What is 'Human Nature' and Can it Change?

[JackDaydream]

The understanding of human nature has varied according to different thinkers. In 'Seven Theories of Human Nature', Leslie Stevenson focuses on the theories of Plato, Christianity, Marx, Sartre, Freud, Skinner and Lorenz. In Christianity, there is a distinct sense of purpose in relation to God, and there is the problem of 'original sin', with the emphasis on human nature as being flawed. In Marxism, in contrast, humans are viewed as shaped by material conditions. Skinner, in his behaviorism, saw conditioning as the main factor. The atheistic materialism of Sartre denied any essential human nature, although his understanding of the human condition was of being 'condemned to be free?

Stevenson was writing in 1974, almost 50 years ago, so his discussion does not include recent developments, such as cognitive science. However, it does provide a basis for thinking about human nature, especially the question of does it exist at all? Also, is it a too generalised idea? In addition, he raises the question as to how the theories may in themselves affect how they become. I see this as important in thinking about ideas of human nature having the potential as a form of self-fulfilling pprophecy.

The reason why I see the topic as important is about the role of humanity in the larger scheme. This ties in with the title of the painting by the artist, Gaughin, 'Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?' It also is useful in considering aspects of social and political life. Alfred Lorenz's study of animals led to a theory of innate aggression and I see this as worth thinking about in issues of war and peace. What are your thoughts about the concept of human nature and the theories, such as those identified by Stevenson, or other ones? Also, how important is thinking about human nature for philosophy and, if human nature exists to what extent can it change, or be changed?

[Bahman]

Nature by definition is the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something. You have to wait for evolution in order that it changes.

[JackDaydream]

Nature by definition is the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something. You have to wait for evolution in order that it changes.

The issue may be about what the basic features are and to what extent they change in accordance with adaptation. Different material circumstances have various impacts, including the environment and social factors through history and different geographical locations. It can be asked to what extent do the people throughout the world have universal features and to what extent are the people of the present different or identical from the people of ancient times? Also, do the individual experiences of an individual, including nature and nurture modify aspects of a person's core human characteristics?

[sahlanazneen01]

"Human nature" refers to the inherent characteristics, behaviors, and tendencies that are considered typical or fundamental to human beings. It encompasses a wide range of aspects such as cognitive, emotional, and social traits that are believed to be common across different cultures and societies.

The concept of human nature has been a topic of debate among philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists for centuries. There are various theories and perspectives regarding what constitutes human nature. Some theories emphasize certain innate qualities, such as self-interest, aggression, or altruism, while others focus on the capacity for reason, empathy, or social cooperation.

As for the question of whether human nature can change, opinions differ. Some argue that certain aspects of human nature are fixed and unchangeable, rooted in biological or evolutionary factors. They believe that while human behavior can be influenced or modified, the underlying nature remains relatively constant.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that human nature is more malleable and subject to change. They argue that cultural, social, and environmental factors significantly shape human behavior and that through education, socialization, and personal development, individuals can transform their nature to some extent.

It is important to note that human nature is a complex and multifaceted concept, and it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions. While there may be certain traits and tendencies that are deeply ingrained in human beings, individuals and societies have demonstrated the capacity for change and adaptation throughout history.

Overall, the extent to which human nature can change is still a matter of ongoing debate, and it is likely that both innate and acquired factors play a role in shaping human behavior.

[Pattern-chaser]

Stevenson was writing in 1974, almost 50 years ago, so his discussion does not include recent developments, such as cognitive science. However, it does provide a basis for thinking about human nature, especially the question of does it exist at all? Also, is it a too generalised idea?

I am a self-appointed champion of general, and "too-general", ideas. I defend them for purely pragmatic reasons — we (humans) find them useful in our thinking. In the context of human-oriented philosophy, they are a necessary consideration, I think. Outside of that, well, what use do we have for philosophy that is not oriented toward humanity, and our (philosophical) needs and aspirations?

Having said that, it is also the case, I think, that 'human nature' is a vague and diffuse collection of ideas and aspirations that appear common to many or most humans. In a scientific sense, we might say that 'human nature' is a collection, a list, of properties and attributes possessed by most humans. As such, it must have some value. But in any kind of precise context, the concept of human nature offers little of worth, that I can see.

