Recently I was reading yet another opinion piece on the war in Ukraine. The phrase, “that’s just human nature” was offered as a quick answer to the why of the war. It smacked of, “Well what can you expect from a species cursed with Original Sin, a nature of inherent evil?” I felt that “human nature” wasn’t accurate and Googled “human nature” to see what others had to say on the topic. One of the hits on the first page was sourced by Scientific American. “Aha,” I said to myself. “Let’s see what science has to say on the subject”.
I was quickly disappointed by the title of the article: “Scientists Probe Human Nature–and Discover We Are Good, After All”. This wasn’t science at all, but merely the flip side of the Original Sin take, implied by the “After All” qualification to “We are Good”. On reading the article, I had my disappointment fulfilled. The scientific studies consisted of seven experiments to determine whether or not we are “intuitively selfish creatures”. Science must always have as its aim to get to the fundamental distinction of the subject being explored, be it the structure of an atom or the nature of man. However we define good or evil, it’s not a fundamental distinction of human being. Those are derivative definitions from the philosophical branch of ethics. I assert that humans are neither good nor bad “by nature”. Either way of being is a choice, not something inherent in our makeup.
Human nature is what distinguishes us from the other natures – the lion nature, the clam nature, the gorilla nature, the potato nature, whatever. Our human nature is what defines us, the distinction that has us be different than all other entities.
Our human nature is what is revealed as we delve into the question, “what is human nature?”. To do that we are already, perhaps obliviously, engaging with our nature. We’re engaged in the act of rationally using our minds to solve a problem. That’s where human nature begins. To define human nature is to use human nature. It’s circular, it’s self-defining. Even to deny the “truth” of this definition requires using the faculty of reason to dispute that we are not beings of reason but rather beings of … ???
Beings of what? Try dealing with that question without pondering, thinking, reflecting, or in any other way using your mind.
As human beings, we strive to think as rationally as possible. This is a learned skill, something that our nature allows us to do but won’t do for us. All circular again. Once we discovered that we were beings that thought, some of us, our philosophers, began reasoning about thinking and before they became philosophers, they had to invent philosophy. Chicken and egg kind of thinking/reasoning, which came first, philosopher or philosophy?
Now it could be me that’s confused here, misunderstanding what it is to be rational, to be a scientist, but if I am wrong, how would I be convinced except by being shown the errors of my logic? Assuming I am as I claim to be, a rational animal by nature, I would then admit my errors and be thankful for it. Of course in today’s culture of woke, I more likely wouldn’t be shown or questioned about my errors but instead would be cancelled as a spreader of misinformation. Not much room for Socratic discourse these days.
And I think I’m correct on what it is to be rational. I’m disturbed a bit by the Scientific American article though. The thinking in the article about human nature can be seen as sloppy, simplistic at best. But more seriously, I see it coming from human ignorance. At a societal level, we are engaging with each other in woeful ignorance about ourselves. We are ignorant about our ignorance making it impossible to detect. The fundamental purpose of thinking rationally, i.e. reasoning, is to allow us to choose our life’s actions rationally. Reasoning is always a means to an end and if that reasoning is unknowingly filled with errors, we are going to be frustrated over and over as we take on life’s challenges.
All choice comes from the quality of our reasoning. Good and evil are choices. What is good, what is evil are products of thought. Everything is a product of our thought. That is our human nature, reasoning. Everything else derives from that. It’s reasonable then to do the best we can to become philosophers, to become masters at reasoning. That would be honouring our nature.
And that’s also the pathway to being civilized with each other and living in harmony. Curb our bloodlust. Time is not on our side on this. The current warfare in Ukraine is a product of incorrect thinking and threatens to annihilate us all.
This is why I have do no harm as the first item in my goal to bring about A World of Honour. It buys us time. Everything by agreement and be your word complete the triad in the code. Three simple rules to take on that could have us living in peace with each other.
I could easily prove to anyone that these three rules are rational and fitting to a species that has reasoning as its nature. Anyone can take these rules on and then, if they choose to, expand their thinking skills as desired. Ultimately, I think we should all become philosophers, perhaps even have it become a rite of passage taking us from childhood to becoming an adult. It could replace getting your driver’s license or eligibility to vote. Wouldn’t that be something!
What could that philosophical rite of passage possibly be? To be continued, as I apply my reason to this conundrum.
A World of Honour 