Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1richardbsmith
Is the nature of human nature explained by a three stage evolution of the brain - reptilian, mammalian, human?
Does this evolutionary development answer the question whether we are selfish or selfless with a definite yes?
Does this evolutionary development answer the question whether we are selfish or selfless with a definite yes?
2Mr_Wormwood
I would encourage a lively scepticism when it comes to all claims of 'human nature'. The science of 'human nature' has a long history and its been invariably wrong, phrenology is a good example of this.
I find it strange that so many, especially those new to philosophy, will equate scientific discouse and the philosophical way of life as impinging on each other. For me the two are strictly seperate. Questions of 'evolutionary development' are questions that should be posed to scientists and not philosophers. What does the philosopher care for evolutionary development?, the philosopher simply seeks to live well, to enjoy life, to question life but not necessarily to answer and define it.
I find it strange that so many, especially those new to philosophy, will equate scientific discouse and the philosophical way of life as impinging on each other. For me the two are strictly seperate. Questions of 'evolutionary development' are questions that should be posed to scientists and not philosophers. What does the philosopher care for evolutionary development?, the philosopher simply seeks to live well, to enjoy life, to question life but not necessarily to answer and define it.
3richardbsmith
That is me.
Less trying to equate scientific discourse and the philosophical way of life than trying to understand the relationship one to the other.
4bjza
I'm not sure I like how the questions are framed. Yes, I think our brain would play a large role in a final explanation of human nature, but its role will be much more complex than the interaction of three stages. Also, I don't see a need to bring physiology or evolution into the solution for the problem embedded in the second question:
Do some human beings behave selfishly? If yes, then being selfish is an aspect of human nature.
Do some human beings behave selflessly? If yes, then being selfless is an aspect of human nature.
Do some human beings behave selfishly? If yes, then being selfish is an aspect of human nature.
Do some human beings behave selflessly? If yes, then being selfless is an aspect of human nature.
5Mr_Wormwood
On the relationship between Science and Philosophy, i like what Nietzsche had to say on the matter. Quoting roughly from his 'Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks', a little known work written shortly after 'THe Birth of Tragedy'. He says that difference between Science and Philosophy lies in the exercise of taste in knowledge. For Science all knowledge is to be consumed and devoured indiscriminately, the Scientist (in theory) wishes to know everything about everything, he is a knowledge omnivore. The Philosopher, on the other hand, exercises selectivity, for he only wants to know what is Great, Important, Unusual and Astonishing. The philosopher cultivates a delicate and refined palete, and 'consumes' only the best in knowledge, the scientist has his head in the trough and consumes good and bad alike. Nietzsche cleverly links this to the etymological roots of the word 'Philosopher' in Greek, with the root term, 'sapio', meaning 'to taste'
6semckibbin
richardbsmith wrote: Is the nature of human nature explained by a three stage evolution of the brain - reptilian, mammalian, human?
I dont see how the hardware by itself 'explains' anything. Yes, the hardware to carry electrical impulses and chemical reactions is important, but equally important is the software---the thoughts, desires, beliefs and so on, all of which are expressed in language---that is run on the hardware.
If anything, humans through the development of culture and language have taken over their own evolution, and our nature is whatever we want it to be. To point at our biology or the makeup of our central nervous system and say that's what determines what we really are, what we have to be true to, is to abdicate our own responsibility for our conduct and our future. The mature thing is for man to take responsibility for his own nature.
Mr. Wormwood wrote: What does the philosopher care for evolutionary development?
It makes for a handy metaphor to explain change without a teleology, so as to emancipate humans from the thought they are answerable to something non-human. And that idea leads me to suggest that philosophers should have some social utility beyond merely living well and enjoying life in their private lives.
I dont see how the hardware by itself 'explains' anything. Yes, the hardware to carry electrical impulses and chemical reactions is important, but equally important is the software---the thoughts, desires, beliefs and so on, all of which are expressed in language---that is run on the hardware.
If anything, humans through the development of culture and language have taken over their own evolution, and our nature is whatever we want it to be. To point at our biology or the makeup of our central nervous system and say that's what determines what we really are, what we have to be true to, is to abdicate our own responsibility for our conduct and our future. The mature thing is for man to take responsibility for his own nature.
Mr. Wormwood wrote: What does the philosopher care for evolutionary development?
It makes for a handy metaphor to explain change without a teleology, so as to emancipate humans from the thought they are answerable to something non-human. And that idea leads me to suggest that philosophers should have some social utility beyond merely living well and enjoying life in their private lives.
