Do you believe humans as a whole will ever overcome being violent?

[Vaderofdarkness997]

I think humans will forever be violent due to violence being in human's nature.

[Diavolo]

Cool question, to be honest.

There are two very interesting axes, which are often used when the topic of human nature is addressed: nurture and nature. But first, what is natural? If something may define nature, it is that it is transitory. Talking about nature is not talking about the static. Is it talking about instincts? Perhaps, but the behavior of a society or an individual will depend on the moral (obedience to custom behavior/repetition of tradition) of its time and the structure of its society. We call this Nurture. Nature (or what you could call natural) would be the genetic memory that someone carries in their DNA. There have been cases where a Chinese child is adopted by people, who are taken to live in another country and the child speaks the new language perfectly, even though all of his ancestors have spoken Mandarin.

We do not inherit behaviors, we learn them from the environment. If you want to change the destiny of a person or society, help improve or destroy their material living conditions.

 

But what do you think that constitutes human nature and why?

[Vaderofdarkness997]

1 hour ago, Diavolo said:

Cool question, to be honest.

There are two very interesting axes, which are often used when the topic of human nature is addressed: nurture and nature. But first, what is natural? If something may define nature, it is that it is transitory. Talking about nature is not talking about the static. Is it talking about instincts? Perhaps, but the behavior of a society or an individual will depend on the moral (obedience to custom behavior/repetition of tradition) of its time and the structure of its society. We call this Nurture. Nature (or what you could call natural) would be the genetic memory that someone carries in their DNA. There have been cases where a Chinese child is adopted by people, who are taken to live in another country and the child speaks the new language perfectly, even though all of his ancestors have spoken Mandarin.

We do not inherit behaviors, we learn them from the environment. If you want to change the destiny of a person or society, help improve or destroy their material living conditions.

 

But what do you think that constitutes human nature and why?

1 hour ago, Diavolo said:

Cool question, to be honest.

There are two very interesting axes, which are often used when the topic of human nature is addressed: nurture and nature. But first, what is natural? If something may define nature, it is that it is transitory. Talking about nature is not talking about the static. Is it talking about instincts? Perhaps, but the behavior of a society or an individual will depend on the moral (obedience to custom behavior/repetition of tradition) of its time and the structure of its society. We call this Nurture. Nature (or what you could call natural) would be the genetic memory that someone carries in their DNA. There have been cases where a Chinese child is adopted by people, who are taken to live in another country and the child speaks the new language perfectly, even though all of his ancestors have spoken Mandarin.

We do not inherit behaviors, we learn them from the environment. If you want to change the destiny of a person or society, help improve or destroy their material living conditions.

 

But what do you think that constitutes human nature and why?

I think that the ways of feeling, and thinking are apart of human nature. For instance we as humans naturally dont respond well to foul odors and tend to get upset when presented in a scenario. I do think that a person's environment and the way they were brought up does play a factor on whether or not they see violence as the ultimate way of going about things in life. But I do also think that when someone is presented with violence or if someone they love is hurt in a violent way it is natural to want to use violence towards the person who inflicted the violence. Like if someone murdered someone's mother or father who they were very close too of course naturally that person will want to see violence inflicted upon the murderer who killed their close relative. That's where morals and boundaries come in that stops people from carrying out violence and how your environment and the way you were brought up comes into play I believe. But I do believe ill will and wanting to hurt the person who used violence to harm the person's loved one will always be there. I think that's where forgiveness comes in to help people deal and cope with those feelings.

[Diavolo]

43 minutes ago, Vaderofdarkness997 said:

I think that the ways of feeling, and thinking are apart of human nature. For instance we as humans naturally dont respond well to foul odors and tend to get upset when presented in a scenario. I do think that a person's environment and the way they were brought up does play a factor on whether or not they see violence as the ultimate way of going about things in life. But I do also think that when someone is presented with violence or if someone they love is hurt in a violent way it is natural to want to use violence towards the person who inflicted the violence. Like if someone murdered someone's mother or father who they were very close too of course naturally that person will want to see violence inflicted upon the murderer who killed their close relative. That's where morals and boundaries come in that stops people from carrying out violence and how your environment and the way you were brought up comes into play I believe. But I do believe ill will and wanting to hurt the person who used violence to harm the person's loved one will always be there. I think that's where forgiveness comes in to help people deal and cope with those feelings.

