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…
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.
Smith, Wesley J. "The Trouble with Transhumanism." The Center for Bioethics and Culture RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
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.”
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.
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
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.
...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.
“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).
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
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.
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.
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.