"Si, Mr Philosopher, tell us why people make war and not peace?"
Well, it's not that difficult a question if we look at evolution. Either there is a species advantage to making war or there are no species inhibitors to making war.
Considering the first, we know that human beings evolved from ape-like ancestors who roamed the savannas of Africa. These groups relied heavily on cooperation to survive, and were more foraging animals than anything. Human beings, for instance, have no claws or talons or teeth to fight with. Our strength is limited. And from what we know of our ancestors through archeology and anthropology, they were more similar to us than to gorillas who do have the strength to do some damage. We probably did not evolve any specific drive to fight or make war.
Rather, we probably develop war after we developed tools. This is sort of the answer that 2001: A Space Odyssey gives. 2001 wants to link violence to growth in intelligence, but we need not believe that either. People simple became capable of doing damage, and since they did not evolve with that capacity, then they had no inhibitions to violence.
Now, we have social inhibitions to violence -- whether through religion or laws or morality. But these evolved because we don't have real biological constraints to violence. If we did, we wouldn't need morality, or religion, or laws. We simply wouldn't hurt others.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Love Anyone
What is love? What is it for human beings to love? Do we love in ways different than other animals?
Much of our lives in the 21st century America is focused on love. Listen to our songs, watch our movies, it's all around us. Romantic love.
But there is another kind of love. Love, not for romance, but just for the other. Are we really capable of this. I think so.
When I saw my children born, there was something there so different from anything else I've ever felt. When I helped my wife when she suffered through kidney stones, that was not romantic love. And we see this all the time. Perhaps if our newspapers would talk about these examples of love as much as they talk about wars, maybe we would feel better, and in feeling better, would live better.
I think of Harry Potter at this point. The theme of the Harry Potter books is rather simplistic: love conquers all. And it wasn't romantic love. IT was love for another. How anyone could ever say that Harry Potter was anti-Christian when what it expresses is THE Christian message is beyond me.
If Harry Potter is any indication, love is all around and feeds us. We can't forget that as we think about what it means to be human.
Much of our lives in the 21st century America is focused on love. Listen to our songs, watch our movies, it's all around us. Romantic love.
But there is another kind of love. Love, not for romance, but just for the other. Are we really capable of this. I think so.
When I saw my children born, there was something there so different from anything else I've ever felt. When I helped my wife when she suffered through kidney stones, that was not romantic love. And we see this all the time. Perhaps if our newspapers would talk about these examples of love as much as they talk about wars, maybe we would feel better, and in feeling better, would live better.
I think of Harry Potter at this point. The theme of the Harry Potter books is rather simplistic: love conquers all. And it wasn't romantic love. IT was love for another. How anyone could ever say that Harry Potter was anti-Christian when what it expresses is THE Christian message is beyond me.
If Harry Potter is any indication, love is all around and feeds us. We can't forget that as we think about what it means to be human.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
How We See
What would your life be like if you were born in the third century under the Roman empire? What would it be like if you were born a different gender? Who would you be if you were born a different race?
Many of us may have thought of these questions before, especially if our race or gender or class has worked against us. But we don't often think about what it means for how we see things -- that is, how we see or interpret the world.
It's no good saying that there is an objective truth. Even if there is an objective truth -- some God's eye view of the world -- we have no access to it. We are not God or gods. We are human beings living in a particular time and place.
This fact remains with us even if we are scientists. The results of our science must be interpreted. The studies have to be designed, which requires asking questions. Questions cannot be asked without a background to ask them against.
No one could ask why evil exists in the world until they saw God as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. No one could deny that we can travel faster than the speed of light until we discovered that light travels at finite speeds.
We have to remember, then, that our investigation into human nature comes from a certain perspective. In this blog I use a modern Aristotelian perspective, that takes into consideration the latest findings of evolution and what we know about the myriad cultures that span the globe and excised of its misogynist and racist tendencies.
Many of us may have thought of these questions before, especially if our race or gender or class has worked against us. But we don't often think about what it means for how we see things -- that is, how we see or interpret the world.
It's no good saying that there is an objective truth. Even if there is an objective truth -- some God's eye view of the world -- we have no access to it. We are not God or gods. We are human beings living in a particular time and place.
This fact remains with us even if we are scientists. The results of our science must be interpreted. The studies have to be designed, which requires asking questions. Questions cannot be asked without a background to ask them against.
No one could ask why evil exists in the world until they saw God as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. No one could deny that we can travel faster than the speed of light until we discovered that light travels at finite speeds.
We have to remember, then, that our investigation into human nature comes from a certain perspective. In this blog I use a modern Aristotelian perspective, that takes into consideration the latest findings of evolution and what we know about the myriad cultures that span the globe and excised of its misogynist and racist tendencies.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Nature 2: Dynamic Nature
Nature is an abiding center of activity. It is a repertoire of tendencies and power inherited and forming a fairly firm characteristic pattern (Mary Midgley, Beast and Man, 56). We're talking about a group of activities and powers -- a tendency to love our children, a power to be rational. These form the dynamic core of what we are. But they are dynamic -- they involve change and action by default.
