To attempt a summary, the first four are all partially true, and as such will resonate to a certain degree with almost everyone, and very strongly with some. This explains their ongoing popularity. However, being only partial truths, they overlook other important facets of the soul, and if they are embraced as though they were complete explanations will invariably blind adherents to other aspects, which will then become quite powerful in potentially destructive ways. A partial truth, in other words, generates a Jungian shadow out of that which it excludes.
Dabrowski's conception, by contrast, includes all of these views and integrates them at a higher level, while leaving it open as to which perspective is most useful to understand the motivations of any given, actual human, at any given time in their soul's journey.
The idea that humans are all at different levels, with different innate capabilities for development, seems intuitively correct to me. I've often recognized kindred spirits, not on the basis of shared beliefs or life experiences, but by seeing their developmental orientation. Conversely, many others seem incapable, or at any rate uninterested, in development. I think it's important not to moralize that, however. There's a temptation to think oneself 'better' than others, more 'spiritually advanced', if one has experienced Dabrowskian disintegration, and they have not; but this is a trap, and indeed a sign of immaturity. We all have our roles to play, and all of those roles are necessary.
Precisely right. I might add that looking through the lens of only one theory not only creates a Jungian shadow, but often these theories, besides the valid point they hammer home, contain additional falsehoods that can then enter one's thinking.
As for the warning about feeling "spiritually advanced" - indeed. This is why I wrote "Gnosis puffeth up" (https://luctalks.substack.com/p/gnosis-puffeth-up). Not to recognize that we ALL have massive blind spots, and that development isn't a strictly linear affair, is utter folly and very dangerous.
I've often thought that the falsehoods contained in partial theories of human nature are really an expression of the character flaws of the minds that produced those theories - as indeed you point out above. Freud was a vulgar and venal man, Smith perhaps too nice for his own good, Rousseau frankly was merely looking to excuse his own lack of a moral center, Hobbes was the classic schizo-autist. To adopt such views unexamined is to take on whatever pathologies their originators exhibited, and when such incomplete theories are adopted on a mass scale they become ponerogenic almost inevitably.
Yes, this is what Political Ponerology is all about.
I often find it helpful to look at the valid points a certain theorist makes, and briefly summarize them (often it's really just one). It's surprising how little text you often need for that.
If you do that, you can extract the truth that a theory contains (and if it was successful, it almost always contains some fundamental and important truth), without all the pathological baggage, but ALSO without running the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
For example, as I did with the "noble savage" Neo-Marxist brainwashing thing, you can see why people respond to it, and that there is an important truth there, instead of going "that's all evil! There is no such thing!" Or, you read Hobbes and go "nonsense! Humans aren't evil, they are all good at heart" etc.
Yes, this is very important. It's much too tempting to discard something entirely because one flaw, or many flaws, have been found. To a certain degree this helps drive the ideological pendulum of history.
Smith might have been too nice for his own good, but a reading of Smith that suggests he was unaware of human evil, or that he thought humans were good without effort and development, is not a careful reading.
I would question the concept (or narrative) of the "soul's journey" as a piece of propaganda meant to circumscribe our potential for greater knowledge of ourselves.
In short, our story seems to be one of descent, not of ascent. You could say, to be more specific, that we have become more and more spiritually ignorant while embracing technological "advances" that would not seem so advanced if we were more spiritually aware.
I like to see it in terms of the classic hero's journey: we were thrown into a pit, and need to fight our way out of it, Batman Returns-style, thereby experiencing transformation.
I think people organize spontaneously, as is seen in war and the aftermath, people automatically organize society, they don't have to be told how. That is not moral or not, it is anarchic, in the sense that most people prefer order to chaos. It requires some kind of moral code though, with corresponding taboos, do unto others what you would want others to do unto you as example. It would be that moral code that holds the society together, but does seem to devolve into war.
In my experience maybe one in ten aspire to any higher moral or spiritual understanding, but those tend to be like guides for others. Most people I think value morality for it's utility, for maintaining order. If there are few models, if the guiding morality is lost, we get the kind of Institutional rot we are seeing in America and the West generally. The woke phenomenon I have sometimes described as the embodiment of chaos, a destructive instinct not dissimilar from militant jihad.
Glad I took your advice: "I highly recommend checking out Dąbrowski’s theory, see: Kazimierz Dabrowski, Personality-Shaping Through Positive Disintegration, Red Pill Press, 2015"
A very interesting article about the development of theories about Human Nature. Each original theory lacks many elements in my opinion, but it is important to understand the historical background and the development of the first 4 theories to appreciate the last one.
The first 4 theories are oversimplified one way or the other, but it is important to understand them for their historical content. And obviously we need to understand them to explain why any of them alone fail to explain the human nature.
