Steven Pinker lays the foundation for his book by highlighting three main philosophies that permeate society’s view of humanity and their historical context: The Blank Slate (empiricism), the Noble Savage (romanticism), and the Ghost in the Machine (dualism) (2002, p. 11). Pinker is correct to challenge previous philosophical frameworks as they skew the way scientific research has been conducted. Present-day scientific and social research will only benefit from an acknowledgement of innate human nature.
Pinker first notes the ways in which scientific and humanitarian study is socially driven and defined by beliefs and cultural norms of the times. As a result, Pinker argues, the current way the Blank Slate mentality has infiltrated societal
…show more content…
worldviews heavily influences the way we design research and the findings we obtain (2002, p. 15). One of the ways this has manifested is behaviorism, the idea that an individual’s actions are evidence of their socialization, separate from their biology (Pinker, 2002, p. 20). While behaviorism is mostly an outdated framework, associationism, a theory of learning based on the formation of associations, is a modified version of behaviorism that affects psychological study (Pinker, 2002, p. 21). Behavioral researchers have also habitually equated the actions of research organisms across species, which begs the question, ‘do humans simply have more blank slate to cover with “cultural devices?”’ (Pinker, 2002, p. 22). Another way the Blank Slate creeps into the modern framework is through idealism or the thought that ideas are the ultimate reality, not the physical world (Pinker, 2002, p. 22). Under this philosophy, Franz Boaz challenged society to see not race but merely variance in cultures, a thought process that held moral imperatives (Pinker, 2002, p. 22). Boaz’s work led subsequent academics to adopt an absolutist mentality toward the effects of culture when they claimed that everything must be a result of culture (Pinker, 2002, p. 23). In tandem with the Blank Slate, Pinker demonstrates the extent to which the belief in the Noble Savage infiltrates societal interactions.
This thought suggests that humans are, by nature and without political intervention, peaceable, cooperative, and selfless (2002, p. 6). Pinker explains that this belief underlies much of politics, the hope for cultural improvement, and a peaceable vision of future society (2002, p. 26). However, this belief effects not just proactive policy, but also inspires fear by invoking the slippery-slope argument of innatist theories, arguing that they are grounds for all the social ills we fear (racism, socio-economic prejudice) (Pinker, 2002, p. 28). The Ghost in the Machine provides the last piece in Pinker’s framework: the theory that the body and mind are distinct from one another, the mind acting independently from the body and providing an indivisible meta awareness and guidance to the human being (2002, p. 9). This thought seems to be supported by a creationist viewpoint, as it alludes to a being similar to a puppeteer that forms and initially animates the mind of living beings in their beginning (Pinker, 2002, p. 29). Pinker points out early on that one key inconsistency is individuals’ efforts to improve society (2002, p. 28). Improvements made to society by products of that society seems to be a circular logic and ineffective approach to the perfecting process (Pinker, 2002, p. 28). Indeed, how do we know what would ameliorate society? But according to this way of thinking the ghost, the mind as a separate entity, guides this process (Pinker, 2002, p.
