"Human Nature" is Tautological

[JoeTube27]

Environment changes and determines BEHAVIOR not Nature.

[GStolyarovII]

What is the difference?

[JoeTube27]

No one is born with Greed and hatred, you pick up that behavior within your environment. Human nature to me works on a biological level, hunger, urination, and so on. No one is born a Nazi or a KKK hate monger, it's All behavior. We need to make the distinctions so we can design the flaws of our negative behavior out of society. Laws and politicians do nothing. Writing laws to stop behavior is a sign that we have designed society to fail.

[GStolyarovII]

I agree that laws are not nearly as effective as most people suppose. However, a broader truth is that incentives do guide (although they do not determine) human behavior. These incentives come partly from the legal and law enforcement environment (which can be, on net, beneficial or harmful) but also come from other institutions -- including businesses, technology, the media, cultural organizations, families, schools, the Internet, etc.

[GStolyarovII]

For me, "human nature" is simply "what humans are." Part of that is inherent to human biology -- mostly physiological functions -- which a large part is open to human choice and influenced by external circumstances.

[JoeTube27]

I agree. Well said.

[Sinuev1]

Oh, and out of context and off point - considering your aside to the popular Washington myth as a popular American moral hero; I'm always compelled to cite Thomas Paines final correspondence to him

"And as to you, Sir, treacherous in private friendship (for so you have been to me, and that in the day of danger) and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any."

[Sinuev1]

I'm of the mind to agree with Dennett and Pinker in that as our understanding of the cognitive mind increases, it seems less and less likely there is anything in us resembling free will on the individual level, except as a cognitive illusion. It's not a matter of defeatism, but of where the evidence seems to be leading. Yet even if we acknowledge the illusion, we cannot step outside of it. No more than acknowledging an optical illusion causes it to dissipate.

[Sinuev1]

As such, the acknowledgment of the illusion wouldn't fundamentally change the way we perceive and interact in the world - though it will provide greater future insight and understanding.

Saying that man who projects his vices belligerently on others due to a perceived iniquity may well be correct in that analysis, yet also incomplete. Trauma or innate disorders in the prefrontal cortex has long been associated with increased violent behavior and lack of empathy and inhibition.

[Sinuev1]

Such an understanding of the more fundamental causes, rather than just the associated iniquity and perceived reason for it  (which may change often), will better help develop and prescribe reatments or therapy if necessary.

Further, if there is no free will, it doesn't necessarily follow that personal responsibility for actions is abandoned. Lack of free will does not imply unresponsiveness to the environment. The deterrent that punishment provides for breach of the social contract is only

[Sinuev1]

--effective if it is enforced. However, even in ideal circumstances, those deterrents are not going to prevent all instances of transgression. There will always be outliers where the right specific measure of cognitive faculties and combination of environmental pressures will choose the other side of the risk vs. benefit analysis.

And as Zimbardo & Milgram have shown, our behaviors are ultimately more to the whim of environmental circumstance than most would comfortably attribute to free will

[Sinuev1]

... and i don't really want to get into the cultural dynamics and differences of vice, virtue, and avenues of reciprocity, etc, play on modifying this.

I guess to sum it up; I don't outright disagree with your video's conclusion.. but only as a facet of a larger whole which only serves to limit one's world view if promoted disproportionately for ideological promotion or civic minded concern of the imagined potential social consequences.

[Sinuev1]

Those who seek to justify or promote their means for the absolute accomplishment of their desired ends will find a way to do so - regardless of what science says anyhow

Say sexuality has just genetic or determined in utero, and bigots will label it a disease and seek to cure it. Say it's purely cultural or family environment, and bigots will try to oppressively "counsel/pray/beat the gay away". Say its influenced on multiple levels of complex interaction, they'll claim you're inventing stories

[GStolyarovII]

Thank you for your interesting discussion.

I must, however, disagree with any kind of determinism regarding human motivations. I believe that genuine free will is real because I experience it directly. Like any other direct human experience -- say, the experiences of the five senses -- free will can certainly be further understood and clarified by references to the biology and chemistry of the brain, but it cannot be *refuted.* We experience it directly, and so it is self-evident.