But what do you call human nature? Where does it come from? If we were all violent, where does goodness come from?

The Greeks loved to perform on the stage. The moral and social structure of their times encouraged them to display and even show off their virtues in public; they saw envy as a positive instinct, reaffirming interest in competition.

Christianity, on the other hand, exalts those who display themselves as guilty, sinful, and insignificant. It might as well call an ancient Greek superb.

From Arab cultures, from the times of Muhammad, perhaps it still happens, it is known that a ranger could receive an enemy in his tent in the desert for 3 nights and, if the visitor needed it, in the name of hospitality; the host would sacrifice his\her only animal to meet the needs of the newcomer. On the 4th day, the host could already kill the guest if he\she had not left. That was or is the moral of the desert people.

Reacting with violence, as you say, is still the moral of a certain context, which is printed in a material environment where people are being oppressed by people with the capacity to oppress with violence. In general, it occurs in the countries of the center/south of the planet, from where natural resources are extracted.

Laos was a peaceful country before capitalism was established there. The concept of happiness was different before consumption was established as the way to get there.

But, What is human nature? Where does it come from? Why doesn't the morality of a society have to do with the material conditions; of a person?

 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Diavolo
typo

[Vaderofdarkness997]

34 minutes ago, Diavolo said:

But what do you call human nature? Where does it come from? If we were all violent, where does goodness come from?

The Greeks loved to perform on the stage. The moral and social structure of their times encouraged them to display and even show off their virtues in public; they saw envy as a positive instinct, reaffirming interest in competition.

Christianity, on the other hand, exalts those who display themselves as guilty, sinful, and insignificant. It might as well call an ancient Greek superb.

From Arab cultures, from the times of Muhammad, perhaps it still happens, it is known that a ranger could receive an enemy in his tent in the desert for 3 nights and, if the visitor needed it, in the name of hospitality; the host would sacrifice his\her only animal to meet the needs of the newcomer. On the 4th day, the host could already kill the guest if he\she had not left. That was or is the moral of the desert people.

Reacting with violence, as you say, is still the moral of a certain context, which is printed in a material environment where people are being oppressed by people with the capacity to oppress with violence. In general, it occurs in the countries of the center/south of the planet, from where natural resources are extracted.

Laos was a peaceful country before capitalism was established there. The concept of happiness was different before consumption was established as the way to get there.

But, What is human nature? Where does it come from? Why doesn't the morality of a society have to do with the material conditions; of a person?

 

 

I think that human nature is the natural feelings, actions, and ways of thinking that are unique to humankind. I do believe that human nature is instilled in us from birth. For example when a baby is hungry crying is a way for them naturally to let the parent know they need to be fed. Or when a young kid doesn't get their way a tandrum is a way they naturally use to try to accomplish the goal of getting what they want. I do understand where your coming from. I do believe that because of morality people do have a clear distinction on right and wrong. That's what I think draws a fine line for people who I believe get a natural urge to want to fight back when presented by someone in a hostile way. I also think goodness is apart of human's nature. I think when one is kind to another its only to be kind back, but I do recognize that some people dont respond nicely to someone being nice to them. Possibly because of environmental conditions or because they were taught by other behaviors to be that way? Possibly so, and so while I do think that naturally people act and behave a certain way I do recognize that morality and environmental conditions does play a part in the way humans behave and act. I believe it's up to us to draw a line from right and wrong and to overcome behavior that's detrimental to humanity.

[Diavolo]

12 minutes ago, Vaderofdarkness997 said:

I think that human nature is the natural feelings, actions, and ways of thinking that are unique to humankind. I do believe that human nature is instilled in us from birth. For example when a baby is hungry crying is a way for them naturally to let the parent know they need to be fed. Or when a young kid doesn't get their way a tandrum is a way they naturally use to try to accomplish the goal of getting what they want. I do understand where your coming from. I do believe that because of morality people do have a clear distinction on right and wrong. That's what I think draws a fine line for people who I believe get a natural urge to want to fight back when presented by someone in a hostile way. I also think goodness is apart of human's nature. I think when one is kind to another its only to be kind back, but I do recognize that some people dont respond nicely to someone being nice to them. Possibly because of environmental conditions or because they were taught by other behaviors to be that way? Possibly so, and so while I do think that naturally people act and behave a certain way I do recognize that morality and environmental conditions do play a part in the way humans behave and act. I believe it's up to us to draw a line between right and wrong and to overcome behavior that's detrimental to humanity.

