to take a look at what we can be relatively certain about (i.e. biology) and see how far those influences extend into society and human behaviour and thought. To ignore biology completely is to deny that the processes that have shaped all life on earth somehow stop at us. If we can get a better idea of what "man" is from the biological end, it might be easier to talk about the social end, which is vastly more complex and opaque to analysis.
/andrew