I am quite impressed with the last theory that is the most comprehensive. I think we all have capabilities to be bad and good. Many basic and advanced societies understood that. We have examples of “bad and good wolves” in each of us. It is up to each individual to keep them in balance: I can’t quite remember the exact quote, but it goes something like that. “Which wolf wins? the one which is fed the most within you”. This feeding could be internal and it could be external, in my humble opinion. It definitely comes from within you and it clearly comes from the external stimuli such as the environment and the society we live in.
But I venture to state that the predisposition to being bad or good consists of 2 elements:
1. Genetic predisposition that goes back to 2 groups of humans: hunters and gatherers and violent raiders who lived by attacking those at peace.
2. Environmental upbringing: when you are treated well, you learn to be good, when you are abused, you learn to become abusive.
The genetic and environmental influences in one’s personality are in a constant struggle throughout one’s life. People with similar experiences, for example brothers and sisters who lived in similar environments and have similar genetics, can turn out totally different.
Well put. As for the genetic/environmental discussion, I like to force myself to look at the reality of the situation first before reaching out for explanations. The fact is that there seem to be people who, for whatever reason, seem to lean towards evil with little chance of rehabilitation or change. If we do look for explanations, the picture seems very complicated. For example, it's not only genes, but brain injury or even alcoholism during pregnancy that can predispose some people towards criminality and violence. But that's certainly only part of it, and the picture keeps growing!
I would emphasize that the 2 contributions, genetic and environmental, are constantly shaping our fight of good and evil. I some of us the evil, or to use a modern description psychopathic, tendencies are so strong that no matter how much goodness the environment throws at us, it does not help.
I also hope that the other way is also true. Some of us are genetically programmed to be good that no matter how much evil is thrown at us, we remain good and peaceful. But I have a much harder time proving this hypothesis to myself. I have seen too many good people turn bad given the opportunity to gain through evil in the history of the human kind!
Luc, to address your comment on injuries, or pre birth defects due to alcoholism or drug use, I would classify them as environmental contributions. It is what life throws at us externally rather than genetically.
re #1. Even hunter-gatherers weren't necessarily peaceful. They tended to raid each other and even take slaves. Sapolsky shows that tribalism and distrust of "others" is hardwired into our brains.
I tend to look at things anthropologically and view the development of religion, as well as civilization, as another way of attempting to overcome some of these evolved tendencies. There were other goals as well, and also opportunism.
I totally agree, some hunters and gatherers did raid their neighbors and they owned slaves! They were presented with an opportunity, as you stated, to become aggressive towards others and gain something from such behavior. But there were some tribes that lived in peaceful harmonies. Perhaps they were not presented by the opportunity to become violent and raid others. That would be a pessimistic point of view. Or perhaps they were more emotionally and morally developed than others to stop their aggressive personality tendencies. This would be a more optimistic view of human nature.
Tribalism and mistrust of others, whether based on lifestyle, beliefs, religion, color of the skin or facial features, is clearly part of the issue. Many wars have been fought and many atrocities have been committed due to tribalism and nationalism. But many human beings have been able to look past it. How we treat others, not only humans but also animals, defines as as good or bad or something in-between. But it only takes small groups of psychopaths to lead large groups of followers to commit crimes against humanity!
As far as the development of religion and civilization, I am a lot less optimistic that we are moving in the right direction to conquer aggressive and violent tendencies. Many wars have been fought in the name of religion. Religion has been used as means of control, gaining economical and political power to rule others. And with the development of higher level civilizations, I can see that smaller and smaller groups of people gain more and more power to commit crimes against humanity and get away with it. With higher level civilizations, there is more corruption, injustice and inequality, more people die of hunger, more people die of violence than ever before. The technological developments don’t help either. We have become more efficient at killing each other! More people die due to wars, murders and acts of violence than ever before, not only in actual numbers (because there is obviously more of us), but even percentage wise. And we are, for the most part, OK with that as long as it doesn’t happen to us, our family and our friends, in our community and in our country. But more and more humans are suffering torture, violence and death around the world than ever before.
Yes, we are overpopulated. And it is going to get worse. Some may argue that it is a natural selection. We will not be able to sustain the population growth at the current level, we are not going to be able to keep all of us healthy and well fed on this planet with the current growth. So what is the solution? I certainly don’t agree with the agenda of population control that a small group in our society plans for us. Who gave them the right to play Gods with the rest of us! There is no simple solution. But that is another long conversation!
Well, I view the fact that there's an unsustainable number of Homo sapiens on the planet as the basis of almost all other problems. But when I bring it up, people start screaming genocide or whatever. I'm not advocating that at all. My fondest wish is that humanity would come up with a long-term plan to allow, through attrition, its numbers to a sustainable level. Dream on.