7Mr_Wormwood
'that idea leads me to suggest that philosophers should have some social utility beyond merely living well and enjoying life in their private lives'
I disagree, but that is just my personal conception of what it means to be a 'philosopher'. I'm happy to tell you why i believe this. For me the fountainhead of all philosophy is to be located in Ancient Greece and Rome. The rest of the history of philosophy i see as deeply tainted by the influence of Christianity, which is where i believe this desire to position philosophy as performing a 'social utility' arises. The Cynics, the Epicureans, the Sceptics and even the Stoics all advocated a deeply individualistic philosophical way of life. There is some qualification needed with this point, but generally the philosophers of Greece and Rome were devoid of the universalism that you find in Christanity. With the advent of Christainity philosophy becomes a form of theology and is bound up with the desire to save the souls of humanity, and thus the individualistic aspect of philosophy (Epictetus once argued that the secret to the art of life is the life of the self) is condemned as immoral selfishness, which for the Chrisitians stood at the heart of all 'sin'. ('Self is Satan')
I disagree, but that is just my personal conception of what it means to be a 'philosopher'. I'm happy to tell you why i believe this. For me the fountainhead of all philosophy is to be located in Ancient Greece and Rome. The rest of the history of philosophy i see as deeply tainted by the influence of Christianity, which is where i believe this desire to position philosophy as performing a 'social utility' arises. The Cynics, the Epicureans, the Sceptics and even the Stoics all advocated a deeply individualistic philosophical way of life. There is some qualification needed with this point, but generally the philosophers of Greece and Rome were devoid of the universalism that you find in Christanity. With the advent of Christainity philosophy becomes a form of theology and is bound up with the desire to save the souls of humanity, and thus the individualistic aspect of philosophy (Epictetus once argued that the secret to the art of life is the life of the self) is condemned as immoral selfishness, which for the Chrisitians stood at the heart of all 'sin'. ('Self is Satan')
8richardbsmith
bzja
The questions are phrased poorly. My apologies.
semckibbin "is to abdicate our own responsibility for our conduct and our future"
There is a lot of force in that point. Though justifying a lack of responsibility was not my point, I can see how blaming evolution for our ill behavior might derive from my question.
The freedom to choose and to act are important to my understanding.
My question was intended to get at the question of humanity's innate goodness or innate badness. I tried to avoid valuation words by using selfish and selfless. My question is whether evolutionary development has made innate the capacity for selfish drives, compassionate drives, and then reasoning drives (reptilian, mammalian, and human). In this way humanity is innately, biologically, selfish and selfless. Avoiding any intrinsic good/bad valuation between the drives, reason selects between impulses.
And if it has, in what ways does that knowledge impact philosophical consideration of the question of innate selfishness or selflessness.
That the thoughts (ideas, memory, purpose, consciousness) are distinct, separate from the evolved brain seems correct to me.
Mr Wormwood
I hate to bring this up, but I am one of those philosophical purity destroying Christians. Yet even without Christianity it seems to me that philosophy is more than individual wonder. Some might even state that there is no self without the society and the environment.
The questions are phrased poorly. My apologies.
semckibbin "is to abdicate our own responsibility for our conduct and our future"
There is a lot of force in that point. Though justifying a lack of responsibility was not my point, I can see how blaming evolution for our ill behavior might derive from my question.
The freedom to choose and to act are important to my understanding.
My question was intended to get at the question of humanity's innate goodness or innate badness. I tried to avoid valuation words by using selfish and selfless. My question is whether evolutionary development has made innate the capacity for selfish drives, compassionate drives, and then reasoning drives (reptilian, mammalian, and human). In this way humanity is innately, biologically, selfish and selfless. Avoiding any intrinsic good/bad valuation between the drives, reason selects between impulses.
And if it has, in what ways does that knowledge impact philosophical consideration of the question of innate selfishness or selflessness.
That the thoughts (ideas, memory, purpose, consciousness) are distinct, separate from the evolved brain seems correct to me.
Mr Wormwood
I hate to bring this up, but I am one of those philosophical purity destroying Christians. Yet even without Christianity it seems to me that philosophy is more than individual wonder. Some might even state that there is no self without the society and the environment.
9Mr_Wormwood
'Some might even state that there is no self without the society and the environment.'
