It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's discuss "human nature"

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   
In the recent AMA with Stan Schatt, I saw him on multiple occasions saying "because of human nature..", "human nature this or that.." etc., like if you could put anything in the expression "human nature" and that it would magically explain itself. Now when someone uses the expression "human nature", it is usually to show how greedy, or how aggressive or how stupid humans are in general. But where does that information come from ? If it is statistical, where is the data ? And how could someone possibly hold data about everything that every human ever did ? It is impossible. And even if it was possible, this database would have to be updated every second, and even then, it would say nothing about future events, it would say nothing about future humans. And this is the problem : what we think about ourselves as a species has an effect on how we behave as a species and also individually. How we define ourselves is what is shaping us, and our future. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I think that myself and everyone else are greedy rabid dogs, then I won't expect anything else but the behavior of a greedy rabid dog from others, and I myself will behave like that.

Everything is potential. Humans can be greedy if the circumstances force them to, but they can be altruist if the circumstances allow them to. The only 'human nature' that I acknowledge is that we have needs, physical needs that have to be satisfied, the rest is totally dependent on the circumstances that the environment offers us. We have built a society on premises that are not based on science but on ideology, we have built a system that reflects what we think about ourselves and in return the system shapes us. It is a never ending cycle, one that we have to break.

You disagree ? You still believe that human nature = greed ? Then answer this : why aren't human beings making stocks of breathing air ?




posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

You can't start the discussion by talking about humans. Go to our core, the fact that we are high-order animals with a twist. The twist is being able to reason (at times) beyond our "animal nature."

You say: "The only 'human nature' that I acknowledge is that we have needs, physical needs that have to be satisfied, the rest is totally dependent on the circumstances that the environment offers us." You have accurately described the problem with human nature right there, our tendencies for our aggressive, natural ways to be utilized in "civilized" manners, so to speak, to get what we need/want.


Those "needs" --projected way out of proportion by our big brains--are based on what the individual "I" wants from others and the environment. That isn't working. We can do better, I agree with you on that, but the aggression of the human animal must be tamped down a few notches to see any meaningful rise in a more social representation of human nature. (But then that may edge us into a "hive" mentality and is that the true nature of human nature we should seek?)

Other than cutting out sections of DNA in the human animal to reduce our inclinations to aggressively fulfill of our needs, perhaps the key is outside control. Humm! Is that the methodology at work with this 100% surveillance strategy being pushed on modern societies? Behavior modification, social engineering, not by peer pressure but by explicit government control via machines?



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Greed is human nature?
I can't help but chuckle and shake my head gently.

You know, sometimes I post something which is a reaction to the specific environment I have been recently exposed to...
In my period of reflecting upon the ideas, which were agreed upon premises about reality in that group of people,
I kinda forgot that they were specific to that group. I started talking about it to others as if it was more widely known, a global attitude.

And a lot of people went "what??? Where did you hear that? I don't think that, I don't know anyone who does think that... what is this "everyone thinks.." thing you are going on about?"


Sometimes what we are calling "human nature" is actually just the nature of the particular humans we've been hanging around with lately....

edit on 10-3-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

I like your critical thinking . You don't just accept a term because its acceptable or oft used.

The word nature is vague enough.

definition

Combining it with human is even worse. Human Nature as a descriptive term is like saying Mountain Nature or Weather Nature, it doesn't mean anything.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn


Good post ..after reading through Stan Schatt's responses to the members questions I came away thinking he is a voice that I cant really link to . We all have a self and like you say our environment dictates how we as individuals preserve self . Our society which is only a part of the environment causes us to conform more so then transform . We seem to be moving further away from a family type unit to a collective type one . Greed can be looked at subjectively or objectively and I think a persons world view will dictate how we judge it . We didn't get this far based solely on ideology but on a love of family .

With the conforming of society moving away from that basic unit I think there is a good chance of one loosing the basic self and family to a dictate that has been formulated in mathematical statics and imposed and therefor eliminating the natural transformation to the environment we find ourselves in . There is a good reason why the Inuit have 80 words for snow ,and why people of the amazon don't .

Collecting data has a ideological purpose .I remember reading a member of a fairly young Christian group that were growing substantially but from outside eyes didn't make sense . The reason was that from all of the standard models they were aware of the increase in this group didn't fit with all the others . Them being concerned asked to fill out their data sheets to try and understand what was happening . The data sheets and the answers that were given gave no indication as to the reason for the success .

IMO the results they were having had more to do with what they were not doing then any thing they were doing .A person can be swayed with persuasive mathematical formulations and ideological rhetoric or they can be convinced and transformed by observing their environment . We are subjected daily to a false reality to move us to conform to where they need us to be and not where we should be ...fight the machine ...