[GStolyarovII]

Of course, past experiences, biological states, the immediate environment, and other factors can all shape a person's philosophy, incentives, available options, and other factors that go into making a choice. But the ultimate decision always rests with the decision-maker himself -- with that immediate faculty of awareness and response that triggers the action or the lack thereof.

[GStolyarovII]

I do believe that every choice is caused, and most choices have explicit motivations for them. However, to be caused is not the same as to be determined. The decision-maker could have decided either "A" or "not A" -- even if deciding one of these were to be completely inconsistent with his prior decisions and influences. It is in this sense that we can, for instance, say that concentration camp guards have moral responsibility for their actions, despite their prior upbringing and conditioning.

[GStolyarovII]

I may make a video on this subject in particular at a later time, as it certainly deserves further and more in-depth discussion.

[SecularInquisitor]

I could not agree more. I grew up poor, but I CHOSE not to become a thief. I think it comes to those that chase those little "highs" described in your video on Happiness which is how a person internalizes various influences (including entertainment). Much is a choice though I am either unconvinced or uncaring about the choice/genetic anomaly of being homosexual. What consenting adults do w/one another is of no concern to me. Start involving kids, then it's a different story altogether.

[GStolyarovII]

@SecularInquisitor Thank you for your insightful comment!

[LowestOftheDead]

Unusually well-argued for You Tube. I mostly agree, with a few minor deviations:

1) While I wholeheartedly agree that much of 'human nature' is learned, and that certain false notions of human nature have been used to advance conservative political agendas, nonetheless the very cultural malleability of human behavior presupposes certain common drives and capabilities. These necessarily play a central role in moral and political argument.

[LowestOftheDead]

2) I also object to the individualistic standpoint. While the individual is certainly a legitimate topic for philosophical inquiry, I tend to start with a conception of society as an organic whole that precedes and shapes the individual. For that reason, I think it unlikely that it would be possible to exhaustively re-educate individuals in virtue under the capitalist system. As I see it, capitalism rewards selfish behavior. (And no, Soviet Communism was not a better alternative.)

[LowestOftheDead]

Still, awesome argument!

[ocelot814]

And who defines what's "good"? Individuals right? So what are you talking about? The problem IS individualism since people can use that idea to excuse certain behaviors.

[modelmark]

what if 'free will' defined as free from the causality of the unfolding of the laws of nature, does not exist in reality?

[PureLiberalRadio]

Wonderfully reasonable and intelligently-argued commentary, Gennady! :-)

All individuals are born and live free (absent bad government). FATALISM is another mistaken concept, and poor excuse for failing or doing evil.

Individual humans and their largely-maleable and volitional nature can be readily improved. So too inherent human nature via eugenics, genetic manipulation, and even 'mating' with machines and computers. People call this fascinating and ultra-important subject "transhumanism."

[GStolyarovII]

Indeed; I think that, through technological improvements -- including stem cell therapies and genetic engineering -- many of the biological inadequacies that currently plague many human beings and motivate them to do wrong (or not to do right, as they might have otherwise wished) will be corrected.

Also, if death itself is conquered, human beings will tend to take longer-term perspectives on life and on the consequences of their actions.

[ticobassie]

Great video. I particularly liked the observation that 'bad' habits are attributed to 'human nature' more than 'good' habits. You did not say so explicitly, but do you think this is a legacy of Christian thinking, or does it run deeper than that?

[GStolyarovII]

Thank you for your comments!

I do think that Christian thinking contributes a lot in the West to this negative view of "human nature," but I think the view may more generally be a legacy of times when vice and crime were much more prevalent than they are today. The "all men are evil" theme can be found in numerous other ancient religions and philosophies of the West and East; while it may have been based on empirical observation at the time it was developed, it may also hinder future progress.

[ModelAnarchist]

For the most part; humans tend to treat others as they are treated, especially during their developmental stage.

[gir908922]

You gave me something to think about. I like you even more. ^___^

[GStolyarovII]

Thank you! I am glad that I fulfilled my intent with this video.

