Subscribe to Posts
Subscribe to CommentsIndividual Entry: Extrapolation of human nature
« The crunch is over |
Main
| Kepler's RIP »
If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr.
No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).If you want to know more about me, click here.
August 29, 2005
Thoughts : Extrapolation of human nature
Philosophers, as a whole, look for the "universal truths" of the human condition. The problem is – how do you know when something really is universal, as opposed to just common among philosophers?
Consider the proposition: people have an innate desire to find meaning for their lives – to find some context (religion, family, nationalism, invention, whatever) greater than themselves which makes their own existence meaningful. This is a position taken by a great many philosophers, although the significance of that desire has been interpreted in a variety of ways.
My question is – how does one decide if this is in fact a universal?
Obviously the philosophers who have come to this conclusion feel such a need (otherwise they would provide their own disproof); and since more than one have taken this position (including some who view this as a bad thing), it is clearly not an isolated behavior. Let's say a philosopher talks to a great many people, and discovers that while most folks say "I've never really thought about it", those that have thought about it agree with the observation. Can one then extrapolate from those conversations that the desire to find meaning is a human universal?
Or….
….instead, have you discovered that there is a subset of the population who thinks about the human condition (philosophers by inclination if not occupation), and that this subset has an innate desire to find meaning for their lives; but that most people don't spend time thinking about such things and really don't care if their lives have meaning? How can you tell?
I have come to the conclusion that one is not ready to consider deeply the universals of the human condition until one understands our differences.
I believe it is clear that there are fundamental differences in how people respond to the world – that there are a great many things which are not universal. Many models have been developed to categorize people into "personality types" – the Four-Temperaments model, the Myer-Briggs model, the Enneagram model, etc. All of these models define ways in which people are different. While I believe the spectrum of human behavior is too complex to allow people to be put in nice neat boxes, I do think these models are useful for understanding the ways in which we differ and it is only by having a deep understanding of our differences that we can successfully sort out those things which are in fact universal.
I believe to jump ahead and start looking for universals without an appreciation of these differences is like looking for someone in a funhouse maze of mirrors – it is easy to get confused by all of the reflections.
Posted by Steven at August 29, 2005 09:46 AM
Comments
I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree. I'm not sure I can do justice to my side of this discussion off the cuff either, but here goes.
I think you have mixed metaphors here.
Along with the part of the population that thinks about the meanings of their lives, there are other parts of the population that always seek to break human-kind into individual pieces. He is caucasian. She is Type-A. They are Armenian. He is a serial killer. She wonders about the meaning of life.
We as humans put labels of all kinds on each other (is that a universal trait?) in order to differentiate and elevate ourselves from the miasma around us. My tribe is better than yours, if you don't believe it, I can make war on you to prove it.
We apply so many labels that they *obscure* the universal truths. In fact, you probably have to go to 10,000 feet - to remove yourself from the fray entirely - to catch a glimpse of any of them. Rather than funhouse mirrors, you have to see the carnival in its entirety before anything close to a universal truth is possible.
Posted by: Roland at September 6, 2005 07:25 AM
Hmmm
I'm not sure from your (admittedly off the cuff) response I understand what metaphors you think I was mixing.
I do agree that there are people who like to label and categorize.
I also think there are many reasons people do so – one of which is to establish themselves in a "superior" category; but I don't think that is the only reason.
I also agree that labels can serve to confuse things.
One must always remember that labels and categories are artificial, and only the people are real.
However, I stand by the observation I was trying to make (and perhaps failed to communicate well) that it is easy to make assumptions that how you think about things is also how "everyone" thinks about them – producing false assumptions about what is "universal" – and that having a greater understanding of how we are all different is as important to a philosopher as understanding how we are the same.
Posted by: Steven at September 6, 2005 05:47 PM
Apologise in advance if I drift a bit:
I agree that models are indded too narrow to express human nature... The only one which impressed me so far is the 3 layered model proposed by Jung which I believe is ... universal (conscience, personal sub-conscience and collectif sub-conscience (
My feeling would be that differences amongst people are due to variations in our "imperfections" as a result of personal history and choices in life, .... I believe that an individual spending his/her life struggling against his/her moral defects (ok, the defnition of these is not always obvious) would then be in a good position to state some universal facts on human nature... So therefore, it is, I think(!), a step for the philosopher to improve him/herself to philosophe. But surely someone too perfect originally would then be in a bad position to understand other people...
Ok, I'm confused :-)...
Posted by: hakim at September 23, 2005 01:08 PM