I dont deny this, obviously humans are born into social groups, learn a language and a set of values through them. But that is socialization not philosophy. Philosophy is what happens when one begins to question this socialization, and it is preeminently what happens when one rejects the common held prejudices and self-evident assumptions that one unthinkingly takes on board during one's socialization.
I dont deny this, obviously humans are born into social groups, learn a language and a set of values through them. But that is socialization not philosophy. Philosophy is what happens when one begins to question this socialization, and it is preeminently what happens when one rejects the common held prejudices and self-evident assumptions that one unthinkingly takes on board during one's socialization.
10semckibbin
richardbsmith wrote: My question was intended to get at the question of humanity's innate goodness or innate badness.... humanity is innately, biologically, selfish and selfless. Avoiding any intrinsic good/bad valuation between the drives, reason selects between impulses.
Appreciate you putting your cards on the table. Seems like a very Platonic notion---something about a chariot with two horses.
Also, I'm curious, where does the idea of a "reasoning drive" come from?
Mr Wormwood Wrote: Philosophy is what happens when one begins to question this socialization, and it is preeminently what happens when one rejects the common held prejudices and self-evident assumptions that one unthinkingly takes on board during one's socialization.
A Deweyian point. But, to keep with your individualistic philosophic stance, are you arguing the philosopher keeps his insight to himself and shouldnt bother to try to expose the prejudices to others and change the social practices?
Epictetus once argued that the secret to the art of life is the life of the self
Sounds like he is explaining one secret by presenting another one.
Appreciate you putting your cards on the table. Seems like a very Platonic notion---something about a chariot with two horses.
Also, I'm curious, where does the idea of a "reasoning drive" come from?
Mr Wormwood Wrote: Philosophy is what happens when one begins to question this socialization, and it is preeminently what happens when one rejects the common held prejudices and self-evident assumptions that one unthinkingly takes on board during one's socialization.
A Deweyian point. But, to keep with your individualistic philosophic stance, are you arguing the philosopher keeps his insight to himself and shouldnt bother to try to expose the prejudices to others and change the social practices?
Epictetus once argued that the secret to the art of life is the life of the self
Sounds like he is explaining one secret by presenting another one.
11Booksloth
You're all being very academic about the subject and I won't even try to compete with that as it's a very long time since I studied philosophy in any depth. Just wanted to say that, to me, what makes human nature special is that it incorporates everything a being can ever be. I'm completely with richardb here in that humans are (even within the same person) both selfish and selfless. If you can't pin down a single human being to one or other then how can you ever expect to do that with an entire species? The marvel of humanity is that we are inately selfish and selfless, kind and cruel, beautiful and ugly, caring and distant, capable of the greatest acts or love and sacrifice and of hatred and sadism. That's what makes a great novel great and what makes writing fiction and developing real, flawed characters so fascinating.
12Mr_Wormwood
#10. 'are you arguing the philosopher keeps his insight to himself and shouldnt bother to try to expose the prejudices to others and change the social practices?'
This is a very interesting point so im glad you brought it up. There's two parts to what your saying here though, one: exposing prejudices, two: changing social practices.
Id say that im personally more comfortable with the first rather than the second.
I take my cue, once again, from the Ancient Greeks, specifically the Ancient Cynics.
The Ancient Cynics were staunch individualists who never stopped railing against the prejudices and customs of their society. They often did this, however, in a social setting. THus they went to the marketplace to argue, debate, philosophize, satirize, ridicule, their fellow Athenian citizens, yet they stood alone when they did it. They certainly did not form themselves into political groups in order to gain political power in order to attempt to change social practices. Yet organized poltical activism seems to be best, if not only, way to definitively instigate a universal and abiding change in a societies social practices. The Cynics, however, rejected all participation in political life. This was an extremely radical thing to do in the context of Athenian society in which the greatest good was to serve your city-state as a freeborn citizen. But the Cynics made a strict distinction between the practice of philosophy and the practice of politics. For the Cynic to practice philosophy is to indefatigably challenge all forms of established authority, whilst to practice politics is simply to exercise authority. This is a valuable distinction to make in my mind, and for those who believe otherwise i would simply refer them to the sad legacy of Karl Marx.
So while the Cynics were happy to attack prejudices and social customs, they did not engage in politics in order to change social practices. Did they care if others listened, and changed their ways as a result. Hard to say, in a certain sense you could say they did, but in another sense you could say they didnt. What you can definitely say is that at no point did they attempt to enforce their way of life on the Athenian people as a whole through legislation or the establishment of social institutions, and in this lies their genius
This is a very interesting point so im glad you brought it up. There's two parts to what your saying here though, one: exposing prejudices, two: changing social practices.