Not sure it's the root problem, but it's most definetely *a* problem that nobody can deny. The globalists think they can solve it with their brainwashing and control, but it won't fly. Somehow I suspect the universe has a way of regulating such things naturally, and it won't be pretty.
Yep. I used to worry about the survival of the human race. Now I've concluded that the human race doesn't deserve to live — I'm more worried about the species we will take down with us.
I am rather surprised to read you suggest that Smith doesn’t see or grasp human’s dark side, Luc. I fear you might be using a less valuable summary and not the text itself, for Smith very clearly addresses the point that there are bad people who do bad things at many points, and even why others are so often given to admire the evil behavior.
He does indeed, and I thought about adding something to that effect, which I probably should have. But I wanted to be very brief and I have used these different thinkers as kind of stand-ins for intellectual currents that they are famous for and that they represent in the minds of many. My point is that they all bring valuable perspectives (or rather, different emphasis) to the table. Rest assured though that I consider Smith (what I have read so far) as extremely smart, nuanced, insightful, and not naive at all.
Thank you for this article! I would like to see brain science weigh in on this topic, but as you say, bias can (subconsciously, often) direct research and interpretation of findings. Trauma responses play a big role in behavior, thoughts, & emotions, too--we see this in the majority of hospitalized mental patients. There is evidence now that mental illness is a trauma response (trauma can be physical or psychological) but this in no way excuses harmful behavior! It looks like the human condition would improve if we change our child rearing practices the right way (giving Alice Miller a nod here).
Indeed, trauma response is an important part of the picture. I have read The Gifted Child years ago and found it useful, although as always one needs to guard against viewing everything through one lens exclusively.
Of course. It’s hardly our only problem! Best book on understanding trauma’s effect on the brain is Bessel Van de Kolk’s THE BODY KEEPS THE SCORE. Trauma issues exacerbate many other problems, such as homelessness, crime, family dysfunction, health, etc. And do the globalists intentionally try to traumatize in order to gain control? Traumatized, needy people are easier to manipulate. That’s why they get repeatedly victimized. My brother does psych research and found that 100% of Americans in poverty had diagnosable levels of PTSD. He also studied poverty in Asia and found the exact same thing.
Very nice Luc. I thought that this was a new one and I had somehow missed it. It popped up in my notes which I still don't understand at all. Anyway,
It has been a long time since I read Leviathan but I remember being impressed with it. Particularly how he predicted the central problem of representative government so succinctly: The interests of the representative and the interests of the constituency will never align. And can't help but wander how much he is right about unlimited personal rule having the advantage because the sovereigns interests will align more closely with the nations interests the more absolute the rule. Lately I am thinking that our post-Enlightenment anti-authority schtick is a deeper part of the problem. I wrote this the other day as a comment on Christian Ethics in the Wild https://myleswerntz.substack.com/p/social-power-anatomy-of-an-elusive which is a decently interesting substack but not enough interaction.
'My 3 year old is officially at the point where it is no longer feasible to place things out of her reach, make it impossible for her to do the things that she wants to do. Which means that she increasingly has to not do harmful things by choice and she actually preferred having it physically impossible to do what she wants to do versus being expected to not do things that she can because she shouldn't.(to the surprise of zero parents) I say that to say that authority doesn't really fade away, it only changes, and there can be quite as much compulsion in persuasion as in physical force.
I think that what is needed is the recognition that power(over others) comes from God.(Power /is/, Power is not God =>Power is a created thing) Power cannot then, in itself, be bad. This conforms to Scripture since we know that all 'authority' is ordained by God. A world without authority is only a chicken without a head, it is a symbol of maturity or evolution in exactly the way that Cheyne-Stokes breathing on the death bed are a symbol of maturity.
Since we know that God has not given all authority into any hands but His own, even in a subordinate way, but has distributed it among various holders, it follows that the church has a legitimate field of authority and that just as seizing authority that does not belong to her is an error so is not using the authority that is or ought to be hers. We can assume that God did not create any authority without also creating a place for it to legitimately act as that would be inconsistent with His provision for all other created things, for foxes dens to live in and rabbits and such to hunt, for each created thing a home and a way of life that fits its nature. Therefore the authority that He did create ought to be used by its legitimate holder and not left idle.
The Church has erred greatly in not using its power properly. In fact, the whole modern age and its troubles might well be defined as the period in which the church has abdicated the use of her legitimate authority, largely to the State or the Secular Experts of various kinds. All of the recipients of the Church's power, having no divine remit to use that power have made colossal asses of themselves with it. The cure is for the church to repent of her fearfulness, legitimate as it may seem, and use power in faith.'
Even people who proclaim to detest philosophy carry around some caricature version of one of the above theories of human nature. Contradict it and they'll let you know how you just don't get it and that humans are in fact such-in-such a way. You've done a magnificent job here of explaining the nuance of how there is some diversity within what constitutes human nature while keeping it simple enough to be conveyed with startling clarity in just a few paragraphs. Just brilliant, thanks Luc!