28). At present day, we are experiencing a state of scientific advancement in the fields of genetics, neurology, psychology, and evolution, all of which challenge the creationist, life-precedes-all-life view (Pinker, 2002, p. 31). Cognitive psychology, for example, applies the scientific approach to studying the mind by combining the physical with the mental and abstract to demystify the “ghost” (Pinker, 2002, p. 31). This field sometimes compares the brain to a computer, though Pinker emphasizes that while the mind does process information physically and is able to be studied scientifically, the mind cannot be equated with a machine (Pinker, 2002, p. 32-34). Cognitive psychology also breaks down the Blank Slate by contrasting the passiveness implied by a blank slate to the active, information-processing, actions of the mind (Pinker, 2002, p. 34). Pinker also argues that endless behavioral variations can come from a set number of mental processes, and that while variations do occur across cultures, these differences arise from universal mental processes (2002, p. 37). In opposition to the indivisible Ghost, Pinker notes that many high-functioning parts comprise the mind (2002, p. 39). This suggests that behavioral variability and choice are a result of the brain’s innate mechanisms (Pinker, 2002, p. 41). This way of thinking is actually not contrary to religious and moral frameworks that have previously driven behaviorism, but supports the good and evil struggle and the internal tensions that compete for outward behaviors (Pinker, 2002, p.40). Behavioral genetics, the science of behavioral output due to genes, has shown in many ways the fallacies of the Blank Slate framework (Pinker, 2002, p. 45). Simple, informal experiments in which animals with differing genomes were raised together demonstrate that shared environments do not automatically unify two species’ behavior (Pinker, 2002, p. 45). Pinker also references a host of twin studies that demonstrate mental and emotional abnormalities are most strongly correlated with genes, not environment (Pinker, 2002, p. 46-47). This does not mean that genes are everything – genes are not absolutely deterministic of every specific behavior, and genes also interact with the environment which influences behavior as well (Pinker, 2002, p. 48-49). As expected, Pinker’s discussion of human nature has stirred up both admiration and opposition. Robin McKie, writer for the Guardian, acknowledges that much of what Pinker argues is well articulated and intelligent, but takes issue with Pinker’s lack of specificity when providing research evidence by failing to cite the study (2002). Additionally, Pinker points to political atrocities such as Stalin’s rule or the Holocaust as evidence of leaders justifying violence and totalitarianism with the Blank Slate framework. According to McKie, these are instances of power-hungry men desperate to justify their power obsession (2002). McKie notes that, while these frameworks were for the most part ill informed, they can’t be blamed entirely for all past societal downfalls (2002). Likewise, Pinker portrays teachers’ efforts to improve the learning of students as manipulative “mindbenders” or the goals of feminism as stereotypically man hating and unaware of innate mental differences (McKie, 2002). Pinker provides a well-written, appropriate challenge to antiquated philosophical frameworks that neither support nor are supported by scientific and social research. While critics provide helpful feedback by cautioning the vilification of these frameworks for all societal wrongs, Pinker introduces into the discussion of human nature what few before have acknowledged.
The word “bias” has always had a negative connotation. Although it is used synonymously with bigotry and prejudice, its meaning is actually more akin to “point of view,” “personal tendency,” or “preference.” Just as every individual has her own worldview, so she has a set of biases. These biases are often observable in a person’s habits, speech, and, perhaps most explicitly, writings. Daniel Boorstin, renowned University of Chicago professor, historian, author, and librarian of Congress, is undeniably biased towards certain cultures in The Discoverers. A book chronicling mankind’s scientific history, its first words are “My hero is Man the Discoverer.” In his telling of “man’s search to know his world and himself,” Boorstin declares that
The title of this essay “Silence and the Notion of the Commons” gives the same idea of people as programmable and unprogrammable similar to the idea seen in the Matrix. Whereas programmable people, who are the commons, are the people inside the matrix they are also known as the sheep, the people that believe in everything they are told. The unprogrammable people, who are the silence, are the people outside of the matrix. Ursula Franklin uses a variety of techniques in order for the audience to fully understand her message, and to inform them of the topics discussed in her essay, as is particularly apparent in paragraph 5 of her essay “Silence and the Notion of the Commons.”
Smith, Wesley J. "The Trouble with Transhumanism." The Center for Bioethics and Culture RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
What more is the point of learning and understanding human history than obtaining the knowledge and structure between what is right and what is wrong? We continuously believe that we as humans have the ability and intellect to learn from the lessons taught in our past in order to enrich our future. In comparison to the time frame that is human history the one hundred year period of time we discussed in the second halve of this semester is nothing but a slight blimp on the map that we have traversed. Yet, throughout our recent readings we can easily assimilate into the idea that although time may pass, and that we may attempt to learn from our history it is simply in human nature to repeat the mistakes that we have
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
When we think of civilization, what comes to mind? Some might think of etiquette, compassion, and many other concepts of that nature. These are the things that people have come to accept as proper human behaviors. However, what of our more primitive instincts? Things that are often frowned upon such as pride, gut-instincts, and looking out for ourselves first are some of our most basic human needs. People in the modern world would like to rely more on teamwork and recognition that pride and independence. They prefer to trust logic and scientific reasoning in place of trusting what we believe to be right. They also seem to want us to help everyone around us before we do anything to help ourselves. In London’s The Call of the Wild, primitive nature is not something to be feared and overcome, but rather something to be utilized and fulfilled.
