In accordance with nature or against nature?

[atlashunter]

This is probably going to come off as rambling because I’m searching for clarity but thought I would put it out and there and get some thoughts.

Read a quote the other day by Zeno, “Man conquers the world by conquering himself.” This expresses a common theme of the importance of self mastery found in many religions and schools of thought. On the other hand there is the idea that we must live in accordance with nature and with our own nature as human beings. Doctrines such as Marxism that run contrary to and seek to change human nature often lead to horrific consequences. And some aspects of our nature that have been deemed as vice such as selfishness can be explained as important, even necessary to our survival, in evolutionary terms. Ayn Rand argued that selfishness is a virtue. Adam Smith similarly argues that the butcher serves others not out of altruism but out of his own self interest. The point being that even aspects of our nature that may at first glance seem a negative to be diminished are actually instilled in us by nature for good reason. If it’s true that we should live according to nature then how can it be true that we should be in conflict with our own nature which nature has bestowed upon us? Hope that makes sense. I’m inclined to be in agreement with both propositions though they seem to be contradictory. Thoughts?

 

[ambush80]

This is probably going to come off as rambling because I’m searching for clarity but thought I would put it out and there and get some thoughts.

Read a quote the other day by Zeno, “Man conquers the world by conquering himself.” This expresses a common theme of the importance of self mastery found in many religions and schools of thought. On the other hand there is the idea that we must live in accordance with nature and with our own nature as human beings. Doctrines such as Marxism that run contrary to and seek to change human nature often lead to horrific consequences. And some aspects of our nature that have been deemed as vice such as selfishness can be explained as important, even necessary to our survival, in evolutionary terms. Any Rand argued that selfishness is a virtue. Adam Smith similarly argues that the butcher serves others not out of altruism but out of his own self interest. The point being that even aspects of our nature that may at first glance seem a negative to be diminished are actually instilled in us by nature for good reason. If it’s true that we should live according to nature then how can it be true that we should be in conflict with our own nature which nature has bestowed upon us? Hope that makes sense. I’m inclined to be in agreement with both propositions though they seem to be contradictory. Thoughts?

Any Rand, or Ayn Rand in particular?

 

[ambush80]

Just kidding. I'll come up with some heady gobledygook inna minute.

 

[ambush80]

Quickly, Evolution seems to have also equipped us with propensity towards working together and altruism. I don't know too much of Rand, only what I've seen in interviews, but she seems to miss this relatively recent observation.

 

[ambush80]

I thought about this recently:

Can we force evolution by shaping our societies to favor certain traits over others? I think the answer is yes. If we shape society as to favor traits like altruism or helpfulness, make them the sexy traits that women seek, it seems that those are the traits that will proliferate.

 

[The Original Rooster]

Quickly, Evolution seems to have also equipped us with propensity towards working together and altruism. I don't know too much of Rand, only what I've seen in interviews, but she seems to miss this relatively recent observation.

I agree. For example, primitive man taking care of elder members of it's communities once they could no longer contribute by way of food or work allowed them to be able to pass on knowledge from that period that could only be gained through the passage of years like weather patterns, animal migrations, etc. It's been theorized that great story tellers of ancient man would have been highly valued members of communities due to knowledge passed on by those stories.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

My take is all things in moderation. Sure, look out for #1 because no one else is assured to, but don't turn a blind eye to others around you.

 

[ambush80]

My take is all things in moderation. Sure, look out for #1 because no one else is assured to, but don't turn a blind eye to others around you.

We can trim out the motor depending on the conditions. We can adjust the "Fairness" dial to affect the "Justice" outcome but we should do so carefully.

 

[ambush80]

I agree. For example, primitive man taking care of elder members of it's communities once they could no longer contribute by way of food or work allowed them to be able to pass on knowledge from that period that could only be gained through the passage of years like weather patterns, animal migrations, etc. It's been theorized that great story tellers of ancient man would have been highly valued members of communities due to knowledge passed on by those stories.

That's the racket I should have gotten into; Shamanism.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

We can trim out the motor depending on the conditions. We can adjust the "Fairness" dial to affect the "Justice" outcome but we should do so carefully.

Not sure what you're speaking towards, but I'm literally just talking individual level since that would be the base unit in a naturist viewpoint, IMO.

 

[The Original Rooster]

That's the racket I should have gotten into; Shamanism.

I've seen a few super fantastic plastic shamans on Youtube. You need a blue or red bandanna to wrap around your head for it to work apparently. Pretty good money from being a cult leader too but it's hard to stay under the radar.

 

[ambush80]

Not sure what you're speaking towards, but I'm literally just talking individual level since that would be the base unit in a naturist viewpoint, IMO.

The base unit is the individual and they can do whatever they want when they're by themselves. As Atlas points out, a contradiction arises when you add one more person in the mix. Otherwise, concepts of altruism and selfishness are meaningless. And if it's true that man has a "social" nature, then that dynamic is what I was speaking to.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

The base unit is the individual and they can do whatever they want when they're by themselves. As Atlas points out, a contradiction arises when you add one more person in the mix. Otherwise, concepts of altruism and selfishness are meaningless. And if it's true that man has a "social" nature, then that dynamic is what I was speaking to.

Altruism is a lie. I'm not saying you can't do nice things for people, though. I'm saying that the little pleasure tickle you get out of doing it is why you keep doing it. Take that away and people stop doing it.