Id say that im personally more comfortable with the first rather than the second.
I take my cue, once again, from the Ancient Greeks, specifically the Ancient Cynics.
The Ancient Cynics were staunch individualists who never stopped railing against the prejudices and customs of their society. They often did this, however, in a social setting. THus they went to the marketplace to argue, debate, philosophize, satirize, ridicule, their fellow Athenian citizens, yet they stood alone when they did it. They certainly did not form themselves into political groups in order to gain political power in order to attempt to change social practices. Yet organized poltical activism seems to be best, if not only, way to definitively instigate a universal and abiding change in a societies social practices. The Cynics, however, rejected all participation in political life. This was an extremely radical thing to do in the context of Athenian society in which the greatest good was to serve your city-state as a freeborn citizen. But the Cynics made a strict distinction between the practice of philosophy and the practice of politics. For the Cynic to practice philosophy is to indefatigably challenge all forms of established authority, whilst to practice politics is simply to exercise authority. This is a valuable distinction to make in my mind, and for those who believe otherwise i would simply refer them to the sad legacy of Karl Marx.
So while the Cynics were happy to attack prejudices and social customs, they did not engage in politics in order to change social practices. Did they care if others listened, and changed their ways as a result. Hard to say, in a certain sense you could say they did, but in another sense you could say they didnt. What you can definitely say is that at no point did they attempt to enforce their way of life on the Athenian people as a whole through legislation or the establishment of social institutions, and in this lies their genius
13richardbsmith
A chariot with two horses - appetite and emotion - guided by reason is very Platonic, right out of the Republic, I think.
But that is not the direction I was going to nor coming from. Yet it fits quite well.
Ultimately I was thinking the relation between science and philosophy, and the impact of the physiology and evolution of the brain stages - stem and cerebelum, the limbic sections and neocortex, and the larger cerebral cortex.
The latter being the source of reasoning power.
While brain science is certainly more advanced than my cursory exposure to theories of a triune physiology of the brain, my basic question is how scientific advances impact such philosophical questions.
But that is not the direction I was going to nor coming from. Yet it fits quite well.
Ultimately I was thinking the relation between science and philosophy, and the impact of the physiology and evolution of the brain stages - stem and cerebelum, the limbic sections and neocortex, and the larger cerebral cortex.
The latter being the source of reasoning power.
While brain science is certainly more advanced than my cursory exposure to theories of a triune physiology of the brain, my basic question is how scientific advances impact such philosophical questions.
14semckibbin
...at no point did (the Cynics) attempt to enforce their way of life on the Athenian people as a whole through legislation or the establishment of social institutions, and in this lies their genius
It's genius to reject making the world better for future generations? Dont buy it.
What would have been their political platform, anyway? I'm sure the average Athenian didnt see the charm of living in a wine jar, I know I dont; nor do I see the charm of ascetism in general. Perhaps a person with a masochistic bent can see it as the path to his private perfection, but it's socially useless.
Yet organized poltical activism seems to be best, if not only, way to definitively instigate a universal and abiding change in a societies social practices.
There are the essay, the utopian sketch, the op-ed, the satirical comedy skit, etc.---there are lots of ways for philosophers to get memes out into circulation.
For the Cynic, to practice philosophy is to indefatigably challenge all forms of established authority, whilst to practice politics is simply to exercise authority. This is a valuable distinction to make in my mind, and for those who believe otherwise i would simply refer them to the sad legacy of Karl Marx.
To challenge all forms of authority at once, to long for total revolution, is unnecessarily destructive. Not everything has to be made new, just the traditions that stand in the way of greater freedom, greater equality, greater variety, and greater happiness throughout all human relationships.
The counter-example to the Marxist state would be democratic politics, dont you think? Democratic politics is how authority can be shared and how the terms of communal living can be established. So to say in 2010 that politics is simply the exercise of authority as the Cynics did seems wrong.
It's genius to reject making the world better for future generations? Dont buy it.
What would have been their political platform, anyway? I'm sure the average Athenian didnt see the charm of living in a wine jar, I know I dont; nor do I see the charm of ascetism in general. Perhaps a person with a masochistic bent can see it as the path to his private perfection, but it's socially useless.
Yet organized poltical activism seems to be best, if not only, way to definitively instigate a universal and abiding change in a societies social practices.
