Human Nature

[Belacqua]

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.

This is kind of you. I realize I'm not on the same wavelength as most people here.

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

Fair enough. You shouldn't have to read a thousand pages to get my meaning. 

And I assure you that I am well-intentioned -- in fact I'm sort of blandly stating what seems obvious to me, with the least possible drama. 

Dante takes Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and makes an adventure story of it. As the pilgrim Dante travels through the levels of Hell and Purgatory he sees examples of the ways in which people go wrong, and why. In the smallest possible nutshell, the idea is that we are always motivated by love of something, but we may love things that are not really good for us. 

I find these books valuable, as well as the C.S. Lewis book (which is not really at the level of the other two) because they parse out in detail the ways in which our human nature is likely to go wrong. 

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.

The Japanese word for buying more books than you could ever possibly read is tsundoku. Since I am an addict, and my wife runs the public library, it's the sort of thing we deal with!

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.

Yes indeed. Though some problems are certainly undeniable, well-intentioned people may sincerely offer different possible solutions. The trouble comes when the people who pay the bills distort the decision-making process. This is a major problem for both parties, and I see no way of getting away from it any time soon. 

I especially think that no solutions will be found as long as we give one party a pass, simply because they're not quite as bad as the other party. Both can be bad.

I don't think that reasonable politicians elected by well-informed voters are an impossibility -- like four-sided triangles or whatever. But in the present system pretty much all the power is arrayed against such a thing. 

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

Serious, good question. Has anybody offered hopeful words here? 

Certainly secular humanist values, if applied to fair politics, would be a great improvement over what we have now. Humanist values, as I understand them, are not simply the values of capital. 

Just for fun, I asked Grok "What are the values of secular humanism?" AI, as always, is to be taken with a grain of salt:

---

Secular humanism emphasizes human reason, ethics, and compassion without reliance on religious or supernatural beliefs. Its core values include:

Reason and Critical Thinking: Using evidence, logic, and science to understand the world and solve problems.

Ethics and Morality: Developing moral frameworks based on human well-being, empathy, and fairness, independent of divine authority.

Individual Dignity and Autonomy: Respecting each person’s worth, freedom, and right to self-determination.

Social Justice and Equality: Promoting fairness, inclusivity, and the reduction of suffering through collective action.

Secularism: Advocating for the separation of church and state, ensuring decisions are based on rational, inclusive principles.

Scientific Inquiry: Valuing empirical evidence and the pursuit of knowledge through the scientific method.

Compassion and Altruism: Fostering kindness, cooperation, and support for others to enhance human flourishing.

---

I think I would add some things to this. The kind of education it suggests seems to be entirely STEM. But how we get from the "is" of science to the "ought" of morality isn't spelled out. I think that humanism, secular or otherwise, needs heavy doses of the humanities as well. 

Not that long ago, Carl Sagan said that “It was considered unthinkable for an aspiring physicist not to know Plato, Aristotle, Bach, Shakespeare, Gibbon, Malinowski, and Freud—among many others.” 

I think Gibbon is dated now -- respected as a great prose stylist but not as an accurate historian. Nonetheless, this kind of education -- and we could add any number of other names to the list -- would surely be necessary for a fuller understanding of human nature, its pitfalls and possibilities. Simply choosing up teams, then not allowing criticism of one's own side and not being willing to learn from the other -- may be human nature, but it's the kind of tribalism that we should do our best to avoid, I think.