They are distinct. A criminal lives life, but is that flourishing? I really have an earlier investment in ZMM (“Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” and other Pirsig works so maybe I’m able to make different interpretations).
I think the difference is applied when “human nature” is understood. It is counter to human nature to live however we so please, but that doesn’t mean the human is dead. Living counter to our nature signs appear that show us we are living counter to our own nature (signs such as getting sick). Counter is a force of weathering like on the side of a house. People can do counter-productive activities towards their nature, but eventually this weathering force upon their life will need a new paint job or some new siding put up. If not the house will more quickly fall apart as the wood is now exposed. More quickly cause if care was applied the house would have lasted longer. To maintain the house, or human nature quality and thus care needs attention and enacted.
Cause you die. Human nature is a straightforward - you are here or not here. If you are doing something that leads to you not being here, then you are doing something counter to your nature. People do things counter to their nature, but that doesn’t mean it’s healthy. People can make themselves sick. Is it in our nature to make ourselves sick and die? No cause our nature weakens when sick and when we die, well, our nature is not here, so, dying is totally counter and rids human nature all together.
Yes, understanding human nature is important. If you eat many of them and if you end up dying before you get sick you have proven that eating too many strawberries is counter to human nature. And even if you get sick, you have also proven that eating too many and making you sick, that act of being sick is what’s called counter to human nature.
I don’t think God needs to step in even though I’m a believer of God. It’s in our nature to live on past our reproductive age why? Cause of all the things you do past your reproductive age and time. That proves, whatever you do whether it’s having fun, reading some books, whichever, you are demonstrating what a human can do. And it’s not making you sick or killing you. This totally fits in with why ridding the State is important to human nature flourishing. The State stands in the way of human nature. It leads people into actions that are counter to humans living a good life. Immoral actions lead to sickness, and unnatural (murder, etc…) death. Living a quality life is way on the other end of the spectrum that leads away from sickness and away from unnatural death (murder, etc…)
Man is not bound by insticts, or by human nature. Due to that fact, man, unlike any other animal in existence, can pursue ends that do not involve maintaining his life - to deny that would be to place human nature above man’s moral fortitude, which would then imply that not one person has ever sacrificed themselves for an end that transcends their own life. In light of that, I think that it is your argument, not mine, that is the weakest for man can overcome human nature, and has done so throughout human history.
Life is a means, man can make survival his end, or he can make complete devotion to an exterior force his end. If being an end was a sine qua non of life, then it would be nonsensical that individuals have sacrificed themselves to ends that they believe are higher than their own life; ergo, life is a means that can become an end if the individual makes it his end, but it is not an end per se.
We have choice and free-will. I’m not making an argument for total instinct at all.
To be moral is in our nature.
No, to overcome human nature means to not be human anymore. What we have been doing throughout human history demonstrates our human nature. We are human when we do these things and partake in these events correct? Unless it is counter-productive then that is counter to human nature.
I insist life is an end, but not the ultimate end. So please don’t overlook this perspective of mine.
You can do things that you think are higher than your own life. We attribute honor to such deaths. We notice a quality in somebody sacrificing their lives, at times. I don’t think that’s counter to human nature at all. It is arguably within our nature to make such sacrifices.
Correct. Life is an end, but not an ultimate end. As I’ve said.
If life is, by definition an end, then man would have to pursue the maintenance of his life. If this is true, then, as I’ve asserted before, it would be nonsensical for man to pursue ends that would involve him sacrificing his life.
No, no its not. Morality is a choice that we make, and moral choices often involve man going against his insticts. If man was a moral creature qua man, then the world would be a much better place then it is now.
No, it merely means overcoming human nature, it does not mean the removal of human nature; the two have a far gulf between them in respect to their meanings.
If our nature is to pursue life as its own end, then sacrifice is not apart of human nature. Only life becomes a means qua life that individuals may pursue as an end if they so desire does any form of sacrifice becomes possible in human nature.
No, what I said was that life is a means that can becomes an end, but it is not an end in, and of itself. There is a difference.
I don’t know, and that’s not my argument. To be truthful, I’m not all that keen on the “flourishing” language, but that’s another point entirely.
Ok, but what I want to know is what you mean but human nature and why? I think you’re arguing a position distinct from that of Jon Irenicus and GAP, one I’m not too keen on arguing, to be honest.