I still have doubts.

That a baby cry from hunger corresponds to an act, an emotion, and a unique human thought? Puppies are human when they do the same? Maybe it's just an anthropocentric vision; of human exceptionality.

There is no natural order, but a way of perceiving this order in the environment through the conveniences of a force that exerts power.

There is violence where 1 mentality does not allow others to arise. This is called repression.

Morality, in short, reveals to us how close we are to animals; it exists to distinguish predators, to distinguish hierarchies or lack thereof, and to provide us with food through the founding of cooperative groups in case of serving the ruling morality; to prove to be part of the collective. That is why we are kind to those who are kind to us and that is why we want to fight against those who threaten our order. We are not different from animals, if anything we are more sophisticated to love and to exercise cruelty.

You say you believe. Believing is not knowing. Your belief is based on something that you have faith in first and then see that belief reflected in the world. From that logic, violence would cease to exist if you stopped believing in it. But not believing in something does not dispel what would happen anyway. You can't change someone's behavior without first changing his beliefs; his\herprejudices about reality.

Don't you think that those who know that they cannot change their material conditions through work prefer to exercise violence because it is the only alternative they envision to achieve it? Or speaking of those who hold power, don't you think it is convenient for them to keep social structures in terrible conditions so that a force cannot be organized that opposes them?
 

Violence is organized.

But... Hey, no topic is explained as saying: 2 + 2 = 4. This can be considered populism.

All this are just mere ideas, that I'm willing to put into test.

 

[Vaderofdarkness997]

28 minutes ago, Diavolo said:

I still have doubts.

That a baby cry from hunger corresponds to an act, an emotion, and a unique human thought? Puppies are human when they do the same? Maybe it's just an anthropocentric vision; of human exceptionality.

There is no natural order, but a way of perceiving this order in the environment through the conveniences of a force that exerts power.

There is violence where 1 mentality does not allow others to arise. This is called repression.

Morality, in short, reveals to us how close we are to animals; it exists to distinguish predators, to distinguish hierarchies or lack thereof, and to provide us with food through the founding of cooperative groups in case of serving the ruling morality; to prove to be part of the collective. That is why we are kind to those who are kind to us and that is why we want to fight against those who threaten our order. We are not different from animals, if anything we are more sophisticated to love and to exercise cruelty.

You say you believe. Believing is not knowing. Your belief is based on something that you have faith in first and then see that belief reflected in the world. From that logic, violence would cease to exist if you stopped believing in it. But not believing in something does not dispel what would happen anyway. You can't change someone's behavior without first changing his beliefs; his\herprejudices about reality.

Don't you think that those who know that they cannot change their material conditions through work prefer to exercise violence because it is the only alternative they envision to achieve it? Or speaking of those who hold power, don't you think it is convenient for them to keep social structures in terrible conditions so that a force cannot be organized that opposes them?
 

Violence is organized.

But... Hey, no topic is explained as saying: 2 + 2 = 4. This can be considered populism.

All this are just mere ideas, that I'm willing to put into test.

 

I do enjoy and embrace ideas that are different from my own. It helps me to open my mind up to things I didn't consider before. I would like to say that I'm open minded and take every thing in consideration. I appreciate your commentary.

[Diavolo]

Thank you, sir, for introducing in the forum such an interesting topic. The appreciation and respect are mutual.

[Karlos2006]

That's a good question.  Hard as it may be to believe humans are actually becoming less violent.  With education and standards of living becoming more improved, violence has decreased.  BUT with the wide spread variety of media  we hear more about violence so it feels the opposite.  For instance you might hear a lot of news reports about Shark attacks and so think that Shark attacks are increasing when really they're not, you're just hearing more about it.  (I actually experienced this Summer, 2005).  I don't think we'll be completely non-violent but in centuries to come, I think humans will be more....enlightened for lack of a better word.

[Trappernicus]

Without God humans will never find the inner peace needed to overcome the animal within 🦊