if “human nature” is just material conditions, then it’s not “human nature” - the phrase implies something essential, and if it’s contingent and conditioned, it’s not inherent
I agree with you. One possible way to rectify the meme is to change “determined by” to “adapting to” or something along those lines. I think that’s what the meme is actually trying to say, but used the wrong words.
yeah, I think that was maybe my point, it would be a mistake to conclude “human nature is determined by material conditions” and better to say “human nature does not exist, instead human behavior is driven primarily by material conditions” - but I understand if for the sake of brevity a meme might not want to be so verbose
If anything, it is just nature. We are all related. Every fish swimming in the sea, every herb you add to your food, every bone in the ground. We are all related, and we all follow the same rules. Determined by limited resources.
hm, there is nothing that is not “nature” - that’s kinda the premise of naturalism … but that’s not the same as the meme’s point about “human nature” - which is not about whether something is natural or not, but rather about whether humans are innately or essentially something or not (in the meme whether they are selfish or altruistic).
I tend to think altruism and selfishness are probably related to environment and material conditions, but we can’t completely deny the role genetics play in behavior (even as environment helps shape those genetics).
This reminds me a bit of the Chomsky Foucault debate, where Chomsky took the position that there is such a thing as a “human nature” - using the example of human’s innate capacity to learn language. Foucault takes the position that there is nothing but social influence and environment (though he was less focused on the material and more focused on the structural / social). At least that was my understanding of the positions.
I tend to agree with Chomsky that our biology results in some “innate” capacities, though I do think we should reject essentialist views that humans are all X or Y, since the biology is so varied and what we get is not necessarily a monolith of human nature as much as a variety of human beings many or even most with some similarities. Maybe most humans are capable of learning a language, but some probably are not for various reasons (and those reasons may be innate as well, such as a genetic condition, or they may be environment such as due to abuse like social isolation during early development, etc.).
if “human nature” is just material conditions, then it’s not “human nature” - the phrase implies something essential, and if it’s contingent and conditioned, it’s not inherent
ha, thank you 😅
Yes, what’s inherent is to act according to the environment
I agree with you. One possible way to rectify the meme is to change “determined by” to “adapting to” or something along those lines. I think that’s what the meme is actually trying to say, but used the wrong words.
yeah, I think that was maybe my point, it would be a mistake to conclude “human nature is determined by material conditions” and better to say “human nature does not exist, instead human behavior is driven primarily by material conditions” - but I understand if for the sake of brevity a meme might not want to be so verbose
It uses the right words, the ones Marx did. Determined by, as in the environment is primary.
If anything, it is just nature. We are all related. Every fish swimming in the sea, every herb you add to your food, every bone in the ground. We are all related, and we all follow the same rules. Determined by limited resources.
hm, there is nothing that is not “nature” - that’s kinda the premise of naturalism … but that’s not the same as the meme’s point about “human nature” - which is not about whether something is natural or not, but rather about whether humans are innately or essentially something or not (in the meme whether they are selfish or altruistic).
I tend to think altruism and selfishness are probably related to environment and material conditions, but we can’t completely deny the role genetics play in behavior (even as environment helps shape those genetics).
This reminds me a bit of the Chomsky Foucault debate, where Chomsky took the position that there is such a thing as a “human nature” - using the example of human’s innate capacity to learn language. Foucault takes the position that there is nothing but social influence and environment (though he was less focused on the material and more focused on the structural / social). At least that was my understanding of the positions.
I tend to agree with Chomsky that our biology results in some “innate” capacities, though I do think we should reject essentialist views that humans are all X or Y, since the biology is so varied and what we get is not necessarily a monolith of human nature as much as a variety of human beings many or even most with some similarities. Maybe most humans are capable of learning a language, but some probably are not for various reasons (and those reasons may be innate as well, such as a genetic condition, or they may be environment such as due to abuse like social isolation during early development, etc.).