In answer to the topic title, "Human nature" is only describable in approximate and general terms, and it can only change, as another correspondent has already observed, very slowly indeed, by means of evolution. IMO.

[JackDaydream]

"Human nature" refers to the inherent characteristics, behaviors, and tendencies that are considered typical or fundamental to human beings. It encompasses a wide range of aspects such as cognitive, emotional, and social traits that are believed to be common across different cultures and societies.

The concept of human nature has been a topic of debate among philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists for centuries. There are various theories and perspectives regarding what constitutes human nature. Some theories emphasize certain innate qualities, such as self-interest, aggression, or altruism, while others focus on the capacity for reason, empathy, or social cooperation.

As for the question of whether human nature can change, opinions differ. Some argue that certain aspects of human nature are fixed and unchangeable, rooted in biological or evolutionary factors. They believe that while human behavior can be influenced or modified, the underlying nature remains relatively constant.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that human nature is more malleable and subject to change. They argue that cultural, social, and environmental factors significantly shape human behavior and that through education, socialization, and personal development, individuals can transform their nature to some extent.

It is important to note that human nature is a complex and multifaceted concept, and it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions. While there may be certain traits and tendencies that are deeply ingrained in human beings, individuals and societies have demonstrated the capacity for change and adaptation throughout history.

Overall, the extent to which human nature can change is still a matter of ongoing debate, and it is likely that both innate and acquired factors play a role in shaping human behavior.

It is true that there are so many differing theories of human nature. Ideas about human nature and the human condition may be the cornerstone for the building of philosophy world pictures and for the organisation of social and cultural organisation. Hobbes' observation of human life as 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short' was the starting point for his idea of the social contract.

Some theories are more pessimistic than others. This includes ideas about potential changes on an individual or social level. It is possible that some of the basic ideas are used in the development of ideologies politically or mythical narratives for guidance. At this present time, there may be fragmented perspectives, with people often being seen as being like machines, based on materialistic determinism. The current situation of political conflicts, such as the Ukrainian and the negative impact of humans on the ecology of the planet often lead to a grim picture of humanity.

[JackDaydream]

Stevenson was writing in 1974, almost 50 years ago, so his discussion does not include recent developments, such as cognitive science. However, it does provide a basis for thinking about human nature, especially the question of does it exist at all? Also, is it a too generalised idea?

I am a self-appointed champion of general, and "too-general", ideas. I defend them for purely pragmatic reasons — we (humans) find them useful in our thinking. In the context of human-oriented philosophy, they are a necessary consideration, I think. Outside of that, well, what use do we have for philosophy that is not oriented toward humanity, and our (philosophical) needs and aspirations?

Having said that, it is also the case, I think, that 'human nature' is a vague and diffuse collection of ideas and aspirations that appear common to many or most humans. In a scientific sense, we might say that 'human nature' is a collection, a list, of properties and attributes possessed by most humans. As such, it must have some value. But in any kind of precise context, the concept of human nature offers little of worth, that I can see.

In answer to the topic title, "Human nature" is only describable in approximate and general terms, and it can only change, as another correspondent has already observed, very slowly indeed, by means of evolution. IMO.

It may be that the concept of human nature has become too vague because there are so many differences. Apart from in the context of people in the information age being able to see so many different philosophy perspectives there is also awareness of the understanding of science, and the social sciences, especially psychology, social psychology and sociology. These may have demystified thinking so much.

Evolution definitely seems an important factor on an adaptative level. It may also be about shifts in individual consciousness as well. There is the underlying issue as to what extent can human beings learn from mistakes in order to change in a positive way? It may be possible for people to think about the broad concept of human nature but it is also about the ability of human beings to make changes through conscious choices.

[Sculptor1]

It is simply impossible to extricate what is human nature from what is human nurture.
Take a human baby and remove all cultural and social influences - maybe put it in a box for 18 years - putting food in one end and taking the **** out of the other and you will have a perfectly "natural" human.
The other way might be to try to look at all human societies across all historical and cultural contexts and try to find all the common factots by interpolating between differences and similarities to find common ground.
All attempts do do this seem to result in a focus on the cultural biases of all who make the attempt, and it is hard to remove ones own endemic assumptions and personal indoctrinations.

