Will our 'animal instincts' always prevent 'progress'?

[Orang Utan]

"Will our 'animal instincts' always prevent 'progress'?"

No, it's just a lame excuse for bad behaviour.

 

[Azrael23]

What a load of twoddle.

Instinct IMO covers sex, breathing, eating, drinking etc. Things we are compelled to do.

However if a monk can go 70-odd years without a sniff of the opposite sex, i`m sure john smiff can go 2 years without benefit fraud.

"A lot of what we call human nature, is actually just human habit."

Brilliant quote.

 

[Brainaddict]

Well it's difficult to apply arguments about human nature to individuals I agree, but when looked at across whole populations, you can see patterns to the behaviour that are statistically significant I would have thought. And it's that kind of 'average behaviour' across large groups of humans that seems to me to be fairly constant in its crapness. Not very scientific I admit - if anyone can think of any relevant studies along these lines I'd be interested to know.

 

[gorski]

Why should we consider the worst of us or the lowest common denominator as "human nature"? If we take that as the norm how did we ever make any progress? In fact, as someone put it succinctly: "we used to have history but not any more".... somehow?!?

Adorno & co.: "Authoritarian Personality".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Adorno

Theory of the Authoritarian Personality

Those persons who cling to fascist ideologies, according to the theory, distinguish themselves through their inappropriate, prejudice-laden view of social and political relationships. From this background in their personal history arose the assumption that the emergence of certain phenomena such as anti-Semitism and ethnocentrism stands in close connection with this particular personality structure. Because fascistic groupings get support essentially from the right-conservative camp (although that does not suggest that the right-conservative camp invariably lends these groupings such support) parts of the conservative outlook are likewise judged as an expression of this personality structure. As an instrument to measure this outlook, the AS-scale (for "anti-Semitism") the E-scale (for "Ethnocentrism") and the PEC-Scale (for "political-economic conservatism") are used.

The instrument for assessing the underlying authoritarian personality structure was the so-called F-Scale ("implicit antidemocratic tendencies and fascist potential"). This scale is comprised of the following subscales:

Conventionalism -- the tendency to accept and obey social conventions and the rules of authority figures; adherence to the traditional and accepted
Authoritarian Submission -- submission to authorities and authority figures
Authoritarian Aggression -- an aggressive attitude towards individuals or groups disliked by authorities; particularly those who threaten traditional values
Anti-Intraception -- rejection of the subjective, imaginative and aesthetic
Substitution and Stereotypy -- superstition, cliché, categorization and fatalistic determinism
Power and Toughness -- identification with those in power, excessive emphasis on socially advocated ego qualities
Destructiveness and Cynicism -- general hostility, putting others down
Projectivity -- the tendency to believe in the existence of evil in the world and to project unconscious emotional impulses outward
Sex -- exaggerated concerns with respect to sexual activity
The authors of the study expected a positive correlation between results on the F-scale and being marked by conservatism, ethnocentrism and anti-Semitism.

Robert Altemeyer found that three facets of this authoritarian personality were important: conventionalism, authoritarian aggression and authoritarian submission. He has refined the concept of the authoritarian personality into the Right-wing Authoritarian scale.

 

[Fruitloop]

he must have met tobyjug

 

[lancer]

Why should we consider the worst of us or the lowest common denominator as "human nature"? If we take that as the norm how did we ever make any progress? In fact, as someone put it succinctly: "we used to have history but not any more".... somehow?!?

Adorno & co.: "Authoritarian Personality".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Adorno

Well, Marx says that human beings are what they make of themselves at each age. It means that there is no human nature per se. We, as very complex creatures reflect the multi-dimensionality of our way of living and the system we set up for ourselves.

 

[gorski]

Indeed! Well, up to a point...

The problem with that [as you put it] is that it means we are completely plastic.

Isn't there always a "residue" of sorts [a core] that can and always will rebel against the authoritarian/despotic/totalitarian shite?!?

Aren't we essentially free, creative, imaginative - not just what we make of ourselves, as indeed it might be implied in your post: "as a society we made, that we grow/socialise into"? [So, is it - just making sure this misunderstanding isn't left hanging in the air, as it were...??? ]

As speculative position of Hegel would have it: "At the beginning there was future!!!"

 

[lancer]

Indeed! Well, up to a point...

The problem with that [as you put it] is that it means we are completely plastic.

Isn't there always a "residue" of sorts [a core] that can and always will rebel against the authoritarian/despotic/totalitarian shite?!?

Aren't we essentially free, creative, imaginative - not just what we make of ourselves, as indeed it might be implied in your post: "as a society we made, that we grow/socialise into"? [So, is it - just making sure this misunderstanding isn't left hanging in the air, as it were...??? ]

As speculative position of Hegel would have it: "At the beginning there was future!!!"

The source of the "free, creative, imaginative essence" itself is the necessity and the potential for development. Therefore, I can argue that the thing / the being that actually develops or needs to develop is the real essence. It is the existence with its potentiality for development that requires freedom, creativity, and imagination for development.

There is not an abstract, flexible or shapeless essence.

We are not completely plastic or flexible. Human history is the history of gradual moderation of the ways in which we exist. This can also be called humanisation, which continues as long as the humans exist.

 

[gorski]

OKI but what happened to serious, epochal changes - wars, destruction, revolutions...??? Not everything was gradual, methinx...

 

[lancer]

OKI but what happened to serious, epochal changes - wars, destruction, revolutions...??? Not everything was gradual, methinx...

Well, there is also something called "qualitative and quantitative change" or transformation. Wars ect are part of the moderation. Development also means crisis. And we experience it in forms of wars or revolutions. There comes a point when development can only be maintained through an explosion.