Human Nature

[Angrboda]

The best analysis of why political parties interfere with progress is surely Simone Weil's On the Abolition of All Political Parties. Here she makes a persuasive case that by aligning ourselves with a party, instead of just focussing on the truth, we turn ourselves away from the truth. It's true she writes from a Christian perspective, but because she was a philosopher, the God she writes about is entirely different from the God that we argue against on this forum. For her (as for Plato and most philosophers) God is simply the true and the good. And since you also feel that at least some parties turn people away from the truth, this is a profitable thing to read. 

What becomes of the politics of the possible and the overton window?

[Belacqua]

The best analysis of why political parties interfere with progress is surely Simone Weil's On the Abolition of All Political Parties. Here she makes a persuasive case that by aligning ourselves with a party, instead of just focussing on the truth, we turn ourselves away from the truth. It's true she writes from a Christian perspective, but because she was a philosopher, the God she writes about is entirely different from the God that we argue against on this forum. For her (as for Plato and most philosophers) God is simply the true and the good. And since you also feel that at least some parties turn people away from the truth, this is a profitable thing to read. 

What becomes of the politics of the possible and the overton window?

I've been told I'm not supposed to discuss politics any more.

[Angrboda]

[Angrboda]

I've been told I'm not supposed to discuss politics any more.

Tant pis pour vous.

[arewethereyet]

What becomes of the politics of the possible and the overton window?

I've been told I'm not supposed to discuss politics any more.

You can discuss politics.  The issue is turning a thread that isn't about politics into one where you talk nothing but politics.  Surely with how well read you are, you can work that out.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What becomes of the politics of the possible and the overton window?

I've been told I'm not supposed to discuss politics any more.

No one told you that. Victimhood ill becomes you.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

Victimhood ill becomes you.

Boru

Au contraire, it's his old brown shoe.

[Alan V]

I believe this discussion has largely run its course in any case.  Most atheists here seem as critical of human nature as I have become.

Perhaps I should concentrate on secular humanism, which is still a possibly redeeming perspective, as @AFTT47 suggested early on.

As I said earlier, politics is where human nature shows itself in an obvious way, and where we debate what we want to do with it. 

If you don't want to do politics, we could certainly discuss religion, because for many centuries religion was the framework through which Western people analyzed human nature. 

Dante is the obvious example. Nobody ever parsed human weaknesses and their cures more than he did. 

A more recent example is C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce. You have to read Dante before you read this one, but it is a more modern version, explaining just what it is about human nature that keeps us turning toward what is false and selfish. 

The best analysis of why political parties interfere with progress is surely Simone Weil's On the Abolition of All Political Parties. Here she makes a persuasive case that by aligning ourselves with a party, instead of just focusing on the truth, we turn ourselves away from the truth. It's true she writes from a Christian perspective, but because she was a philosopher, the God she writes about is entirely different from the God that we argue against on this forum. For her (as for Plato and most philosophers) God is simply the true and the good. And since you also feel that at least some parties turn people away from the truth, this is a profitable thing to read. 

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/...al-parties

What secular sources would you recommend?

I don't wish to ignore you, but I find your replies puzzling.  I really don't know how to respond, but will give it a shot.

I would much rather hear about what you find relevant in such things, at least in brief.  You seem well-intentioned at least.

I do enjoy reading, but collected so many books before I retired that I am unlikely to finish all the ones that I already own.

I think all political parties should be able to address the facts with their own particular policy prescriptions.  If they ignore or deny problems, they aren't really problem-solvers IMO.

I am wondering whether secular humanistic perspectives could help moderate my rather misanthropic perspectives.

[The Grand Nudger]

I suppose this question falls under the heading of psychology: What do other atheists think about human nature in general?

I think we're compulsively decent in general.  Might not be for an accurate reason or even a good reason...consider the effort and risk involved (or wrongly believed to be involved) in being evil, but I do think it would be difficult to explain why we're not consistently doing our worst if bad or even amoral acts were something like behavioral gravity.   

I don't have any time for christian views on mans nature, mostly because those views invariably serve christian theology rather than accuracy or morality.  There are far more positive and, I think, accurate views of human nature in theism than anything christianity has or even could offer. Insomuch as they may also be wrong, they are at least aspirational in the way that a worldview is meant to be - as a function. Many of them open to atheists, though they coexist in a theistic belief set the existence of given gods is not a prerequisite for their truth in the way that a specifically christian view of mans nature cannot be separated from christ.

Man is fallen, and the only solution is to kill the better man vs man is good..and if he isn't..he ought to try harder.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I suppose this question falls under the heading of psychology: What do other atheists think about human nature in general?

I think we're compulsively decent in general.  Might not be for an accurate reason or even a good reason...consider the effort and risk involved (or wrongly believed to be involved) in being evil, but I do think it would be difficult to explain why we're not consistently doing our worst if bad or even amoral acts were something like behavioral gravity.   

I don't have any time for christian views on mans nature, mostly because those views invariably serve christian theology rather than accuracy or morality.  There are far more positive and, I think, accurate views of human nature in theism than anything christianity has or even could offer. Insomuch as they may also be wrong, they are at least aspirational in the way that a worldview is meant to be - as a function.  Many of them open to atheists,  though they coexist in a theistic belief set the existence of given gods is not a prerequisite for their truth in the way that a specifically christian view of mans nature cannot be separated from christ.

Man is fallen, and the only solution is to kill the better man vs man is good..and if he isn't..he ought to try harder.

I think the four Gospels is aspirational Christianity, mostly -- y'know, aside from that whole, "I'm bringing the sword" stuff. But yeah, "do unto others", "love your brother" stuff -- something to aim for even as they honor it in the breach.

What was that Gandhi-ism? "I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians"?

Before anyone goes off half-cocked, I don't care much for his hypocrisy either.