How to fast and easily debunk the "muh human nature" bullshit?

How to fast and easily debunk the "muh human nature" bullshit?

Other urls found in this thread:

Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution.

Essentially, it wasn't the most devious creatures that progressed, it was the ones who were able to work together as a species.

It was the most social species who became dominant. Which is why small chimp like beings who travelled in large packs flourished instead of Gorillas, who were bigger but were more solitary and stuck mostly to small family units.

If there's many natures there's no nature

Human nature a spook!

Ask them to define human nature for them, and then ask them what evidence they have, and when they cite some historical example hit em with the "but how can we separate the environmental effects on human behavior from what is genetically determined at conception?"

There isn't anything that humans do that isn't "human nature" unless you were to claim humans are somehow unnatural, in which case "human nature" doesn't exist in the first place.

Isn't species-essence the same as human nature?

kropotkin, stirner, oscar wilde, marx, zizekā€¦ each of them have their own answers and they're all valid

hyperreality, commodity fetishism, if there was human nature we wouldn't fall for the corporate bullshit

What of something like, say, sociopaths being drawn to positions of power? Of course, not every human is a sociopath, but nevertheless sociopathy is a part of human nature.


If it is held that man is "by nature" an uninventive tribesman and an inventive businessman, a submissive slave and a proud craftsman an independent hunter and a dependent wage-worker, then either man's "nature" is an empty concept, or man's "nature'' depends on material and historical conditions, and is in fact a response to those conditions.

Human nature exists. It's free will that's the spook.

Human nature is whatever a human do.
Humans do communism, therefore communism is human nature.

If human nature didn't exist then environmental factors wouldn't influence us. After all, if you can measure the influence of environmental factors on a human and show that it's a different to their influence on, say, a rock, then you've proved that humans have some "nature".

How do you define human nature?

about first 15 minutes

I don't believe it exists. It's a spook.

Only good if you actually know a lot about evolutionary biology, or the person you're talking about knows nothing. Otherwise you'll end up in a debate where you're way out of depth.

Can you give me a video that doesn't hurt to watch?

it doesn't present a biological argument but an anthropological one, the anthropological observations being observations of the conditions created by the biological functions and therefore touch on biology only indirectly. Nonetheless, the work is heavily researched and draws heavily on the research of others esteemed in the profession and indeed the idea of Mutual Aid was received as uncontroversial in Russia at the time of its release, the natural follow on from the works of Darwin.

Further, I would posit but Kropotkin does not directly, allthough he implies it, the social instinct often outweighs the biological one. Indeed, moving beyond the confines of our current biology is the essence of progression.