Metal Reviews

We hear the phrase thrown about in various forms and others, from psychologists to the everyday language of our lives. It's a phrase that's tussled with and argued about, from Heraclitus to preachers; however, it's a phrase/condition/figment that is hard to define. What do you think defines us as human beings? If you believe we define ourselves as men, then what out of the primordial ooze of culture/ideology/socity do we sculpt our character? Are we as human beings fundamentally flawed in design? Is there something deeper within human potential that can be unlocked?

I don't have a lot of time to chat right now, but the idea of what exactly defines human nature is something that always tickles me whenever I read Marx. I'm attracted to his historical materialism, what with the reciprocal relationship between people and their environments, being defined by them and in turn defining them, so in that regard it would be nice to see human nature as somewhat malleable, which would make the reason humans are oftentimes huge pricks due to the fact that the world they grew up in conditioned them to be like this. This is a nice idea, because it allows for a change in human nature, the possibility that we don't inherently have to be pricks. The thing is, I dunno how true this is. I've only ever been a part of one type of society, and that's one where people being self-serving get rewarded. I'm not sure about earlier or future ones. I mean, throughout the past, under different forms of society (this is really vague, sorry), people have still been dicks. And they seem to be continuing to be dicks into the future. So, I dunno, Mr. Marx. I like your optimism, but I dunno if I buy it.

But, I know that some other people here probably know the ins-and-outs of Marxism better than I do, so if I got anything wrong in here, lemme know.

Short answer: I would like for there to be variation and the capacity to change human nature, but I'm not sure how likely that is.

When they say "Why, why," tell them that it's human nature.

Hey Wintermute, I dig what you're saying.

I'd say there's probably a difference between some innate idea of human nature and ever-changing consciousness (which depends on material environment) in the way Marx talks about.

According to Marx there is an innate, universal thing that separates humans from animals- this is our ability, and our need, to purposefully enter into a creative process, and to design and make things that we ourselves have devised and planned autonomously. Because under capitalism, most people make things that they are told to by others, they are alienated from their own natural human creative process.

So that is an eternal characteristic of human nature, but our consciousness (which I suppose is a slightly different thing), i.e. the way we define ourselves, is in an ever-changing relationship with our material environment.

I know what you mean about wanting to see evidence of this. It's not the kind of thing that can be scientifically proved or disproved. If you fancy doing some reading, there are quite a few Marxist writers who have tried to show how human behaviour and consciousness has been shaped by economic transitions. The best one is probably EP Thompson's "The Making of the English Working Class". Thompson basically argues in minute historical detail that the progress of the industrial revolution in England totally altered the way people behaved and defined themselves.

One example that springs to mind is the way in which the growth of mechanised industrial capitalism totally altered the relationship between craftsmen and government. This is obviously a generalisation, but prior to these developments a lot of people seem to have identified strongly as English subjects who were part of a traditional, paternalistic society in which they could expect support from the government in providing for them. The expansion of capitalism basically severed that relationship, and ultimately leads to a very different understanding of "class consciousness", i.e. identifying as working class members with common interests in opposition to the emerging bourgeoisie. This is quite a radical change in people's identities, and it was driven by economic processes.

I like Marx's emphasis on creativity and work. One thing I like about Habermas though is his emphasis on communication as an essential human characteristic yet I don't know enough about him to elaborate more on it.

I like Judith Butler's attacks on essentialism and an innate human nature but I don't like where that leads politically.

Some very nice posts here.

I think the true potential of the human mind has never been tested because we have never had a classless and stateless society, not even in the peak of communism, except for the dark ages. We are being oppressed in one way or another, all of us. Those of us who are poor can only think about whether he will be able to eat tomorrow, and those of us who are rich don't have to create anything on our own because we have enough stuff to get by, and there is enough entertainment to keep us occupied for our entire lives. We either can't or don't need to push our boundaries. The governments don't exactly support it too. They are content as long as people are behaving and paying taxes. A nation full of geniuses obviously would be harder to maintain. I'm not going into conspiracy theories here, like governments secretly putting dumb medicine into our cereal. It's just that we have always given a few people control of our lives and money, be it some people from the working class or someone from the politics and they always chose to have a society easier to control rather than one where everyone is capable of and is actively criticizing things and have the power to change them. Even in democracy we are merely under an illusion that we have a say in what is happening, every 5 fucking years. Bullshit, I say.

tl;dr : kill the politicians and give the power to the people (not the working class but the WHOLE PEOPLE).

I liked the points you and Rio made about creativity, though I still find myself unconvinced that sociopolitical philosophy is the avenue to approach the issue. Maybe I'm too much of the Nietzschean or something, but utilizing your and Rio's view of human creativity; although, maybe more or less your viewing the individual through the lens of his preconceived 'purpose'. More importantly, both of you understand the effects of industry/government/ and society upon the individual. Thats where I differ with you all on the concept of creativity. Say we remove all of the social/economic aspects of an individual, how then can we approach the question in that framework? Granted we are talking about human nature as applicable to us all.

There's an important distinction here: I'm definitely NOT saying that human beings have an innate preconceived purpose. IMO that would be totalitarian. What I'm saying is that part of human nature is our ability to decide on our own purposes. However, the political and economic systems we live in interfere with that, and impress purposes upon us.