I think the “noble savage” concept is dangerous - because it means that people who are subjected to it can only fail to live up to it in reality. Fact is, they’re people just like everyone else, and failing to recognise that some people in a community might have problems or flaws can leave them in a parlous situation. I am percolating a post on this…
Indeed. Also, part of the reason why the noble savage idea is so successful is that it implies that all humans are good at heart, and civilization just corrupted them, as I pointed out in the post.
The problem with that is that people tend to seek "goodness" where there might not be any, such as when dealing with psychopaths or even hopeless narcissists and "cluster B" personality types. It emphasizes the eternal hope to turn people around -- to make them good, if only the bad influences can be taken away, if only the person can be made to look at their childhood and issues. Those who couldn't care less about others will ruthlessly exploit such sentiments.
I still can understand the allure of the noble savage concept: it can be just a longing for something better. And no doubt our modern civilization can corrupt humans.
Yes, I agree with this. I’ve had to learn the hard way that there’s no fixing someone with a Cluster B personality if they don’t recognise the issue, and it’s just tipping all your effort and help into a black hole. I understand why the noble savage idea is attractive. I think, in some ways, we’re still regretting the Agrarian Revolution: yearning for a more equal society where we all worked together and knew everyone.
BUT, interestingly, I have also read an account of a San tribe getting together and murdering a tribe member who was a psychopath, and even his own mother said it was necessary. Not much space for Cluster Bs in a hunter-gatherer society where subsistence is difficult.
Strange than none of these theories recognize the role trauma plays in human society. Traumatized individuals cause more trauma, to themselves and others. Increased trauma levels in a culture spawn increased violence. It’s very difficult in the modern era to see humans as we really are because almost everyone is wounded by various kinds of trauma, narcissistic manipulation, and dehumanization (which typically goes unrecognized). We can only know what human nature is truly like if we heal ourselves of trauma.
These seem to be the dominant secular views of "human nature." They don't include the religious views. I can't say I am intimately familiar with any of these views, but I know the Vedic view of course does include a past life element that the secular views leave out. The Abrahamic story includes the concept of original sin. This would be useful to a group trying to justify the use of Earth as a spiritual prison, but I've never bothered to study it closely.
My teacher, who discovered the existence of past lives by a research method, often told us, "Man is basically good." He meant by this that the spiritual being is actually invested in the concept of being right, or doing good. He used this basic urge to explain various human behavioral mechanisms, such as the tendency of many criminals to assist the police in catching them. He also used this datum to explain why human beings had become so spiritually powerless over time, being convinced that some of the mistakes they made in exercising their spiritual powers were "bad."
Though beings may indeed have innately different capabilities, including their inclination towards self-correction, the more important datum regarding spiritual beings is that they are immortal and thus death, and behaviors associated with it like murder, are artifacts of the game of biology and not innate to the spiritual experience.
This apparently confused some beings so thoroughly that they never learned to play or accept the game of human life as most beings did. These are our psychopaths. In the context of human life, they are extremely destructive. In the context of spiritual life, they are immature and childish, but not natively bad.
As I have mentioned before, the scientific finding that people are immortal beings who reincarnate totally changes our understanding of "human nature" and psychology. When reasonably reliable tools can be found to consult human memory, information can be recovered that is totally inaccessible by any other method. Anyone on this planet who attempts to piece together a long-term history of the beings who now dwell here, must rely on one or more of these tools. This work could be considered "psychic research," particularly in a world of conventional science which looks down on these methods. My scorn, as you might imagine, is directed towards conventional science.
Yes, these are all (post-)enlightenment secular views - but that's what most people these days presuppose, even many religious people. No doubt ideas such as past lives, karma, soul journeys and so on change the picture. Although I would argue that some of the secular views are valuable even under these different premises.
Remember, though, that these are not just "ideas." I knew about them before I saw any research on them, and paid no attention. Then I found out that certain basics were supported by research and were being applied in the field of mental health. That changed my tune. And I discovered several other researchers in the area who were using their own methods to demonstrate that people actually have past lives that may contain experiences that affect their behavior and personality in this life. Academia, though, shows no real interest. I see this as a dangerous situation.
To attempt a summary, the first four are all partially true, and as such will resonate to a certain degree with almost everyone, and very strongly with some. This explains their ongoing popularity. However, being only partial truths, they overlook other important facets of the soul, and if they are embraced as though they were complete explanations will invariably blind adherents to other aspects, which will then become quite powerful in potentially destructive ways. A partial truth, in other words, generates a Jungian shadow out of that which it excludes.