One thing is for sure, we can only change it by genetic manipulation.

But it should be realised that humans, more than ANY other known living thing relies less on it's nature and more on its culture and curture than any other.
If you were to take a bunch of wolves to a different planet, leaving them as cubs feeding them secretly until they were old enough to fend for themselves, after a couple of generations they would have learned to hunt in packs without help or support.

Humans babies would develop a novel culture . Possibly something never before imagined..
You can run a thought experiement.
"Lord of the Flies" was such a thought experiment. I'm not sure how accurate it is. Would Piggy gets destroyed so easily - maybe?

[Pattern-chaser]

On the other hand, there are those who believe that human nature is more malleable and subject to change. They argue that cultural, social, and environmental factors significantly shape human behavior and that through education, socialization, and personal development, individuals can transform their nature to some extent.

Interesting post, sahlanazneen01, and welcome to our dance! I don't disagree with anything you say, but I would comment on the above words.

Your words are in the context of human nature, of course, and of how it might change. So I would observe that our evolution, in this sense, is significantly affected by "cultural, social, and environmental factors", as you say too. But I might go farther, and suggest that the *only* practical factors that influence our evolution are those you have listed. One might even observe that "education, socialization, and personal development" are ways in which we can influence our own evolution? They are not the only ways, though; we mustn't forget those "environmental factors"!

[JackDaydream]

It is simply impossible to extricate what is human nature from what is human nurture.
Take a human baby and remove all cultural and social influences - maybe put it in a box for 18 years - putting food in one end and taking the **** out of the other and you will have a perfectly "natural" human.
The other way might be to try to look at all human societies across all historical and cultural contexts and try to find all the common factots by interpolating between differences and similarities to find common ground.
All attempts do do this seem to result in a focus on the cultural biases of all who make the attempt, and it is hard to remove ones own endemic assumptions and personal indoctrinations.

One thing is for sure, we can only change it by genetic manipulation.

But it should be realised that humans, more than ANY other known living thing relies less on it's nature and more on its culture and curture than any other.
If you were to take a bunch of wolves to a different planet, leaving them as cubs feeding them secretly until they were old enough to fend for themselves, after a couple of generations they would have learned to hunt in packs without help or support.

Humans babies would develop a novel culture . Possibly something never before imagined..
You can run a thought experiement.
"Lord of the Flies" was such a thought experiment. I'm not sure how accurate it is. Would Piggy gets destroyed so easily - maybe?

Nurture does seem to play such a critical role, with childhood experiences having such a central role. This is probably recognised by most schools of psychology, although it is possible to have a happy childhood and develop later problems. Nevertheless, what happens initially does seem to be the foundation and this is probably related to neuroplasticity in the brain, learned coping mechanisms, and skills such as language development.

While I take an interest in the various models of human nature my own understanding is probably a general holistic one, based on a bio-psychosocial model. This is based on the dynamics of biology, nurture and the socioeconomic conditions.

In thinking about change I was thinking partly about ways in which humans can be changed or change themselves. The various therapies may be part of this as well as philosophy and critical thinking. This may be about understanding oneself, self-mastery and active forms of empowerment in life choices and pathways, as the pursuit of freedom.

But, yes, I was also thinking about genetic changes. The movement of eugenics is one of the ways in which people try to redesign human beings, as well as the possibilities arising within transhumanism. It may be here that the exact consequences are unknown because even though they are developing they are still being worked upon. My biggest query would be what impact these have on quality of life and human potential as opposed to being a form of 'normality' through social control.

I read 'Lord of the Flies' and found it such a vivid description. There is the search for progress and the search to go back to nature and the origins of culture. There is the tribal element and it may still exist in Western industrial societies but in a slightly different form. Perhaps Piggy would get destroyed in a different way, such as internet bullying. I mentioned Gaugin's painting, 'Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?', which was based on his interest in simpler societies outside of Western culture as he left his family to do just this. So, it may be a question of seeking technological advance or the exact opposite as experiments in change.

