What is the best way to explore human nature?

[Pixel--Dude]

Some questions about human nature:

What is the best way to explore human nature? Is it biology, psychology or philosophy?

Is human nature constant or molded by culture? Can culture completely change human nature?

[Santander]

Study history.

Or read Dostoevsky.

[Lucas88]

Some questions about human nature:

What is the best way to explore human nature? Is it biology, psychology or philosophy?

Is human nature constant or molded by culture? Can culture completely change human nature?

Biology, psychology and philosophy are all ways through which one can explore human nature and I would argue that their respective usefulness for that task is actually in ascending order as you have presented them. Biology (e.g., neurology) can explain general patterns of behavior but it has its explanatory limits. Psychology can explain the specificities of human behavior in much greater detail as well as individual differences which go beyond biological programming and take into account our lived experiences. Philosophy allows us to go beyond individual psychology and explore the much more complex aspects of the human condition.

As for the second part of your question, I would say that human nature is mostly innate and therefore constant but also molded by culture to a lesser degree. People have certain fundamental needs and dispositions which have existed for millennia. Any sensible social system must therefore take into account these constants of human nature. There have been attempts to remold human nature on a societal level. Marxist governments attempted this on various occasions throughout the 20th century with their vision of the New Soviet Man and other ideological equivalents. But all of these attempts to remold human nature by force invariably failed miserably.

[Pixel--Dude]

Some questions about human nature:

What is the best way to explore human nature? Is it biology, psychology or philosophy?

Is human nature constant or molded by culture? Can culture completely change human nature?

Biology, psychology and philosophy are all ways through which one can explore human nature and I would argue that their respective usefulness for that task is actually in ascending order as you have presented them. Biology (e.g., neurology) can explain general patterns of behavior but it has its explanatory limits. Psychology can explain the specificities of human behavior in much greater detail as well as individual differences which go beyond biological programming and take into account our lived experiences. Philosophy allows us to go beyond individual psychology and explore the much more complex aspects of the human condition.

As for the second part of your question, I would say that human nature is mostly innate and therefore constant but also molded by culture to a lesser degree. People have certain fundamental needs and dispositions which have existed for millennia. Any sensible social system must therefore take into account these constants of human nature. There have been attempts to remold human nature on a societal level. Marxist governments attempted this on various occasions throughout the 20th century with their vision of the New Soviet Man and other ideological equivalents. But all of these attempts to remold human nature by force invariably failed miserably.

But if you had to choose only one, biology, psychology and philosophy are you saying philosophy is the best way to explore human nature? I know all of these things are useful, but if you only had to pick one would you pick philosophy?

I think philosophy is the best way to explore human nature out of the three. Philosophy covers things like morality and ethics as well as aesthetic questions like what is beauty etc. As we can see from observing NPCs, philosophy is not taught in schools hahaha.

[Pixel--Dude]

I've been thinking about human nature again at work today. And where this isn't something directly related to the original question posed I do still think it is a relevant one and warrants some kind of brief or in depth discussion.

My question is this: If certain people are naturally gifted in certain things, like some people are more gifted than others creatively, some people are more athletically inclined and some people are more intellectual, does that mean that human nature is to naturally cooperate with one another to maximise our efficiency as a species?

I don't think people are blank slates and anyone can become what they want based on their interests, it doesn't work like that. It seems some people are naturally gifted in some areas and lack in others. What do you guys think @Winston @Lucas88 instead we have this society which rampantly encourages individualism to an extent that relationships beco.lme strained and difficult and we've become dysfunctional as a species. The elites are trying to erode human nature, the good parts of it, whilst exacerbating humanity's flaws.

[Lucas88]

I don't think people are blank slates and anyone can become what they want based on their interests, it doesn't work like that. It seems some people are naturally gifted in some areas and lack in others. What do you guys think @Winston @Lucas88 instead we have this society which rampantly encourages individualism to an extent that relationships beco.lme strained and difficult and we've become dysfunctional as a species. The elites are trying to erode human nature, the good parts of it, whilst exacerbating humanity's flaws.

People definitely have inborn proclivities. It's as though we are all born with stat points elevated in certain areas and much lower in others. You find individuals who have extremely high kinesthetic intelligence and superior muscular genetics and are natural athletes but at the same time possess a low level of intellect and are almost useless at anything academic. My MMA coach was like this. He was a gifted athlete and even had a stint in the UFC which is the elite level of the sport but in terms of intellectual conversation there was nothing there at all (the guy even admitted that he doesn't read). Then you find people with brilliant creativity who can easily come up with all kinds of interesting stories and novel ideas but just suck at mathematics and things to do with logic. They might be amazing novelists and filmmakers and whatnot but put them in a STEM study program and they'll be next to useless. Then you have people who can sing vs. who can't sing, who can dance vs. who can't dance, who can act vs. who can't act, who are socially competent vs. who are socially inept. It is clear that most people have very disproportionate attributes. The idea that anybody can do anything they want which is popular within the false "positivity movement" is a lie which doesn't reflect reality.

I myself perceive that I have very disproportionate attributes. I have a knack for writing, languages and philosophy. I'm good at both fiction and academic writing, can learn foreign grammatical concepts with ease and can grasp abstract thought really well. I'm also okay at athletic pursuits (MMA) and art. But I completely suck at other things. I'm near useless at social skills, acting, dance and singing. I notice that these are all things that are related to self-expression. I speculate that my deficiencies in these areas are related to autism since I'm on the spectrum. I'm awkward when it comes to talking to strangers and they realize it. This is why I gave up on dating and just hired escorts for years. I can't act because I don't feel comfortable in my own skin and don't know how to express feelings and emotions through action. I just find the movements of dance hard to understand despite being a martial artist. I used to take salsa classes with an Ecuadorian teacher with a big booty but my progress was slow. For some reason I just can't make the right sounds when I try to sing at karaoke. I imagine that the neuronal connections responsible for these kinds of things are just too messed up and abnormally wired. I often feel extremely limited by a defective biology which prevents some of the soul's abilities from manifesting correctly into the physical world. Limitations and disproportions concerning abilities are very real indeed. You can't just do anything you want if you put your mind to it.

As for cooperation vs. competition, I find that more advanced, more mature souls tend to be more cooperative while more immature souls tend to be extremely competitive in the material sphere. I myself am an old soul and so I just don't care about society's absurd rat race or about chasing a mansion and a Ferrari or any of that bullshit.

[Pixel--Dude]

@fschmidt I read your article you shared in the Nature of Reality thread where you assert that the decline of religion is responsible for the rise of scummy modern culture. I want to dig a little deeper into this and figure out at its source whether this is a flaw in nature or nurture.

For example is it human nature to be scum and only through the nurture of religion are we able to make a functioning society?

Or is it the other way around where its human nature to cooperate and help each other flourish and nurture through modern society has created droves of soulless scum?

Is human nature exclusive to each individual? Or are we all each influenced by our surroundings such as media and education etc.

If religion an scripture is the nurture we need to resist our nature of becoming scum then what about functioning societies and empires that formed before the emergence of Abrahamic religion? Its true that they've all fallen. I suppose we can take comfort in the knowledge that all empires rise and fall, and so too will the empire of modern scum