Now, I think your question is a moot one because human beings ALWAYS exist within a given social/economic system. To remove humans from a social/economic environment, if such a thing were even conceivable, would probably change the nature of that human quite considerably anyway.

You can't talk about humans minus society. If that's what you want, it would be the basic Lockean 'tabula rasa', there is nothing innate within us and we all start off blank until society acts on us. No? Creativity can be an individual act but all of us are influenced by everything to some degree which we encounter so creativity can't be in a vacuum.

Even Nietzsche's will to power as the driving force of the individual is based on a relation to others if I understand it right.

Then I'm probably putting too much into that 'existential drive' of mine. You are correct in that common sense statement that we all abide under government. Yet I was mainly taking issue with the Marxist/Capitalist drive of labor. Labor as the sole means of the ends of an individual, I am not as astute in Marxist philosophy as I'm sure you are; however, I'm thinking that even Marx understood the individual as more then a cog in a machine. As a response to Trapt's original post, yes the 'will to power' was made in response to Nieztsche's assertion of the herd. With that the driving force was that social response; and with that decision the individual at least rests with some degree autonomy. For Nietzsche, the concept of creativity, came with his relations with Wagner; so I'm not sure how it operates at our moment of conception. I can say however that it was one of the main ends for life as it's own drive.

How much do you think it would change our nature? Or social makeup; yet that question posits there is no society at all. I'm asking too much bullshit, I need to get some fresh air.

To not have any connection to society would leave us at cave man status knowledge wise, no?

Marx attack on Crusoe as a thought experiment is important here. Robinson Crusoe was shipwrecked with no society yet he created a nice way of living for himself on this island. This was trumpeted by liberalism as a victory for the individual yet Marx sought to show that Crusoe's achievements were based entirely on what he learned from European society. Without that he would've spent all his time on trial and error to see what works best to make his settlement, find food, and simply doing what it takes to survive.

Marx didn't just think drone work was our fortune. He thought anything from writing to painting to carpentry to simply using your mind to create is our essential drive. Labor in a factory isn't our ideal ends and that's an issue Marx takes capitalism to task for.

I think human nature can have certain characteristics which I assume you're going for but those characteristics are going to be shaped by society no matter what unless they raise themselves as a baby in the wilderness or a family left in the wilderness for generations.

Whatcha going to school for, Steve?

In all honesty I haven't picked up any Marx, since I borrowed Das Kapital from my high school my junior year. I'm not too keen on the Marxist school of thought. If there is one thing I truly respect the man for, was making all wages equal in his school of thought; though the social ramifications would be staggering in the years to come. His philosophy being attributed and soiled by idiots like Mao and Stalin. I'm currently majoring in English and minoring in philosophy, though I'm going to take a few semesters off and work in Louisiana with my fiance.

Making all wages equal isn't really a Marxist idea at all. Marxists are into the abolition of the wage system itself and the administration of goods and services according to need. Egalitarian wage policies etc. are much more a product of anti-Marxist social democracy.

'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is how Marx said it. Das Kapital is a bad place to start. One side of me wants to respect your high school for having it, yet the other side is bitter since they knew no high school kid could get through it and understand it. I'd recommend the 1844 Philosophical Manuscripts if you were to try starting again.

If you're interested in Nietzsche, I'd check out Foucault. His take on human nature would be that there is no such thing and most post-modern thinkers would agree. He is kinda the trendy thinker these days for most disciplines, ranging from sociology to english to philosophy. If you ever have a chance to take literary theory courses I would do so. Back on subject, Foucault would say human nature is non-existent and we simply develop through our interactions with institutions and how they impose themselves on us. I think that's a pretty valid idea.

Yeah I finished Kapital a few months ago... very hard work. It's much more a critique of capitalist economics than a philosophical statement about human nature, though.

Yeah, from what I've read of Kapital, I wouldn't recommend that for his views on human nature (I'd be interested to see what people think about how well his argument holds up if you disagree with his labor theory of value, though. Perhaps for another thread).

1844 is pretty cool, yeah, which is where some of his stuff on the species being/connectedness with nature shows up. In regards to that, I guess I was approaching the idea of nature from the question of "are/do people have to be inherently self-serving/are we destined to be pricks" or is that a socialized trait? I would think, due to some instinct of survival ( ), perhaps it is, but even then, I think that only suitably functions for me on a smaller level. What I mean is, I can see how that instinct would prompt me to kill somebody who is trying to take my food in some post-apocalyptic wasteland/state-of-nature, but not so much explain how things like the Holocaust get started. I don't know. His idea of humans inherently seeking to be connected with one another, nature, and shape the world around them doesn't really approach that, I guess.

And Rio, I'll have to check out that EP Thompson book sometime, it sounds interesting.

I just picked up Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" which is over 100 years old, but is interesting, and apparently still stasnds up, as an argument that collective aid is a basic human survival instinct, and all the most successful species' (humans included) have demonstrated an innate human ability for mutual aid. Not read it myself yet, though.

From what little evolutionary anthropology I know, altruism is a productive trait that is seen throughout the animal kingdom.