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

Hello gosseyn. You raise some great points. I, also, do not agree with the negative connotations invoked by the phrase, "Human Nature". The implied negativity toward our "nature" is used as an excuse for our inner and outer cultivation of negativity and suffering, and also serves as a justification for our apathy and egotistical judgements of others. Making "Human Nature" synonymous with negativity is limiting, and as you said; "a self-fulfilling prophecy."


nature (n.)
From Old French nature "nature, being, principle of life; character, essence," from Latin natura "course of things; natural character, constitution, quality; the universe,"


"Human Nature" is the collective character qualities observed in humans. Humans are capable of the utmost good or the most horrible evil. We may be completely selfish or selfless. We can cultivate Love, Hate, Peace, or Suffering. We may function according to wisdom and understanding, or we may act according to foolish ignorance. We are brave, strong, and determined, or fearful, vulnerable, and irresolute. We are leaders or followers. We are the extremes on both sides of the spectrum and all of the intensities in-between. All of this, and more, encompasses our nature as humans.

I have observed our media-culture conditioning and strengthening certain qualities of our nature, while subverting and neglecting other qualities; social-engineering. Today, much of our "Human Nature" has been manipulated by popular culture, to the point where we are confused about what our nature really is. "It Is What It Is".


[I am of the opinion that duality is actually different perspectives of the same 'one thing' (non-duality), and that aspects of "good" and "evil" are personal, group, or societal subjective-opinions.]



edit on 3/10/15 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Perhaps Stan Schatt was merely attempting to gain more influence through consistently using "Human nature" to make the audience feel like they could relate easier. Or maybe he tried using it as a way to consistently avoid and dodge questions easily with little resistance. That's just my opinion.
But who the hell knows what he was thinking except for him.

At least someone pointed out how many times it's used as a scapegoat.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: gosseyn

The only 'human nature' that I acknowledge is that we have needs, physical needs that have to be satisfied, the rest is totally dependent on the circumstances that the environment offers us.


I agree with you. As I understand it, our founding fathers agreed with you as well. But they called it "natural law" which spoke to our basic needs and our attendant rights to fulfill these needs -- natural rights, or what was called inalienable rights in our Declaration of Independence.


We have built a society on premises that are not based on science but on ideology, we have built a system that reflects what we think about ourselves and in return the system shapes us. It is a never ending cycle, one that we have to break.


Again, I agree, and I believe the founding fathers agreed with you as well, hence our Constitutional Republic, guaranteeing and protecting these natural rights in accordance with natural law. Human nature is far more subjective and elusive. We know that everyone needs food, water, air, shelter, etc. This is natural law, and we have natural rights to provide these needs for ourselves. But those who want to control our access to such, and therefore control the people, have worked hard to obscure our rights under natural law, and therefore, under our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I also think we agree -- but correct me if I'm wrong! -- that most people are pretty much live and let live. Most people don't care what other people are doing, as long as they are not a threat to us. For example, if we have enough food, etc., we have no reason/desire to take anyone else's food. It's only when our ability to supply our needs are threatened that we look at others as a threat. That's natural law, as our survival instinct overcomes our reason.

Hence, the need by those who wish to control us -- and our ability to fulfill our needs -- to divide-and-conquer and keep us fighting with each other, suspicious of each other, jealous of each other, etc.

So, as I read your OP and the excellent points and questions raised therein, I am once again reminded that what we as a nation need to return to is natural law complete with our inalienable natural rights, as intended. It was our respect for natural law and natural rights that formed the foundation for our once American Exceptionalism.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn
It's the old "nature vs nuture" debate, and one I've had many times. The problem is, we no longer understand the difference as individuals, or as a society. Most people just default to "human nature" out of ignorance. It's a never-ending debate that seldom has a resolution.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Thank you for explaining it that way .It does give a better definition when considering the declaration of human rights as one of nurture from nature and the basic natural man . A good thing to embed in our minds eye . tks



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Boadicea

Thank you for explaining it that way .It does give a better definition when considering the declaration of human rights as one of nurture from nature and the basic natural man . A good thing to embed in our minds eye . tks


You're welcome. It's a subject near and dear to my heart, but I often have trouble putting it into words, so I'm glad it made sense!

I believe natural law and natural rights are the foundation for human rights -- but without the divine connotations, which are easily hijacked into religious terms. But our founding fathers were careful to avoid any dogma associated with organized religion, and defined the source as "nature's god." Not the Judeo-Christian God, etc.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Yes and it made sense to do that .Gives the freedom to worship ones own God/god or god's without the dictates .Coming from Europe and that society they knew how church and state needed to be separated .