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
Inwardly examining his own nature, man would prefer to see himself as a virtuously courageous being designed in the image of a divine supernatural force. Not to say that the true nature of man is a complete beast, he does posses, like many other creatures admirable traits. As author Matt Ridley examines the nature of man in his work The Origins of Virtue, both the selfish and altruistic sides of man are explored. Upon making an honest and accurate assessment of his character, it seems evident that man is not such a creature divinely set apart from the trappings of selfishness and immorality. Rather than put man at either extreme it seems more accurate to describe man as a creature whose tendency is to look out for himself first, as a means of survival.
It is hard to say that one is human and perfect at the same time. Human beings are not capable of achieving perfection; if that would be so, humans would stop being humans. By nature the human race is full of flaws, some appearing as early as in the womb. From defects in the body, to defects in the mind, to the mistakes that one makes in quotidian life, it is impossible to deny that human imperfection exists. To try to manipulate humans into perfection is not only impossible, but it takes away the very essence of being a human being. The short story “The Birthmark” by Nathaniel Hawthorn, illustrates this teaching through the character of Aylmer, an ambitious and devoted scientist who is appalled by his wife Georgiana’s birthmark, believing it to be a perceivable sign of her human flaws and eagerly waits to remove it from her cheek. This story raises riveting questions such as, what is humanity all about, can human beings ever achieve perfection through science, is Hawthorn attacking science or a wider issue, and more significantly, should science take the place of God. Through the use of symbolism in “The Birthmark”, Hawthorn indirectly implies that imperfection is an essential part of being human and that science should not interfere; thus he is hinting his personal views toward science and its limitations over nature.
“Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it. He even talks of a battle with nature, forgetting that if he won the battle he would find himself on the losing side” (E.F. Schumacher, 1974).
...erefore we must seek to better understand it. It is unfortunate that the ideologies of the men mentioned here have still implemented themselves in our culture. While their premises are valid and vastly important in the history of humankind, one must be careful to discern what is relevant in today's society and what was the experimental leanings and philosophies of the past.
THESIS: Scientists and other intellectuals recognize the modern concept of "race" as an artificial category that developed over the past five centuries due to encounters with non-European people. Even though people still attempt to organize humans into categories according to their race, these categories have been shown to have no scientific basis.
In traditional philosophy, a human is limited based on categories like sex, race, orientation, and their abilities. One can see that these compositions are “building blocks” to the structure of that human. In contrast, the concepts of Posthumanism question the traditional ideals of what it is to be human. This school of thought rationalizes that we as humans are always changing and evolving with other forms of life and technology. In the book “Simians, Cyborgs, and Women; The Reinvention of Nature” the author, Donna Haraway, argues that we need to defy those categories that create and maintain that separation between our “selves” and others. This paper will explore Haraway’s ideals by surveying her book and relating her teachings to situations
In Fukuyama’s essay over Transhumanism, he describes this idea as the “most dangerous idea.” Transhumanism is the growth of humans through science and technology in every possible aspect of life. While this idea sounds beneficial, Fukuyama argues, “Our good characteristics are intimately connected to our bad ones.” The author emphasizes the how important our bad characteristics and complex minds to suggest these make humans complete. Without our faults, we would lose basic feelings of love, pain, exclusiveness, and even loyalty. The authors appeal to the readers looks as if, without the “bad” nothing would oppose, and compare to the “good.” In emphasizing the contrasts of human nature, the author creates a clear understanding of how these contrasts work with each other. For example, pain hurts but it is not bad to feel pain because it lets us know something is wrong with us. Fukuyama’s line of reasoning explains the importance of mortality in a way of putting life and humans into perspective on a much smaller scale.
Human nature is not simply a measure of our human tendencies. It is both individual and collective. It does not explain why events happen. Instead, it explains the subconscious of each individual in the instant that events happen. The social order that best fits human nature is one where the informed opinions of everyone creates decisions and causes action. Madison’s argument for and against factions, Aristotle’s idea of ultimate happiness, and Locke’s concept of popular government and human rights all offer a significant component to the larger concept that is human nature. While some may argue that we will only fully understand human nature when we are met with death, still we can begin to capture a slight understanding to what governs human nature and the political order that helps it grow.