[Sculptor1]

It is simply impossible to extricate what is human nature from what is human nurture.
Take a human baby and remove all cultural and social influences - maybe put it in a box for 18 years - putting food in one end and taking the **** out of the other and you will have a perfectly "natural" human.
The other way might be to try to look at all human societies across all historical and cultural contexts and try to find all the common factots by interpolating between differences and similarities to find common ground.
All attempts do do this seem to result in a focus on the cultural biases of all who make the attempt, and it is hard to remove ones own endemic assumptions and personal indoctrinations.

One thing is for sure, we can only change it by genetic manipulation.

But it should be realised that humans, more than ANY other known living thing relies less on it's nature and more on its culture and curture than any other.
If you were to take a bunch of wolves to a different planet, leaving them as cubs feeding them secretly until they were old enough to fend for themselves, after a couple of generations they would have learned to hunt in packs without help or support.

Humans babies would develop a novel culture . Possibly something never before imagined..
You can run a thought experiement.
"Lord of the Flies" was such a thought experiment. I'm not sure how accurate it is. Would Piggy gets destroyed so easily - maybe?

Nurture does seem to play such a critical role, with childhood experiences having such a central role. This is probably recognised by most schools of psychology, although it is possible to have a happy childhood and develop later problems. Nevertheless, what happens initially does seem to be the foundation and this is probably related to neuroplasticity in the brain, learned coping mechanisms, and skills such as language development.

While I take an interest in the various models of human nature my own understanding is probably a general holistic one, based on a bio-psychosocial model. This is based on the dynamics of biology, nurture and the socioeconomic conditions.

In thinking about change I was thinking partly about ways in which humans can be changed or change themselves. The various therapies may be part of this as well as philosophy and critical thinking. This may be about understanding oneself, self-mastery and active forms of empowerment in life choices and pathways, as the pursuit of freedom.

But, yes, I was also thinking about genetic changes. The movement of eugenics is one of the ways in which people try to redesign human beings, as well as the possibilities arising within transhumanism. It may be here that the exact consequences are unknown because even though they are developing they are still being worked upon. My biggest query would be what impact these have on quality of life and human potential as opposed to being a form of 'normality' through social control.

I read 'Lord of the Flies' and found it such a vivid description. There is the search for progress and the search to go back to nature and the origins of culture. There is the tribal element and it may still exist in Western industrial societies but in a slightly different form. Perhaps Piggy would get destroyed in a different way, such as internet bullying. I mentioned Gaugin's painting, 'Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?', which was based on his interest in simpler societies outside of Western culture as he left his family to do just this. So, it may be a question of seeking technological advance or the exact opposite as experiments in change.

Eugenics, thankfully a now out of favour project, was based on a dream of superiority largely based on ideas of race, and class. I do not think there was ever any attempt to specifically alter or improve human nature, but to "purify" a racial type or to encourage traits that were considered characteristic of the race such as blue eyes and blond hair. It was also an attempt to expunge undesirable elements such as genetic deformities and mental deficiiencies. Thousands of people were sterilised. Not just in Germany but throughout the Western world.
It's extreme version in Nazi Germany at the moment of their defeat gave it a bad name, and with good reason.
It's sort of rearing its ugly head agains, with the promise that parents shall soon be able to chose physical characteristics. In time this will change human nature but perhaps not in positive ways of benefit to society.

In general though we are basically exactly the same species with the same nature that we had 50,000 years ago when the first cave paintings were made in France.

Evolution works slowly and humans have become so good at controling their environment that the normal slective pressures do not press upon us to change.
But there are some things that can be said of our nature.
It is natural for a human to have a propensity for langauge.
BUT this nature cannot mandate any specific langauge. A baby taken from any place on earth could be placed in any home and they would learn the local tongue, be that Swahili, Cantonese, Algonquian, or Djambarrpuyngu. There are over 7000 forms different enought to be identified as unique languages.
Chomski and others have looked into commonaiities, such as the adjective verb object constructions. But if they are natural and innate forms or formed of logical necessity through the needs to communicate is a moot point.
It seem that humans are musical and artisitic.
This is something more difficult to isolate since some individuals seem poorly equiped with skills relating to these areas. Every culture has some art and some music.
And, of course music and art are not the preserve of the human mind, in the same way a formal language is. birds are very musical and nest building can be said to be artisitic. But again all human cultures seem to have these characteristics.