There are the essay, the utopian sketch, the op-ed, the satirical comedy skit, etc.---there are lots of ways for philosophers to get memes out into circulation.
For the Cynic, to practice philosophy is to indefatigably challenge all forms of established authority, whilst to practice politics is simply to exercise authority. This is a valuable distinction to make in my mind, and for those who believe otherwise i would simply refer them to the sad legacy of Karl Marx.
To challenge all forms of authority at once, to long for total revolution, is unnecessarily destructive. Not everything has to be made new, just the traditions that stand in the way of greater freedom, greater equality, greater variety, and greater happiness throughout all human relationships.
The counter-example to the Marxist state would be democratic politics, dont you think? Democratic politics is how authority can be shared and how the terms of communal living can be established. So to say in 2010 that politics is simply the exercise of authority as the Cynics did seems wrong.
15Mr_Wormwood
As i do not want to highjack richardbsmith's thread from him and as this debate with semckibbin has clearly strayed far from topic that richardbsmith is interested in, i will open a new thread on individualistic philosophy and i invite semckibbin and others to continue this debate there.
16richardbsmith
I am good with the topic flow as it is. Feel free to continue here. I will have more to comment but I do not think the topic has been highjacked.
18perdondaris
Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.
19kukulaj
The notion of human nature seems very weak. It's like trying to find the essence of a cloud. Which is not so crazy after all. But you'll want to use the right tools!
These days the accepted essence of any sort of animal is the DNA sequence. That sequence varies from one individual to the next, and the set of sequences present in a species has some scatter and drift over time, i.e. we evolve. At what point in the past did we become human; at what point in the future will we no longer be human?
But maybe we don't mean the species homo sapiens when we say "human". If we met some intelligent beings from another planet, might we want to say they, too, are human - if, e.g., they had language and myths and wild costumes and cuisine and really good parties with music and skits and even fools to tell dangerous jokes when everyone is drunk enough?
Our idea of who we are is also created in the context of other non-human animals... see Others: How Animals Made Us Human by Paul Shepard.
These days the accepted essence of any sort of animal is the DNA sequence. That sequence varies from one individual to the next, and the set of sequences present in a species has some scatter and drift over time, i.e. we evolve. At what point in the past did we become human; at what point in the future will we no longer be human?
But maybe we don't mean the species homo sapiens when we say "human". If we met some intelligent beings from another planet, might we want to say they, too, are human - if, e.g., they had language and myths and wild costumes and cuisine and really good parties with music and skits and even fools to tell dangerous jokes when everyone is drunk enough?
Our idea of who we are is also created in the context of other non-human animals... see Others: How Animals Made Us Human by Paul Shepard.
20perdondaris
Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.
21terrywf
My Dear Mr. Wormwood,
Surely you wouldn't argue that philosophy isn't thoroughly engaged in the debate regarding "What does it mean to be a person?" For, it seems to me that question, above all questions, will define one's weltanschauung regarding most other questions in the enterprise we call philosophy.
Regards,
Phaedrus
Surely you wouldn't argue that philosophy isn't thoroughly engaged in the debate regarding "What does it mean to be a person?" For, it seems to me that question, above all questions, will define one's weltanschauung regarding most other questions in the enterprise we call philosophy.
Regards,
Phaedrus
22tayoulevy
I don't thnk it does. EP ressurected this old philosophical concept and tried to make it scientific but it fails, if you are not already an innatist. To have a model of the brain, or an evolutionary approach, human nature is equally a presuposition, a condition for the development of hypotheses or models.
23GeneRuyle
Message 1 ~ To introduce the word 'explains' may involve a slight overreaching, might it not? Added to this is the fact that if evolution is truly the case, then isn't it still occurring? -- meaning we can't give "wrap 'em up" answers until everything is certifiably completed. What if we employ a term like 'speaks to' instead? In that case, to my eyes anyway, although the "three stage evolution of the brain" may indeed speak to the sameness seen among us, it doesn't go on to account for the differences also found there. Thanks for something substantive to ponder.
24donbuch1
If we use the term "explains" with regard to human evolution "explaining" human nature, then this suggests an ability to predict and control what is being communicated. Human nature is a vast set of attributes that varies in contexts. The stages of human development, the ontogeny and phylogeny, are only rough sketches that help to define what it means to be human. Nowadays, the scientists and philosophers refer to evolution on micro and macro scales that boggle the mind. If we think about the universe being some supra-organism, human nature is reduced to an atomic blip. If we think about ourselves as just as vast as the universe with so many neural connections (the universe within), then the perspective of human nature takes on more personal meaning.