Dabrowski's conception, by contrast, includes all of these views and integrates them at a higher level, while leaving it open as to which perspective is most useful to understand the motivations of any given, actual human, at any given time in their soul's journey.
The idea that humans are all at different levels, with different innate capabilities for development, seems intuitively correct to me. I've often recognized kindred spirits, not on the basis of shared beliefs or life experiences, but by seeing their developmental orientation. Conversely, many others seem incapable, or at any rate uninterested, in development. I think it's important not to moralize that, however. There's a temptation to think oneself 'better' than others, more 'spiritually advanced', if one has experienced Dabrowskian disintegration, and they have not; but this is a trap, and indeed a sign of immaturity. We all have our roles to play, and all of those roles are necessary.
Precisely right. I might add that looking through the lens of only one theory not only creates a Jungian shadow, but often these theories, besides the valid point they hammer home, contain additional falsehoods that can then enter one's thinking.
As for the warning about feeling "spiritually advanced" - indeed. This is why I wrote "Gnosis puffeth up" (https://luctalks.substack.com/p/gnosis-puffeth-up). Not to recognize that we ALL have massive blind spots, and that development isn't a strictly linear affair, is utter folly and very dangerous.
I've often thought that the falsehoods contained in partial theories of human nature are really an expression of the character flaws of the minds that produced those theories - as indeed you point out above. Freud was a vulgar and venal man, Smith perhaps too nice for his own good, Rousseau frankly was merely looking to excuse his own lack of a moral center, Hobbes was the classic schizo-autist. To adopt such views unexamined is to take on whatever pathologies their originators exhibited, and when such incomplete theories are adopted on a mass scale they become ponerogenic almost inevitably.
Yes, this is what Political Ponerology is all about.
I often find it helpful to look at the valid points a certain theorist makes, and briefly summarize them (often it's really just one). It's surprising how little text you often need for that.
If you do that, you can extract the truth that a theory contains (and if it was successful, it almost always contains some fundamental and important truth), without all the pathological baggage, but ALSO without running the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
For example, as I did with the "noble savage" Neo-Marxist brainwashing thing, you can see why people respond to it, and that there is an important truth there, instead of going "that's all evil! There is no such thing!" Or, you read Hobbes and go "nonsense! Humans aren't evil, they are all good at heart" etc.
Yes, this is very important. It's much too tempting to discard something entirely because one flaw, or many flaws, have been found. To a certain degree this helps drive the ideological pendulum of history.
Samuel Johnson aka Dr Johnson rushes in to lighten the mood a tad 🤸
🗨 I hate mankind, for I think of myself as one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am.
Smith might have been too nice for his own good, but a reading of Smith that suggests he was unaware of human evil, or that he thought humans were good without effort and development, is not a careful reading.
I agree, Smith wasn't unaware of evil at all. See my comment below.
🗨 They also serve who only stand and wait.
😊
poetryfoundation.org/poems/44750/sonnet-19-when-i-consider-how-my-light-is-spent
I would question the concept (or narrative) of the "soul's journey" as a piece of propaganda meant to circumscribe our potential for greater knowledge of ourselves.
In short, our story seems to be one of descent, not of ascent. You could say, to be more specific, that we have become more and more spiritually ignorant while embracing technological "advances" that would not seem so advanced if we were more spiritually aware.
I like to see it in terms of the classic hero's journey: we were thrown into a pit, and need to fight our way out of it, Batman Returns-style, thereby experiencing transformation.
I think people organize spontaneously, as is seen in war and the aftermath, people automatically organize society, they don't have to be told how. That is not moral or not, it is anarchic, in the sense that most people prefer order to chaos. It requires some kind of moral code though, with corresponding taboos, do unto others what you would want others to do unto you as example. It would be that moral code that holds the society together, but does seem to devolve into war.
In my experience maybe one in ten aspire to any higher moral or spiritual understanding, but those tend to be like guides for others. Most people I think value morality for it's utility, for maintaining order. If there are few models, if the guiding morality is lost, we get the kind of Institutional rot we are seeing in America and the West generally. The woke phenomenon I have sometimes described as the embodiment of chaos, a destructive instinct not dissimilar from militant jihad.
I'm recording and posting my video/ blog on you later today, Luc, called The Tonic Gnostic. This essay will make a great addition to it!
Glad I took your advice: "I highly recommend checking out Dąbrowski’s theory, see: Kazimierz Dabrowski, Personality-Shaping Through Positive Disintegration, Red Pill Press, 2015"
Could be just what I need to step up my progress.
Houston, we have a psychosociologic/philosophic calculation problem!
A very interesting article about the development of theories about Human Nature. Each original theory lacks many elements in my opinion, but it is important to understand the historical background and the development of the first 4 theories to appreciate the last one.
The first 4 theories are oversimplified one way or the other, but it is important to understand them for their historical content. And obviously we need to understand them to explain why any of them alone fail to explain the human nature.
