Human nature is not real

i see those claims a lot on leftypol but no justification whatsoever

care to enlighten a comrade?

Other urls found in this thread:

arcaneknowledge.org/philtheo/stirner.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=MfDnQPtijjc
phys.org/news/2011-09-humans-naturally-cooperative-altruistic-social.html>
youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_human_nature
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Human "nature" varies widely from person to person, culture to culture. Societies have existed, and existed successfully without an intense social hierarchy before.
It's not "Bougeosis" but read this
arcaneknowledge.org/philtheo/stirner.htm

Both morality and "human nature" ("humans are naturally competetive" and other bullshit like that) are products of society not qualities that are ingrained into every man. Both serve to justify the status quo, and since the status quo is a bourgeois-dominated society they can be said to be bourgeois.

You have to be completely deluded to deny that humans are endowed with a specific biological endowment that characterises us as a species.

Stop reading "human nature" as "human nature is to be capitalist". It doesn't mean that, even if some retards use it that way.

Honestly though those retards are less retarded than you blank slaters and pure social constructivists.

I take the Michael Parenti view on human nature. Give this talk a watch, if you've got the time.
youtube.com/watch?v=MfDnQPtijjc
To put it in short, people do have a nature, but that nature is malleable and depends and changes with the conditions in which they live. Parenti explains it way better than I could, though.

As for morality?
I would not say morality is not bourgeois, rather that there is a bourgeois morality, know what I mean? What the ruling class considers right and wrong is mostly to justify their position in the hierarchy. Because of that, it shouldn't apply to us.

Meant to say "I would not say that morality is bourgeois".

Nice argument dude. My point wasn't "we are le blank state" but there is nothing in human nature that dictates an economic hierarchy and societies have existed without it before, and flourished.

Human nature can be related to biological instincts that we have developed over thousands of years during our evolution as a species.
It really irks me when people here say "human nature isn't real" when it certainly is on a fundamental level.
If anything, it's anti-scientific to just assume that everything can be related to material conditions. Sure, a lot of our behavior is related to material conditions but certainly not all of it.

Humans are either fully biologically determined without any volition or they're tabula rasa. NO IN BETWEEN.

THINK OF IT LIKE HUMANS VS. ORCS

What, you don't think there are chemicals in your brain that create this instinct? Is there a spirit that does it?
Don't mix up "human nature" with some kind of vulgar spiritualism.

that thread has a special place in my memories

Our absolute biological endowment encourages eating, breathing and drinking, engaging in sexual activity and putting foreign objects into our mouths to determine what they are. I recognize and accept it, but it means nothing 99% of the time.

That's literally the opposite of what I'm saying.
And yes, there is such a thing as brain chemistry. Some people are born with the genetic makeup that makes them more likely to be predisposed to certain mental conditions such as depression or alcoholism.
Material conditions may be a contributing factor in determining if someone succumbs to these mental conditions but genetics (i.e. human nature) play a part as well.

Those are part of material conditions, fam. Things don't stop being material inside your noggin.

Human nature does exist. For example: humans are naturally social animals. phys.org/news/2011-09-humans-naturally-cooperative-altruistic-social.html>

As you can se from the article, human nature encourages us to be altuistic, not competitive. Cooperative, not individualistic.

Doesn't exist. I can say this because of the wide, wide range of definitions of morality. Something so self-contradictory, I can say isn't real.

We also have a natural social proclivity. There is no examples in human history of groups of humans intentionally abandoning one another so as to live alone by the self. They choose to live together 100% of the time as do wolves and many other species. That is a tenet of human nature, it is far beyond human physical needs. With that social proclivity comes other elements of human nature that govern their social relationships, though we don't fully understand this.

Humans are magic princesses and can use their magic wands to become absolutely anything they desire. There's no such thing as DNA coding for brain structure. Souls are mutable and completely random.

Check this out: youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8

A debate between Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky on 'Human Nature'. It is quite interesting to watch because of the difference in approach of these two. IMO, Chomsky got totally rekt by Michel as the latter exposed and deconstructed the spooky ideals of the former.

Liberals assume that capitalism is natural and that human behavior is predisposed towards competition and hierarchy. Human nature has devolved into a liberal buzzword used to dismiss communism without putting forth a real argument. There can be no fixed or universalized human nature because so much of our behavior is determined by material conditions
moral arguments about muh gorilians and muh freedoms don't hold weight. Morality is a spook, it exists to suppress the ego by teaching people to uphold societal values that are anti-individualist and pro-capitalism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_human_nature
don't listen to illiterate faggots in the internets pls

I love you Holla Forums

I always thought that nothing is really known of human nature. It's based completely on pure speculation , and isn't even worth bringing up. The human nature arguments is often used as a cheap way to defend the current status quo of society. Back in feudalism like the Japanese Tokugawa Shogunate, the "human nature" argument was used to defend the feudal structure. If was of course used with European monarchy as well and now it's used with capitalism and liberal democracy.

40k should never have happened.

There's an entire field which studies human nature: psychology. Of course I don't expect any of the cuntgarglers here to know anything about that.