Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 07-15-2007, 09:17 AM

first off, i dont understand what people are talking about when they use the term "human nature."

i dont think you are talking about anything, really: the term here seems to designate an arbitrary collection of actions which are then linked back to an even more arbitrary set of subjective dispositions.

because these actions and their "explanation" seem to be function outside of all context, it would follow that a claim for "human nature" is either (a) tautological or (b) a de facto claim for the existence of the soul.

which is quaint.

here's what that idea does.
if war is an expression of "human nature" then no=one is responsible for it.
the result is a version of the story about the scorpion trying to get across a river. he talks another animal--say a beaver (can't remember)--into giving him a ride---initially the beaver was not going to do it, but the scoprion persuaded him, saying everything is cool dont worry--about halfway across the river, the beaver feels a prick in his back and realizes that the scorpion has stung him.
"what do you do that for?" the beaver asks.
"i cant help it," says the scoprion "it's my nature..."

according to this line of thinking, then, war is a simple expression of one's nature and can therefore be neither good nor bad.
and if you imagine that this is an eternal feature of being-human, then it is a function of the Soul. if you were to run out a biologically based interpretation of the same thing, you'd end up with something like robert ardrey's work, in which the notion of the soul is simply transposed onto a vague set of biological correlates.

second problem: reverting to "human nature" to explain a political phenomenon (and war is a political phenomenon, like it or not) erases the fact of the political. it's like folk above prefer powerlessness, prefer erasing any latitude they might have to work to actually prevent war or violence or anything else. let's say that a collective is smarter than an individual (not a stretch) simply because it is a deliberative body. say that this nonsense about "human nature" is understood for whatever reason to mean something. it is possible that a group of folk could arrive at the understanding that left to themselves, life could be nasty brutish and short, but working together they might be able to check something of this "nature" and its bloody expressions. perhaps then they could try to figure out what that might entail practically.
it;d be worth a shot, wouldnt it?
but these facile references to "human nature" would lead you to think the project a waste of time.

another problem: in ALL the historical examples above, NOT ONE person took even the slightest account of how the societies that they referenced were organized internally. groups like the vikings were ordered around war bands--they operated within pestige economies that were geared materially around plunder---so the social groups were organized around war. but this is ONE TYPE of social organization and has no particular a priori privilege, even in one-dimensional non-accounts of an abstract topic like "war"---so that folk would advance societies like the vikings as examples works in a strictly circular relation with the conceptions of "human nature" that folk import.

capitalism is arguably a type of permanent war--if by war you mean systemic violence--something broader than the legal state of affairs that names conflicts between nation-states (its modern usage)....but this systematic violence is fundamentally Other than that of a plunder-based war-band type social group. the fact that you see war in both contexts does not mean that there is any continuity between them. if you argue that there is, you are making shit up.

there could be a political system that is geared around a collective decision to end war. this is not such a system. think about the functions of the present host of wars in propping up otherwise bankrupt political regimes, enabling the avoidance of structural problems with (say) the nation-state in its older form and position....the system that we live under needs war. it IS war. this claim could be demonstrated at length--but for the moment i'll leave it here. suffice it to say that the fact that capitalism IS war implicitly (systematic violence) on a continuous basis, and that this system also relies on explicit war to iron out irrationalities in its systems of production is the ongoing result of choices that WE HAVE MADE, and that we continue to make by participating in this socio-economic order. it has NOTHING to do with any abstraction concerning "human nature"--WE are responsible for the order within which we operate. "human nature" in this context is nothing more or less than a category used to legitimate an evasion of responsibility....

07-15-2007, 09:17 AM	#78 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	first off, i dont understand what people are talking about when they use the term "human nature." i dont think you are talking about anything, really: the term here seems to designate an arbitrary collection of actions which are then linked back to an even more arbitrary set of subjective dispositions. because these actions and their "explanation" seem to be function outside of all context, it would follow that a claim for "human nature" is either (a) tautological or (b) a de facto claim for the existence of the soul. which is quaint. here's what that idea does. if war is an expression of "human nature" then no=one is responsible for it. the result is a version of the story about the scorpion trying to get across a river. he talks another animal--say a beaver (can't remember)--into giving him a ride---initially the beaver was not going to do it, but the scoprion persuaded him, saying everything is cool dont worry--about halfway across the river, the beaver feels a prick in his back and realizes that the scorpion has stung him. "what do you do that for?" the beaver asks. "i cant help it," says the scoprion "it's my nature..." according to this line of thinking, then, war is a simple expression of one's nature and can therefore be neither good nor bad. and if you imagine that this is an eternal feature of being-human, then it is a function of the Soul. if you were to run out a biologically based interpretation of the same thing, you'd end up with something like robert ardrey's work, in which the notion of the soul is simply transposed onto a vague set of biological correlates. second problem: reverting to "human nature" to explain a political phenomenon (and war is a political phenomenon, like it or not) erases the fact of the political. it's like folk above prefer powerlessness, prefer erasing any latitude they might have to work to actually prevent war or violence or anything else. let's say that a collective is smarter than an individual (not a stretch) simply because it is a deliberative body. say that this nonsense about "human nature" is understood for whatever reason to mean something. it is possible that a group of folk could arrive at the understanding that left to themselves, life could be nasty brutish and short, but working together they might be able to check something of this "nature" and its bloody expressions. perhaps then they could try to figure out what that might entail practically. it;d be worth a shot, wouldnt it? but these facile references to "human nature" would lead you to think the project a waste of time. another problem: in ALL the historical examples above, NOT ONE person took even the slightest account of how the societies that they referenced were organized internally. groups like the vikings were ordered around war bands--they operated within pestige economies that were geared materially around plunder---so the social groups were organized around war. but this is ONE TYPE of social organization and has no particular a priori privilege, even in one-dimensional non-accounts of an abstract topic like "war"---so that folk would advance societies like the vikings as examples works in a strictly circular relation with the conceptions of "human nature" that folk import. capitalism is arguably a type of permanent war--if by war you mean systemic violence--something broader than the legal state of affairs that names conflicts between nation-states (its modern usage)....but this systematic violence is fundamentally Other than that of a plunder-based war-band type social group. the fact that you see war in both contexts does not mean that there is any continuity between them. if you argue that there is, you are making shit up. there could be a political system that is geared around a collective decision to end war. this is not such a system. think about the functions of the present host of wars in propping up otherwise bankrupt political regimes, enabling the avoidance of structural problems with (say) the nation-state in its older form and position....the system that we live under needs war. it IS war. this claim could be demonstrated at length--but for the moment i'll leave it here. suffice it to say that the fact that capitalism IS war implicitly (systematic violence) on a continuous basis, and that this system also relies on explicit war to iron out irrationalities in its systems of production is the ongoing result of choices that WE HAVE MADE, and that we continue to make by participating in this socio-economic order. it has NOTHING to do with any abstraction concerning "human nature"--WE are responsible for the order within which we operate. "human nature" in this context is nothing more or less than a category used to legitimate an evasion of responsibility.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite