Human Nature

[Belacqua]

Reasoning to be rational was a rather late development.  I assume reasoning evolved to solve problems relating to surviving and competing.

Also, consciousness evolved so that we could identify when best to employ our apparently contradictory abilities.

I'm going to stand back a bit warily from the evolution talk. Of course, everything we are came about through evolution, but I'm not confident enough to say clearly that "trait X evolved in order to deal with problem Y." We've all heard talk about "spandrels" and been warned not to see intentionality or teleology in evolution, so I don't feel qualified to draw any direct lines explaining how reasoning or consciousness came about. 

That said, I think we can enumerate a number of traits that are common enough in human beings to be called part of human nature. And we can point to a list of things that are necessary for human flourishing. 

Health, obviously, helps one flourish. While handicapped or chronically ill people may also flourish in their way, I think it's fair to say that the sicker one is the less likely one will be to flourish. 

As you mention, we are social animals, so I think that supportive relationships with others are a necessity. Though these may take many forms -- family or friends or lovers or whatever works for you. 

Then if we think sort of like Maslow's hierarchy, I would say that the ability to employ one's own talents is a mark of flourishing. There's a famous quote from Stephen J. Gould: “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” We would all benefit if those people had had the chance to fulfill their potential. 

So if we start with a list like this, we could hold it up against the way our society is working now, and get a clearer picture of how well we're doing at encouraging the kind of flourishing that human nature points to. 

Part of our social nature is to be tribal, but that depends on our identifications. These days I identify more with my country than with my family, which I haven't seen in years.

So identifications can change. For instance, part of the present success of Republicans can be attributed to Fox News propaganda teaching them to hate other Americans.

Yes, I think so too. While we are tribal by nature, which tribe we end up in isn't necessarily fixed from birth. The fact that I moved halfway around the world, and changed which language I speak most, is a sign of that. I  feel more at home here than I would in my original hometown, I'm sure. 

Now here's the part where I get everybody mad at me again: 

Let's say that we are in the tribe of atheist/Democrat/"trust-the-science" types. I am not convinced that this is the very bestest number one tribe, superior to all the others. All the tribes have their good points and bad points, or else nobody would stay in them. From our point of view, given our preferences, ours will of course seem best, because we have chosen a tribe that aligns with our view, and then once we're in the tribe it reinforces and informs further views in line with tribal thinking. 

The fact that our tribe seems so compatible with neoliberalism, which has serious drawbacks, makes me think we could do better.

But I think it is our duty to remain very wary of tribal thinking, and remain open to the qualities in people very unlike ourselves. I mean, it's easy to focus on Fox News, which is of course horrible. But I'm not convinced that people who believe what CNN or MSNBC are telling them are all that much smarter.