I am quite impressed with the last theory that is the most comprehensive. I think we all have capabilities to be bad and good. Many basic and advanced societies understood that. We have examples of “bad and good wolves” in each of us. It is up to each individual to keep them in balance: I can’t quite remember the exact quote, but it goes something like that. “Which wolf wins? the one which is fed the most within you”. This feeding could be internal and it could be external, in my humble opinion. It definitely comes from within you and it clearly comes from the external stimuli such as the environment and the society we live in.
But I venture to state that the predisposition to being bad or good consists of 2 elements:
1. Genetic predisposition that goes back to 2 groups of humans: hunters and gatherers and violent raiders who lived by attacking those at peace.
2. Environmental upbringing: when you are treated well, you learn to be good, when you are abused, you learn to become abusive.
The genetic and environmental influences in one’s personality are in a constant struggle throughout one’s life. People with similar experiences, for example brothers and sisters who lived in similar environments and have similar genetics, can turn out totally different.
Well put. As for the genetic/environmental discussion, I like to force myself to look at the reality of the situation first before reaching out for explanations. The fact is that there seem to be people who, for whatever reason, seem to lean towards evil with little chance of rehabilitation or change. If we do look for explanations, the picture seems very complicated. For example, it's not only genes, but brain injury or even alcoholism during pregnancy that can predispose some people towards criminality and violence. But that's certainly only part of it, and the picture keeps growing!
I would emphasize that the 2 contributions, genetic and environmental, are constantly shaping our fight of good and evil. I some of us the evil, or to use a modern description psychopathic, tendencies are so strong that no matter how much goodness the environment throws at us, it does not help.
I also hope that the other way is also true. Some of us are genetically programmed to be good that no matter how much evil is thrown at us, we remain good and peaceful. But I have a much harder time proving this hypothesis to myself. I have seen too many good people turn bad given the opportunity to gain through evil in the history of the human kind!
Luc, to address your comment on injuries, or pre birth defects due to alcoholism or drug use, I would classify them as environmental contributions. It is what life throws at us externally rather than genetically.
re #1. Even hunter-gatherers weren't necessarily peaceful. They tended to raid each other and even take slaves. Sapolsky shows that tribalism and distrust of "others" is hardwired into our brains.
I tend to look at things anthropologically and view the development of religion, as well as civilization, as another way of attempting to overcome some of these evolved tendencies. There were other goals as well, and also opportunism.
I totally agree, some hunters and gatherers did raid their neighbors and they owned slaves! They were presented with an opportunity, as you stated, to become aggressive towards others and gain something from such behavior. But there were some tribes that lived in peaceful harmonies. Perhaps they were not presented by the opportunity to become violent and raid others. That would be a pessimistic point of view. Or perhaps they were more emotionally and morally developed than others to stop their aggressive personality tendencies. This would be a more optimistic view of human nature.
Tribalism and mistrust of others, whether based on lifestyle, beliefs, religion, color of the skin or facial features, is clearly part of the issue. Many wars have been fought and many atrocities have been committed due to tribalism and nationalism. But many human beings have been able to look past it. How we treat others, not only humans but also animals, defines as as good or bad or something in-between. But it only takes small groups of psychopaths to lead large groups of followers to commit crimes against humanity!
As far as the development of religion and civilization, I am a lot less optimistic that we are moving in the right direction to conquer aggressive and violent tendencies. Many wars have been fought in the name of religion. Religion has been used as means of control, gaining economical and political power to rule others. And with the development of higher level civilizations, I can see that smaller and smaller groups of people gain more and more power to commit crimes against humanity and get away with it. With higher level civilizations, there is more corruption, injustice and inequality, more people die of hunger, more people die of violence than ever before. The technological developments don’t help either. We have become more efficient at killing each other! More people die due to wars, murders and acts of violence than ever before, not only in actual numbers (because there is obviously more of us), but even percentage wise. And we are, for the most part, OK with that as long as it doesn’t happen to us, our family and our friends, in our community and in our country. But more and more humans are suffering torture, violence and death around the world than ever before.
Yes, we are overpopulated. And it is going to get worse. Some may argue that it is a natural selection. We will not be able to sustain the population growth at the current level, we are not going to be able to keep all of us healthy and well fed on this planet with the current growth. So what is the solution? I certainly don’t agree with the agenda of population control that a small group in our society plans for us. Who gave them the right to play Gods with the rest of us! There is no simple solution. But that is another long conversation!
Well, I view the fact that there's an unsustainable number of Homo sapiens on the planet as the basis of almost all other problems. But when I bring it up, people start screaming genocide or whatever. I'm not advocating that at all. My fondest wish is that humanity would come up with a long-term plan to allow, through attrition, its numbers to a sustainable level. Dream on.