I wonder if two individuals who had no sense of rhythm and not artisitic skill wishing to have children might want to engineer their genes to wipe out the vestiges of these skills over some generations, could in the full ness of time be classed as non humans??

[JackDaydream]

It is simply impossible to extricate what is human nature from what is human nurture.
Take a human baby and remove all cultural and social influences - maybe put it in a box for 18 years - putting food in one end and taking the **** out of the other and you will have a perfectly "natural" human.
The other way might be to try to look at all human societies across all historical and cultural contexts and try to find all the common factots by interpolating between differences and similarities to find common ground.
All attempts do do this seem to result in a focus on the cultural biases of all who make the attempt, and it is hard to remove ones own endemic assumptions and personal indoctrinations.

One thing is for sure, we can only change it by genetic manipulation.

But it should be realised that humans, more than ANY other known living thing relies less on it's nature and more on its culture and curture than any other.
If you were to take a bunch of wolves to a different planet, leaving them as cubs feeding them secretly until they were old enough to fend for themselves, after a couple of generations they would have learned to hunt in packs without help or support.

Humans babies would develop a novel culture . Possibly something never before imagined..
You can run a thought experiement.
"Lord of the Flies" was such a thought experiment. I'm not sure how accurate it is. Would Piggy gets destroyed so easily - maybe?

Nurture does seem to play such a critical role, with childhood experiences having such a central role. This is probably recognised by most schools of psychology, although it is possible to have a happy childhood and develop later problems. Nevertheless, what happens initially does seem to be the foundation and this is probably related to neuroplasticity in the brain, learned coping mechanisms, and skills such as language development.

While I take an interest in the various models of human nature my own understanding is probably a general holistic one, based on a bio-psychosocial model. This is based on the dynamics of biology, nurture and the socioeconomic conditions.

In thinking about change I was thinking partly about ways in which humans can be changed or change themselves. The various therapies may be part of this as well as philosophy and critical thinking. This may be about understanding oneself, self-mastery and active forms of empowerment in life choices and pathways, as the pursuit of freedom.

But, yes, I was also thinking about genetic changes. The movement of eugenics is one of the ways in which people try to redesign human beings, as well as the possibilities arising within transhumanism. It may be here that the exact consequences are unknown because even though they are developing they are still being worked upon. My biggest query would be what impact these have on quality of life and human potential as opposed to being a form of 'normality' through social control.

I read 'Lord of the Flies' and found it such a vivid description. There is the search for progress and the search to go back to nature and the origins of culture. There is the tribal element and it may still exist in Western industrial societies but in a slightly different form. Perhaps Piggy would get destroyed in a different way, such as internet bullying. I mentioned Gaugin's painting, 'Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?', which was based on his interest in simpler societies outside of Western culture as he left his family to do just this. So, it may be a question of seeking technological advance or the exact opposite as experiments in change.

Eugenics, thankfully a now out of favour project, was based on a dream of superiority largely based on ideas of race, and class. I do not think there was ever any attempt to specifically alter or improve human nature, but to "purify" a racial type or to encourage traits that were considered characteristic of the race such as blue eyes and blond hair. It was also an attempt to expunge undesirable elements such as genetic deformities and mental deficiiencies. Thousands of people were sterilised. Not just in Germany but throughout the Western world.
It's extreme version in Nazi Germany at the moment of their defeat gave it a bad name, and with good reason.
It's sort of rearing its ugly head agains, with the promise that parents shall soon be able to chose physical characteristics. In time this will change human nature but perhaps not in positive ways of benefit to society.

In general though we are basically exactly the same species with the same nature that we had 50,000 years ago when the first cave paintings were made in France.