25rrp
#1 I would be a little skeptical of claims that evolution can explain human nature. A very good antidote for this dangerous tendency would be Aping Mankind by Raymond Tallis. Avoid Darwinitis and Neromania at all costs!
26donbuch1
The lure of evolution as a reductionist theory for explaining human behavior has become the mainstay for many modern scientists as well as philosophers. I agree that to learn something new means to keep an open mind to other possibilities by remaining skeptical. Thanks for the recommendation on the Tallis book.
27richardbsmith
I have not posted on this topic in 2 years, but I appreciate everyone who has commented. Basically I think I am probably not well read enough to add much to the discussion - though I still have the questions.
What other possible sources of human nature are there, outside of evolution?
As to the potential for differences (#23), donbuch1 makes the essential point, I think, in#24, If we think about ourselves as just as vast as the universe with so many neural connections (the universe within), then the perspective of human nature takes on more personal meaning.
The numbers provide for infinite variety and individualization.
What other possible sources of human nature are there, outside of evolution?
As to the potential for differences (#23), donbuch1 makes the essential point, I think, in#24, If we think about ourselves as just as vast as the universe with so many neural connections (the universe within), then the perspective of human nature takes on more personal meaning.
The numbers provide for infinite variety and individualization.
28rrp
What other possible sources of human nature are there, outside of evolution?
I think the answer to this has already been discussed in several posts here -- but it may all come down to what we understand by the terms "human nature" and "evolution". You might start somewhere like the Wikipedia page "Human Nature" and plant your flag somewhere on the spectrum of opinions described there, so we all start on the same page, so to speak, if that is possible, which I doubt. Then we would have to do the same with "evolution" which means as many things to different people as there are people.
Which is a longer way of saying -- I don't understand the question.
I think the answer to this has already been discussed in several posts here -- but it may all come down to what we understand by the terms "human nature" and "evolution". You might start somewhere like the Wikipedia page "Human Nature" and plant your flag somewhere on the spectrum of opinions described there, so we all start on the same page, so to speak, if that is possible, which I doubt. Then we would have to do the same with "evolution" which means as many things to different people as there are people.
Which is a longer way of saying -- I don't understand the question.
30donbuch1
Human nature is a phrase with so many connotations that it's difficult to wrap one's head around it. Looking at the way in which the term "nature" relates to the human species, one can approach the topic numerous ways. From the psychological viewpoint, there is the "lense" that can be adjusted to an area of focus related to predispositions based upon our genetic blueprint. In psychology, the biggest question is the nature-nurture issue. Yet to isolate a single gene that supposedly controls a specific behavior is sheer nonsense. Likewise to say that someone will have certain traits based upon exposure to certain factors in the environment is equally questionable. However, there is some evidence to suggest that certain dominant genes can "prime" a person to "respond" a certain way, given environmental stimulation. However, it's fallacious to go any further than this. For me, the study of human nature begins with ourselves, and the study of human behavior is the logical place of origin. According to Myers, psychology itself can be studied on three levels of analysis: biological, psychological, and socio-cultural influences (http://www.scribd.com/doc/66411821/Psychology-in-Modules, p. 8). In my opinion, our relation to ourselves and the wider scope of environmental influences provides a functional definition of "human nature" from a psychological perspective. To generalize anything more than humans having natural curiosity would be unwarranted.
As a side note, you may want to study the following thinkers to consider the issue of "human nature" historically:
Plato versus Aristotle
Descartes versus Locke
Hobbes versus Rousseau
Ben Franklin versus Ralph Waldo Emerson
31LesMiserables
In reply to a couple of references above, Marxism is by and large the antithesis of Capitalism: it is humanitarian.
Humans are not naturally selfish and individualistic as Capitalists would like you to think, but are sociable beings inclined towards widespread peace and prosperity, not widespread war and poverty which is exactly the conditions capitalism needs to thrive and survive.
http://www.isreview.org/issues/82/crithink-marxismandmorality.shtml
And Rousseau can put it much more succinctly than me...
The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. ”
— Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754
Humans are not naturally selfish and individualistic as Capitalists would like you to think, but are sociable beings inclined towards widespread peace and prosperity, not widespread war and poverty which is exactly the conditions capitalism needs to thrive and survive.
http://www.isreview.org/issues/82/crithink-marxismandmorality.shtml
And Rousseau can put it much more succinctly than me...
The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. ”
— Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754