Not sure it's the root problem, but it's most definetely *a* problem that nobody can deny. The globalists think they can solve it with their brainwashing and control, but it won't fly. Somehow I suspect the universe has a way of regulating such things naturally, and it won't be pretty.
Yep. I used to worry about the survival of the human race. Now I've concluded that the human race doesn't deserve to live — I'm more worried about the species we will take down with us.
Philosopher kings and their productions.
I am rather surprised to read you suggest that Smith doesn’t see or grasp human’s dark side, Luc. I fear you might be using a less valuable summary and not the text itself, for Smith very clearly addresses the point that there are bad people who do bad things at many points, and even why others are so often given to admire the evil behavior.
He does indeed, and I thought about adding something to that effect, which I probably should have. But I wanted to be very brief and I have used these different thinkers as kind of stand-ins for intellectual currents that they are famous for and that they represent in the minds of many. My point is that they all bring valuable perspectives (or rather, different emphasis) to the table. Rest assured though that I consider Smith (what I have read so far) as extremely smart, nuanced, insightful, and not naive at all.
Thank you for this article! I would like to see brain science weigh in on this topic, but as you say, bias can (subconsciously, often) direct research and interpretation of findings. Trauma responses play a big role in behavior, thoughts, & emotions, too--we see this in the majority of hospitalized mental patients. There is evidence now that mental illness is a trauma response (trauma can be physical or psychological) but this in no way excuses harmful behavior! It looks like the human condition would improve if we change our child rearing practices the right way (giving Alice Miller a nod here).
Indeed, trauma response is an important part of the picture. I have read The Gifted Child years ago and found it useful, although as always one needs to guard against viewing everything through one lens exclusively.
Of course. It’s hardly our only problem! Best book on understanding trauma’s effect on the brain is Bessel Van de Kolk’s THE BODY KEEPS THE SCORE. Trauma issues exacerbate many other problems, such as homelessness, crime, family dysfunction, health, etc. And do the globalists intentionally try to traumatize in order to gain control? Traumatized, needy people are easier to manipulate. That’s why they get repeatedly victimized. My brother does psych research and found that 100% of Americans in poverty had diagnosable levels of PTSD. He also studied poverty in Asia and found the exact same thing.
Very nice Luc. I thought that this was a new one and I had somehow missed it. It popped up in my notes which I still don't understand at all. Anyway,
It has been a long time since I read Leviathan but I remember being impressed with it. Particularly how he predicted the central problem of representative government so succinctly: The interests of the representative and the interests of the constituency will never align. And can't help but wander how much he is right about unlimited personal rule having the advantage because the sovereigns interests will align more closely with the nations interests the more absolute the rule. Lately I am thinking that our post-Enlightenment anti-authority schtick is a deeper part of the problem. I wrote this the other day as a comment on Christian Ethics in the Wild https://myleswerntz.substack.com/p/social-power-anatomy-of-an-elusive which is a decently interesting substack but not enough interaction.
'My 3 year old is officially at the point where it is no longer feasible to place things out of her reach, make it impossible for her to do the things that she wants to do. Which means that she increasingly has to not do harmful things by choice and she actually preferred having it physically impossible to do what she wants to do versus being expected to not do things that she can because she shouldn't.(to the surprise of zero parents) I say that to say that authority doesn't really fade away, it only changes, and there can be quite as much compulsion in persuasion as in physical force.
I think that what is needed is the recognition that power(over others) comes from God.(Power /is/, Power is not God =>Power is a created thing) Power cannot then, in itself, be bad. This conforms to Scripture since we know that all 'authority' is ordained by God. A world without authority is only a chicken without a head, it is a symbol of maturity or evolution in exactly the way that Cheyne-Stokes breathing on the death bed are a symbol of maturity.
Since we know that God has not given all authority into any hands but His own, even in a subordinate way, but has distributed it among various holders, it follows that the church has a legitimate field of authority and that just as seizing authority that does not belong to her is an error so is not using the authority that is or ought to be hers. We can assume that God did not create any authority without also creating a place for it to legitimately act as that would be inconsistent with His provision for all other created things, for foxes dens to live in and rabbits and such to hunt, for each created thing a home and a way of life that fits its nature. Therefore the authority that He did create ought to be used by its legitimate holder and not left idle.
The Church has erred greatly in not using its power properly. In fact, the whole modern age and its troubles might well be defined as the period in which the church has abdicated the use of her legitimate authority, largely to the State or the Secular Experts of various kinds. All of the recipients of the Church's power, having no divine remit to use that power have made colossal asses of themselves with it. The cure is for the church to repent of her fearfulness, legitimate as it may seem, and use power in faith.'