[FlightIsLife]

Fantastic, well done.

[GStolyarovII]

Thank you!

[Akatam0t0ma]

Well articulated! I never pondered about the term "human nature" before watching this video, and now that I think of it, "human nature" is what we humans make of it.

[GStolyarovII]

My point exactly. Thank you for your kind words!

[TheElMoIsEviL]

There is no such thing as human nature. Only human behavior. One can often predict human behavior based on environmental variables. Alter the environment and you alter the behavior.

[GStolyarovII]

Thank you for your comments.

I would say, "Alter the environment, and you alter the incentives, which may alter behavior." I do think that people have free will and can choose to resist even overwhelming environmental influences -- but people on the margin will be swayed one way or the other by environmental changes.

[fraterla93y]

I've been arguing this theme with some co-workers for a while, thanks for articulating your position so well.

[GStolyarovII]

You are most welcome. I am glad that you found my video to be useful to your discussions.

[lunaris19]

Great video. Thank you for posting. *****

[GStolyarovII]

You are most welcome, and thank you for watching!

[Epydemic2020]

Interesting.

I think that as "having color" is part of a cats nature, "committing immoral actions" is a part of human nature.

It is impossible to have a 20 year old human who has never done something immoral.

I also don't think I have ever met someone (who wasn't an infant) who had never told a lie.

[alittlebitofperil]

But what is moral? It depends on where you come from - it might be considered immoral if that lie will actually really hurt someones feelings (telling them they are ugly) - just as it might be considered immoral if you DIDN"T tell someone the truth (their husband was cheating on them for example)

[ticobassie]

Epydemic2020 wrote: I think that as "having color" is part of a cats nature, "committing immoral actions" is a part of human nature.

If your analogy is correct then it follows that just like cats can not "not have color", human beings can not exist whilst not committing immoral actions. This would render the Tree of Knowledge and Evil story a myth.

Fortunately most children not indoctrinated by their parents into believing the Bible, do not need fancy arguments to consider that story a myth.

[Epydemic2020]

Ticobassie

I don't think that those people who subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis would be behaving inconsistently given your particular example. Humanity would acquire a "sin nature" at the point of sin. Adam's original nature and his son's nature would not be the same under that view.

I don't think that particular argument would make it a myth, but would instead merely affirm that human nature was different pre-fall.

[ticobassie]

Alright, but then Adam and Eve were accompanied by a colorless cat in the Garden of Eden ;-)

[izovire]

I've shoplifted before... was it a bad choice? To others it certainly was...

Nice explanation of "human nature" as being more "individual nature"

[DesertLaser]

Great vid! Looking forward to the next one:

[GStolyarovII]

Thank you! I hope to have the next video available within a week.

[ThePointlessPoint]

Wise words

[GStolyarovII]

Thank you!

[EsotericThrone]

The same description of man's "nature" is actually in most of his books, serving as a necessary foundation for his explanations of human character orientations and etc. But anyway, I'm not sure how I tripped onto your channel, but I'm glad I did. If I'm not mistaken, you're an atheist libertarian humanist who is also interested in "life extension" a la Kurzweil and de Grey. Fascinating!

[GStolyarovII]

Thank you for your kind comments. Your description of me is indeed correct.

I have not read any Fromm, although I have read a little of him. The thesis of his that you describe seems to resemble the mindset of Goethe's Faust as well -- the idea of the human mind having limitless potential but being shackled by a frail and mortal body . My answer to this conundrum is for mankind to eventually achieve physical longevity and indefinite vitality. Certainly, fewer people will feel inadequate then!

[EsotericThrone]

Listening to this I couldn't help but wonder if you've read any Erich Fromm. In his small book "The Heart of Man" he reformulates the classic questions about man's nature and answers in terms of an "essence". Without elaborating too much, this human "essence" is created by inherent contradictions in his existence - that he transcends nature via his self-awareness and yet is chained to nature via his mortality. This births man's psychic dynamics and general anxiety. It's interesting, I think.

[FeinArtFilms]

Wonderfully and logically explained.

[GStolyarovII]

Thank you!