It is no use to speak of powers if we do not act to exercise those powers. It is no use to speak of tendencies unless we see those tendencies as ways of acting. Human nature is not static but dynamic. Even the very idea of a nature as an abiding center of ACTIVITY speaks against a static view.
Thus, we must avoid over-simplifications that treat human beings -- or any other creature -- as something unchanging. Yes, the tendencies and powers form a characteristic pattern -- but is characteristic, not set in stone. And, importantly, Midgley goes on to say that this repertoire of tendencies and powers is influences by our environment after birth. Which means that, we act within a range of tendencies and powers.
A simple example first: we know that intelligence is inherited. What is really inherited is a range of possible IQ. So a child is born with the inherit possibility of having an IQ somewhere in the range of 60 to 100 or 100 to 120. What determines where the individual actually ends up on the IQ scale is the individual's environment. Thus, we know that children sent to better schools, who eat properly, and have more parental involvement tend to fall higher within their range, whereas children who lick paint with a led content tend to have lower IQ's.
Similarly, when we think of of racial or gender differences, we have to look at how society -- the environment -- effects the we way exercise our powers or the tendencies we express. So when we receive studies suggesting that women are more nurturing than men, we need not get locked into the idea that this is a static thing and that women are doomed (or blessed) to being nurturing nor that men are blessed (or doomed) to work in the external world of gain and power. IT reflects how our society plays upon our nature.
Thus societies show a wide variety of practices from cannibals to Jainists. This is because we have dynamic natures.
It is no use to speak of powers if we do not act to exercise those powers. It is no use to speak of tendencies unless we see those tendencies as ways of acting. Human nature is not static but dynamic. Even the very idea of a nature as an abiding center of ACTIVITY speaks against a static view.
Thus, we must avoid over-simplifications that treat human beings -- or any other creature -- as something unchanging. Yes, the tendencies and powers form a characteristic pattern -- but is characteristic, not set in stone. And, importantly, Midgley goes on to say that this repertoire of tendencies and powers is influences by our environment after birth. Which means that, we act within a range of tendencies and powers.
A simple example first: we know that intelligence is inherited. What is really inherited is a range of possible IQ. So a child is born with the inherit possibility of having an IQ somewhere in the range of 60 to 100 or 100 to 120. What determines where the individual actually ends up on the IQ scale is the individual's environment. Thus, we know that children sent to better schools, who eat properly, and have more parental involvement tend to fall higher within their range, whereas children who lick paint with a led content tend to have lower IQ's.
Similarly, when we think of of racial or gender differences, we have to look at how society -- the environment -- effects the we way exercise our powers or the tendencies we express. So when we receive studies suggesting that women are more nurturing than men, we need not get locked into the idea that this is a static thing and that women are doomed (or blessed) to being nurturing nor that men are blessed (or doomed) to work in the external world of gain and power. IT reflects how our society plays upon our nature.
Thus societies show a wide variety of practices from cannibals to Jainists. This is because we have dynamic natures.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Nature 1: Against a Static Idea
Metaphysically, nature is defined as an abiding center of activity (see W. Norris Clarke, The One and the Many). how does this help us to understand human nature?
Part of the problem is that people understand human nature as static. Thus, people object to the idea that human beings have an essence of a form because they see that as an unchanging thing. Feminists rightly object to this because the traditional notion of the woman's essence locked women into a social structure with little change and little possibility for growth or fulfillment. This also lies behind the modern rejection of social roles. Such social roles were seen as based on essence and form. Nobles were born with one form and serfs with another. These were unchangeable -- they were static, and growth was not an issue. All that mattered was fulfilling the role.
Yet, even if we accept that people have roles to fulfill, such an acceptance does not imply that they must be static in those roles. We don't want to fall into the contemporary, capitalistic belief that everyone has to be an individual and their value is based on their individuality. On the other hand, we don't want to forget that we each fulfill our roles in different ways. What works for one father may not work for another; what works for one child may not work for another.
Roles, essences, and natures are dynamic. They change with the changing world, and part of what changes the world is how human beings interpret their standing in the world. Our stories and our histories change all the time.
This is the power of dynamic thinking based in a real conception of what it means to be a human being.
Part of the problem is that people understand human nature as static. Thus, people object to the idea that human beings have an essence of a form because they see that as an unchanging thing. Feminists rightly object to this because the traditional notion of the woman's essence locked women into a social structure with little change and little possibility for growth or fulfillment. This also lies behind the modern rejection of social roles. Such social roles were seen as based on essence and form. Nobles were born with one form and serfs with another. These were unchangeable -- they were static, and growth was not an issue. All that mattered was fulfilling the role.
Yet, even if we accept that people have roles to fulfill, such an acceptance does not imply that they must be static in those roles. We don't want to fall into the contemporary, capitalistic belief that everyone has to be an individual and their value is based on their individuality. On the other hand, we don't want to forget that we each fulfill our roles in different ways. What works for one father may not work for another; what works for one child may not work for another.
Roles, essences, and natures are dynamic. They change with the changing world, and part of what changes the world is how human beings interpret their standing in the world. Our stories and our histories change all the time.
This is the power of dynamic thinking based in a real conception of what it means to be a human being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