Evolution works slowly and humans have become so good at controling their environment that the normal slective pressures do not press upon us to change.
But there are some things that can be said of our nature.
It is natural for a human to have a propensity for langauge.
BUT this nature cannot mandate any specific langauge. A baby taken from any place on earth could be placed in any home and they would learn the local tongue, be that Swahili, Cantonese, Algonquian, or Djambarrpuyngu. There are over 7000 forms different enought to be identified as unique languages.
Chomski and others have looked into commonaiities, such as the adjective verb object constructions. But if they are natural and innate forms or formed of logical necessity through the needs to communicate is a moot point.
It seem that humans are musical and artisitic.
This is something more difficult to isolate since some individuals seem poorly equiped with skills relating to these areas. Every culture has some art and some music.
And, of course music and art are not the preserve of the human mind, in the same way a formal language is. birds are very musical and nest building can be said to be artisitic. But again all human cultures seem to have these characteristics.

I wonder if two individuals who had no sense of rhythm and not artisitic skill wishing to have children might want to engineer their genes to wipe out the vestiges of these skills over some generations, could in the full ness of time be classed as non humans??

There is definitely a difference between eugenics and transhumanist agendas with a certain amount of overlap in the form of bioethics and genetic screening. The essential aim of eugenics is about elimination of what is seen as undesirable. This goes back to the thinking of the Nazis and ideas such as racial supremacy. As I understand it, the development of hormones etc for sex changes originally arose in that context of experiments with potential as a biological weapon, but, fortunately, it has been developed for people who wish for it. Generally, the idea of eugenics has been developed with a view to the elimination of disease but it does have such scope for potential abuse for people who have various disorders, including physical and mental health ones and it still exists in the form of issues in bioethics..

With transhumanism the goals are more utilitarian and even with some root in ethical hedonism, as developed in the work of David Pearce. His focus is on the elimination of suffering. However, there are still political aspects, such as the richer members of society being able to extend their lives beyond the usual lifespan.

With all these technologies, which don't alter human nature as such, but create biological modifications it may depend how they are used. It is where human nature and politics meet with potential use or abuse. It will depend on who has access and how the moral responsibilities are utilized.

[Bahman]

Nature by definition is the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something. You have to wait for evolution in order that it changes.

The issue may be about what the basic features are and to what extent they change in accordance with adaptation. Different material circumstances have various impacts, including the environment and social factors through history and different geographical locations. It can be asked to what extent do the people throughout the world have universal features and to what extent are the people of the present different or identical from the people of ancient times?

There are universal features in humans, like the ability to communicate using language, the ability to think and build tools, etc. To answer the second question, the difference between ancient people and now, you need to think of how far you want to go to the past when it comes to ancient people. Evolution in humans is a slow process, while social and technological progress were very fast. This means that humans had and maybe still have a large potential to improve their lives.

Also, do the individual experiences of an individual, including nature and nurture modify aspects of a person's core human characteristics?

I think that the human character is subject to change due to experiences, through social interaction, education, etc.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is simply impossible to extricate what is human nature from what is human nurture.

Nurture does seem to play such a critical role, with childhood experiences having such a central role.

I wonder?

If 'human nature' exists, it is a vague and general collection of traits common to humans. A bit of 'common sense' — another "vague and general" description — seems to suggest that, if nurture plays a significant role, then 'human nature' is a malleable thing, changeable by upbringing ("nurture"). Is that what we think human nature is? Or is it a collection of common traits that are intrinsic to the human species? The latter, to me, seems to hold the greatest utility for us, in this topic...?

[JackDaydream]

It is simply impossible to extricate what is human nature from what is human nurture.

Nurture does seem to play such a critical role, with childhood experiences having such a central role.

I wonder?


If 'human nature' exists, it is a vague and general collection of traits common to humans. A bit of 'common sense' — another "vague and general" description — seems to suggest that, if nurture plays a significant role, then 'human nature' is a malleable thing, changeable by upbringing ("nurture"). Is that what we think human nature is? Or is it a collection of common traits that are intrinsic to the human species? The latter, to me, seems to hold the greatest utility for us, in this topic...?

Your idea of common traits is interesting and I wonder what would these traits be? Are they aspects of body, mind, or the interplay? There may be vagueness but it is possible that behind this lies some underlying consensus. There is also the question whether human nature is about so-called objective characteristics or about the experiences of what it means to be a human being?