Tag Archives: human nature

Human nature.

Nature for humans is cultivated by humans.

Merely verbal differences.

One calls it “the development of human nature,” while another author calls it “the essence of the human condition.”

Vijay Iyer, “Human Nature.”

Please spend more time covering tunes that people know—not writing those tunes with titles for Ph.D. dissertations.

Do I believe in “human nature”?

That depends—is “human” meant as a compliment or an insult?

Here’s an idea: study humans.

I don’t derive deep insights about monkeys from my study of humans. So how can I take studies of monkeys seriously when they pronounce upon “human nature”?

How misanthropic!

They call ignorance, greed, and selfishness “vices.”

Strength in superficiality.

Political theory does not derive from or even necessitate a theory of the human condition. A presupposition of public consequence will suffice.

Statement and sentiment.

Statements on “human nature” directly express how some humans feel towards nature and indirectly express how some humans feel about society. 

Historians with no sense of history.

Presuppositions about “the human condition” or “human nature” waste so many words to prove that nothing much changes and that everyone is the same.

Natural, social, and thinking beings.

Our first nature is instinctual; our second nature is intuitive; our third nature is counter-intuitive.