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Boadicea

Coming from Europe and that society they knew how church and state needed to be separated .


Exactly! Starting with their rejection the "divine right" of kings and queens to rule and dictate to the masses, in the grand tradition of the Magna Carta... or, to use its full title, the Magna Carta Libertatum -- the "Grand Charter of Liberty," the first document declaring and affirming the natural rights of all people. Hence George Washington's rejection of the title of "king" and the adoption of "presidents" chosen by the people. As well as the stipulation in the Constitution that there would be no religious litmus test for presidents.

They also understood that this was especially true even within the Christian faith; specifically, the Catholic Church versus the Protestants, or those "protesting" the doctrinal errors/differences and/or abuses of the Catholic Church. The Inquisition, the "burning times," the English Civil War, even the Crusade against the Cathars, were all a tragic result of church influencing state affairs and vice versa.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified

It's the old "nature vs nuture" debate...


To me, both premises are flawed because it's not an either/or situation; we are a product of the combination of nature and nurture.

Just ask any parent with more than one child! They will tell you that no matter how fair, equitable and balanced they try to be, each child is an individual and will respond according to their own nature. Probably one of the greatest challenges for parents -- at least for me.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I don't think I am human. I sure do not act like most people I know. They are impulsive, I think things over before doing things, especially if I put what I have worked for over the years at risk.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Klassified

It's the old "nature vs nuture" debate...


To me, both premises are flawed because it's not an either/or situation; we are a product of the combination of nature and nurture.

Just ask any parent with more than one child! They will tell you that no matter how fair, equitable and balanced they try to be, each child is an individual and will respond according to their own nature. Probably one of the greatest challenges for parents -- at least for me.

Agreed. But the debate is always over which characteristics of humans are nature, vs which ones are nuture. There's an old 3 stooges episode that irreverently addresses the topic. lol.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified

There's an old 3 stooges episode that irreverently addresses the topic. lol.


Haha! I'll have to look that up when Hubby gets home. He loves the 3 stooges... I always preferred Abbot and Costello... but I'll have a gander. Thanks!



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
This debate is often framed in terms of good and evil. That is because we live in a culture where we are conditioned to think in those terms. You know the story, Eve ate from the tree which was called “The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.” Did that change her (and our) Human Nature in some fundamental way? I would say no, it did not. It created a habit energy, but that is not the same thing in my view.

I think Human Nature is part of our in-born instincts. For instance "Fight or Flight", was human nature when the caveman saw danger coming toward him, and knew to run. This Fight or Flight response is programmed in our DNA; however, our NATURE to attack (when we think someone else is attacking us) is more of a conditioned response. That is to say what is often called our human NATURE is how we learn to adapt and/or overcome our instincts and impulses to best serve our needs in the society in which we find ourselves. In short, we learn coping strategies that we THINK will keep us safe from harm, even when the “harm” we FEAR is just social embarrassment or other some other non-physical threats to our individual or group identity.

The culture in which you live has habit energy, in a Buddhist culture you find human nature is basically good, in a Capitalist culture where greed, power, and war are the habit energy you find human nature is basically selfish/evil. Is it possible to overcome or adapt this habit energy, Yes, I think so. We have the power within our Human Nature to do so. And we can thank the Maker for that.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I listened to John Taylor Gatto speak about our western form of education . He brought up this reward/punishment aspect that didn't fit within Classical forms of education and how it was a tool to create the divisions in order to control the individual . With the mob mentality it's so easy to put pressure on people to conform or be isolated and ridiculed .

The whole good evil debate takes a new meaning and what may be natural is considered evil because it does not fit the collective .Makes it much easier to control a heard then a bunch that has not been domesticated into a specific group .We see this nurture element within the animal kingdom where a dog may nurse a cat or some other animal . I think this is a inherent aspect of humans as well where we will nurture back to health animals that need help .We also see this with other peoples around the world when the cry goes out .

TPTB know this and look to create and infuse themselves into the flow of compassion to the victims . Nefarious NGO and trust funds that just seem to disappear . I think of Haiti and the group on the white house lawn .



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
A human chooses whatever he believes will make him feel better.

A human doesn't like to labor, and will labor the minimum amount possible.

"Human Nature" is confused with psychological conditioning. All humans would function better with a general and fundamental understanding of society, economics, science, and history.

Every one has a theory of everything in their head. It is what decisions are based on. The theory of everything is the basis of human nature.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join