Even people who proclaim to detest philosophy carry around some caricature version of one of the above theories of human nature. Contradict it and they'll let you know how you just don't get it and that humans are in fact such-in-such a way. You've done a magnificent job here of explaining the nuance of how there is some diversity within what constitutes human nature while keeping it simple enough to be conveyed with startling clarity in just a few paragraphs. Just brilliant, thanks Luc!
I think the “noble savage” concept is dangerous - because it means that people who are subjected to it can only fail to live up to it in reality. Fact is, they’re people just like everyone else, and failing to recognise that some people in a community might have problems or flaws can leave them in a parlous situation. I am percolating a post on this…
Indeed. Also, part of the reason why the noble savage idea is so successful is that it implies that all humans are good at heart, and civilization just corrupted them, as I pointed out in the post.
The problem with that is that people tend to seek "goodness" where there might not be any, such as when dealing with psychopaths or even hopeless narcissists and "cluster B" personality types. It emphasizes the eternal hope to turn people around -- to make them good, if only the bad influences can be taken away, if only the person can be made to look at their childhood and issues. Those who couldn't care less about others will ruthlessly exploit such sentiments.
I still can understand the allure of the noble savage concept: it can be just a longing for something better. And no doubt our modern civilization can corrupt humans.
Looking forward to your piece, Katy!
Yes, I agree with this. I’ve had to learn the hard way that there’s no fixing someone with a Cluster B personality if they don’t recognise the issue, and it’s just tipping all your effort and help into a black hole. I understand why the noble savage idea is attractive. I think, in some ways, we’re still regretting the Agrarian Revolution: yearning for a more equal society where we all worked together and knew everyone.
BUT, interestingly, I have also read an account of a San tribe getting together and murdering a tribe member who was a psychopath, and even his own mother said it was necessary. Not much space for Cluster Bs in a hunter-gatherer society where subsistence is difficult.
Strange than none of these theories recognize the role trauma plays in human society. Traumatized individuals cause more trauma, to themselves and others. Increased trauma levels in a culture spawn increased violence. It’s very difficult in the modern era to see humans as we really are because almost everyone is wounded by various kinds of trauma, narcissistic manipulation, and dehumanization (which typically goes unrecognized). We can only know what human nature is truly like if we heal ourselves of trauma.
These seem to be the dominant secular views of "human nature." They don't include the religious views. I can't say I am intimately familiar with any of these views, but I know the Vedic view of course does include a past life element that the secular views leave out. The Abrahamic story includes the concept of original sin. This would be useful to a group trying to justify the use of Earth as a spiritual prison, but I've never bothered to study it closely.
My teacher, who discovered the existence of past lives by a research method, often told us, "Man is basically good." He meant by this that the spiritual being is actually invested in the concept of being right, or doing good. He used this basic urge to explain various human behavioral mechanisms, such as the tendency of many criminals to assist the police in catching them. He also used this datum to explain why human beings had become so spiritually powerless over time, being convinced that some of the mistakes they made in exercising their spiritual powers were "bad."
Though beings may indeed have innately different capabilities, including their inclination towards self-correction, the more important datum regarding spiritual beings is that they are immortal and thus death, and behaviors associated with it like murder, are artifacts of the game of biology and not innate to the spiritual experience.
This apparently confused some beings so thoroughly that they never learned to play or accept the game of human life as most beings did. These are our psychopaths. In the context of human life, they are extremely destructive. In the context of spiritual life, they are immature and childish, but not natively bad.
As I have mentioned before, the scientific finding that people are immortal beings who reincarnate totally changes our understanding of "human nature" and psychology. When reasonably reliable tools can be found to consult human memory, information can be recovered that is totally inaccessible by any other method. Anyone on this planet who attempts to piece together a long-term history of the beings who now dwell here, must rely on one or more of these tools. This work could be considered "psychic research," particularly in a world of conventional science which looks down on these methods. My scorn, as you might imagine, is directed towards conventional science.
Yes, these are all (post-)enlightenment secular views - but that's what most people these days presuppose, even many religious people. No doubt ideas such as past lives, karma, soul journeys and so on change the picture. Although I would argue that some of the secular views are valuable even under these different premises.
Remember, though, that these are not just "ideas." I knew about them before I saw any research on them, and paid no attention. Then I found out that certain basics were supported by research and were being applied in the field of mental health. That changed my tune. And I discovered several other researchers in the area who were using their own methods to demonstrate that people actually have past lives that may contain experiences that affect their behavior and personality in this life. Academia, though, shows no real interest. I see this as a dangerous situation.
To a lot of Leftists the good - evil dichotomy is:
Collectivism (good) - individualism (evil)
I am reading a book which says that is a false dichotomy. The real one is:
Coercion (by Leftist big government) is evil- cooperation (in systems of voluntary exchange, like a free market economy) is good.
Makes sense to me.