Selfishness absolutely exists, however. What I was referring to was tempering that selfishness, i.e. not raiding your neighbor's victory garden in the wee hours of the morning for your own benefit, into something that's at least mutually beneficial, trading some of your excess venison for some of his squash, is the optimal state.

We were able to evolve how we did because early humans were able to do just that and separate the labor one family unit would have to endure to survive and instead focus on one aspect so that others would have mutual benefit. In that same vein, the quote he used is absolutely spot on and not just from a philosophical standpoint. Mastering yourself is what allows you to synchronize into that mutually beneficial system in totality. Every cog that betrays the whole in blind support of their endeavors damages us and themselves. Not to say that you can't pursue your desires, you just have to master them so they don't control you and become unhealthy.

 

[ambush80]

Altruism is a lie.

There's plenty of material to support altruism's evolutionary origins.

I'm not saying you can't do nice things for people, though. I'm saying that the little pleasure tickle you get out of doing it is why you keep doing it. Take that away and people stop doing it.

Many of those "tickles" are based in evolution. They tickle in a pleasurable way because they were advantageous.

Selfishness absolutely exists, however. What I was referring to was tempering that selfishness, i.e. not raiding your neighbor's victory garden in the wee hours of the morning for your own benefit, into something that's at least mutually beneficial, trading some of your excess venison for some of his squash, is the optimal state.

We were able to evolve how we did because early humans were able to do just that and separate the labor one family unit would have to endure to survive and instead focus on one aspect so that others would have mutual benefit. In that same vein, the quote he used is absolutely spot on and not just from a philosophical standpoint. Mastering yourself is what allows you to synchronize into that mutually beneficial system in totality. Every cog that betrays the whole in blind support of their endeavors damages us and themselves. Not to say that you can't pursue your desires, you just have to master them so they don't control you and become unhealthy.

People are different. Some of them are psychopathic and all degrees of in between. The more psycopathy someone has, the harder it might be for them to accept the notion of mutual benefit. There's the other side of the spectrum which would cause someone to be overly empathic to the point where their worldview might become a liability to flourishing as well.

 

[atlashunter]

Any Rand, or Ayn Rand in particular?

Dang cell phone!

 

[atlashunter]

The base unit is the individual and they can do whatever they want when they're by themselves. As Atlas points out, a contradiction arises when you add one more person in the mix. Otherwise, concepts of altruism and selfishness are meaningless. And if it's true that man has a "social" nature, then that dynamic is what I was speaking to.

I think my question isn't really centered around selfishness vs altruism. I brought that up as an example of an aspect of human nature that perhaps we wrestle with and which is often viewed a bad aspect of our nature but which from an evolutionary standpoint was actually endowed to us with good reason and therefore perhaps should not be diminished as much as many are often inclined to think. Does that make sense?

I *think* what I'm after or struggling with is the contrast between embracing human nature as it is versus the challenge or even the need to conquer or master ourselves. I'm not even sure the issue here depends on adding other people to the mix although that does perhaps add to the complexity of the issue. Even in the hypothetical man on a deserted island scenario the issue is still there. For example it's in our nature to be lazy. Maybe there is some aspect of that which has a reason like not wasting energy unnecessarily. But if I live according to that nature and don't challenge it then I face other negative consequences. Everything in moderation is I think a generally sound principle. Keep it between the lines. But I think what my mind keeps coming back to is that dichotomy between not fighting your nature and fighting your nature. The path to a life well lived is found in both? Perhaps in developing the wisdom to know when each is called for?

 

[Spotlite]

I can agree that both propositions "seem" to contradict, and I can agree with both propositions at the same time.

There has to be a standard / foundation to operate from. What’s natural, and to who?

With that in mind, is conquering ourselves the same as self control / discipline? Basically, just because it’s natural to do, or even ok to do, is it the right thing to do?

 

[ambush80]

Richard Dawkins said something like "The role of society is to undermine Evolution (Natural Law)" I butchered that but it was similar. I don't like that he comments on the "Role of Society". I do appreciate that he understands the impact society can have, though.

 

[NCHillbilly]

I think my question isn't really centered around selfishness vs altruism. I brought that up as an example of an aspect of human nature that perhaps we wrestle with and which is often viewed a bad aspect of our nature but which from an evolutionary standpoint was actually endowed to us with good reason and therefore perhaps should not be diminished as much as many are often inclined to think. Does that make sense?

I *think* what I'm after or struggling with is the contrast between embracing human nature as it is versus the challenge or even the need to conquer or master ourselves. I'm not even sure the issue here depends on adding other people to the mix although that does perhaps add to the complexity of the issue. Even in the hypothetical man on a deserted island scenario the issue is still there. For example it's in our nature to be lazy. Maybe there is some aspect of that which has a reason like not wasting energy unnecessarily. But if I live according to that nature and don't challenge it then I face other negative consequences. Everything in moderation is I think a generally sound principle. Keep it between the lines. But I think what my mind keeps coming back to is that dichotomy between not fighting your nature and fighting your nature. The path to a life well lived is found in both? Perhaps in developing the wisdom to know when each is called for?

You don't go buy a Ford and then spend the whole time you own it trying to turn it into a Chevy. Sometimes things work better the way they were originally designed.

 

[Spotlite]

You don't go buy a Ford and then spend the whole time you own it trying to turn it into a Chevy. Sometimes things work better the way they were originally designed.

By nature, real men just go ahead and buy a Chevy?