It may seem strange that the fact that is man's nature would become a question of opinion, but it is the nature of the nature of man that causes this discrepancy. Being humans ourselves, any conclusion we make about ourselves risks sounding conceited. Regardless of what we hold man's nature to be, coming from us it loses believability, at least in the eyes of our peers. Not only this but experiments to gain a more factual basis as to man's true nature can't take place without public outcry. After all, in order to get a man to act as he would 'by nature' the most logical situations would be either inflicting situations on a man that force him to abandon reason and act purely by instinct, or else a child raised completely isolated from the influence of others, neither of which would be well-recieved by the public, for obvious reasons.
But let's say that we were to preform these experiments, putting aside their ethicality for the time being. Even then, making any judgements about the 'nature of man' is problematic, to say the least. Because we are trapped within the world around us, and similarly must be preforming any experiments on the subject from within out world, it becomes very challenging to isolate what is human nature and what arises from outside stimulus. Even the very phrase the 'state of nature' is problematic, because nature offers its own set of factors to alter he way a man acts.
Like many philosophical problems, definitions muddle much of our understanding of the subject. For example, should 'state of nature' be defined as how a man would act without outside stimulus or how he would act literally in nature (assuming no interference from civilization in any way). Moreso, what many are looking for when they look into the 'nature of man' is whether or not humans are inherently good or evil. 'Good' and 'Evil' themselves are highly subjective ideas, and so the entire argument is reliant on givens that are not at all universal facts.
In fact, I would extend this to much of philosophy in general. For a quick controversial example, take atheists and Christians. Atheists say the world is like this, and Christians say it's like that. However, both sides assume that God does or does not exist, which, no matter how hard either side may try, there is inherently no way to prove absolutely the status of God's existence. Despite this, if God is true, then Christians are right, just, and doing exactly what they should be. On the other hand, is God is false, then the conclusions Atheists have come up with are the valid ones. What I'm getting at is that no matter how much we argue about such things (or grudgingly hold our silence, as the case often is in this day and age) there is just no way to conclude anything without this simple true/false answer.
Philosophy is problematic because due to its very nature it is impossible to be based in fact, and so even after an unlimited amount of philosophical theory it is still impossible to say things are truly one way or another.
Well, I assume the question being asked here is whether or not we are able to have constructive arguments about the nature of man. The answer provided in the argument seems to be no. In fact, the argument even goes so far as to say we cannot have constructive arguments about any subject that does not have definitive answers. I will agree that the nature of man, good and evil, God, etc. are all subjects that have inherently impossible questions to answer, but I flatly disagree that those questions do not deserve discussion and that those discussions are valueless. When we talk of the ‘State of Nature,’ we are talking about man outside of civilization. Does man act differently when societal influences disappear? It is by definition a classic nature vs. nurture dilemma. Yes, it may be true we cannot fully understand how humans interact outside of social contracts, but we have centuries of experience showing how man acts when those contracts are ignored. Civil war is an exemplary case study on how man acts when law is void. There are experiments showing how we respond to authority. There are experiments on group mentality. There are experiments on how we act when alone. Outside of these experiments on human behavior, there is also the internal examination of one’s nature. The dark thoughts one has even as a morally obedient agent: incest, rape, murder, theft, torture, suicide, etc. There are light thoughts too: beauty, compassion, love, family, friends, etc. It is only possible to avoid action, but thought is something we all experience and should be able to admit to. When we attempt to postulate about our general nature we must not only look to experimental evidence of behavior, but also into our own experience with ourselves. I believe I know myself and my thoughts well enough to relate to others on the basis of thought. Maybe I can only relate best to males, but each voice heard in that argument will bring the participants closer to the reality. Subjects with defined answers cannot be argued. Philosophy is the love of truth. When a subject as immeasurable as God is introduced, a true answer is less valuable than true belief. To find a location on a blank map, one must begin discovering. If we use the totality of human experience as our compass, we inevitably blaze a trail to truth.
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up many major issues and so I will choose one to deliberate and leave the others aside for the moment.
Yes, the Nature of Man is a highly controversial thing, and the state of nature is a purely speculative exercise. This does not mean it is not valuable as an exercise in philosophical thought, and it not does it mean that Philosophy as a whole is an indeterminate subject. We should not back off simply because people disagree, and the path to a determinate answer is ambiguous. The whole point of these speculations is to determine whether or not humanity is governed by a set of a priori laws. That is, laws that are a part of us by virtue of being human. On this subject, philosophy has made great gains. Many famous philosophers (Immanuel Kant, David Hume, and Aristotle) have contributed major gains to today’s views of the nature of human understanding, and this has great effects on how we approach things such a teaching and learning.
Before addressing those concerns, I want to point out a common mistake that you have made. Most people who read the various accounts on the state of nature tend to juxtapose the arguments between one for inherent good and another for inherent evil. In reality, most philosophers are merely asserting whether humanity is inherently violent, self-concerned, docile, or altruistic. So the ideas concerned are more concrete than good and evil. I think your criticism there is unfounded, and the exercise is not the obviously problematic and simple good vs. evil that you make it out to be.
Moving on, these speculations have given rise to different ideas that are more plausible. For example David Hume does away with the idea of a state of nature all together. He bypasses it on the assertion that everything humanity does and learns is only learned via experience. That is, humans have no inherent disposition. Kant, on the other hand, logically develops a system that creates a priori laws that deal with our perception of the world around us. Admittedly these do not have immediate ethical implications, but they do provide some direction as regards human nature
Regarding Aristotle, he presents the idea that humans are by nature able to learn things via habituation. He asserts that all vice and virtue arise simply by acting one way or the other. This has had profound effects on society throughout the ages, as have the theories presented by Kant and Hume. Aristotle’s virtue ethics, for example, has influenced humanity in such a way that we now are concerned with the habits our children pick up. We make habituate actions that will develop good character just as Aristotle describes in his Nicomachean ethics. I think , after all of our experience, we see that what Aristotle claimed has some truth to it.
Of course, the only thing required to refute an empirically based argument is the opposite experience. Given that, nothing is ever certain, but I still think we are able to find some truth.