He doesn’t have to pursue that as his end. It could go against it.
Cause I don’t think life is the ultimate end. There’s more to life than just living and sometimes people take that to the point in which they sacrifice themselves for others. I don’t contend this.
It’s in our nature, but we don’t have to choose to follow our morality. Murder is argued as immoral. It is thus considered to be against human nature to murder. Human nature is not a simple birth-death cycle. Human nature is much more expansive in definition than simply living.
Ah, I think I see. Your definition of human nature involves an extrapolation to overcome it due to some quarrel you have with human nature. So you find a need to overcome it. I think the ability for a human to overcome anything is in our nature. We can cultivate ourselves into better people.
I never said life is the ultimate end. An “end” for me bows to the ultimate end. An “end” is subservient to an ultimate end. This does not diminish, let’s say, the “end” called life if one bows to sacrifice. For any person that does this sacrifice it is a complete acceptance, one might say, to the ultimate end and in sacrifice when that ultimate end is met, the “end” life simply ends. This does not tarnish the “end” life in any way. Sacrifice is sometimes considered to be not a taint on a persons life, but actually is at times considered to be very honorable. That kind of honor, in and of itself, demonstrates that life is not the ultimate end, an end, but not an ultimate end. This kind of honor of sacrificing is a dedication to an ultimate end. That’s why the “ultimate” is placed in front of the end to signify it’s importance.
Oh, you’re saying there is a difference. I can see the difference. I think it’s a matter of perspective. I can accept your difference. I find nothing wrong with your difference at all. It depends on what your trying to explain as to why we come up with these differences. You see from my perspective an end can be subservient to a more ultimate end. In human’s this process can occur through cultivation. We can cultivate ourselves to grow what was more baseline in our nature into a more flourishing activity in what we do. I can learn simple math and end that part of my life at simple math knowledge, but if I want to flourish this aspect of myself, then I can learn algebra or even more. The potential flourishings almost seem endless at times.
Well to define human nature is to define the very human being we are. And there are billions of people on this earth each demonstrating a unique human nature and what human means. And to be human can also mean to be aware of something that is dynamic, something that is not me - that is part of human nature, arguably, too. As long as it is not counter to the quality of what a human can be, then it is therefore human nature. We explore and discover what it means to be human everyday. This can’t be summed up for one - cause my life is not over.
A good question might be: What is quality? As in “as long as it is not counter to the quality of what a human can be”. Who determines this quality of human nature? We have numerous choices as a human to explore what it means to be human. I say billions of people on this earth are each showing what human nature is. So there are billions of definitions of the existing quality of what it means by human nature and that’s only counting the people that are alive right this very moment. Human nature is open-ended.
Quality is understood keenly by science. Though scientists may not actively pursue quality knowingly, they are looking for the results that fit well within their experiments, in other words, the results from their experiments are good results unless the experiment was in error and if so they have to redo the experiment. Usually numerous experiments by numerous peers in science rid any known or unknown errors that occurred in the experiment. It’s bad science if they don’t do this. Science can show, at times, that living a certain life is making a person sick. Another good example is Austrian economics is a pursuance in economics, scientifically, that is actively arguing that there is a better (which is synonymous with quality cause “good, better, best” is what quality is about) way to have an economy than Keynesian. Why is it better? Well we can make all kinds of intellectual and social arguments on why the quality is better in Austrian economics. The human damage in terms of what centralized banking does to an economy and thus the well-being to people (not affording food, bubbles leading to unnecessary devastations in poverty, etc…). A centralized planned economy is horrible for the quality of life (the flourishing of life), not just to simple life (birth-death cycle), but to numerous enjoyments in life that get suppressed or damaged unnecessarily. It is unnecessarily damaged especially considering there is an option - Austrian economics - and not just an option, but a better option, therefore, a good option. What would human nature tells if the State was gone within our lifetimes? What possibilities are potential? I hope we will know, but…
It helped me understand where you’re coming from, I don’t necessarily agree, but that’s another matter entirely. See, I don’t disagree that people should live a moral life, obviously, I just disagree that the “should” implies a moral obligation.
I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to ask for a better answer than that. What is “this case”? And why need it be, I certainly value other things higher than my own life.
That’s irrelevant. You seem to be under the delusion that I’m saying it must always be the highest end. You should disabuse yourself of that delusion posthaste.
If by “should” you mean they have to, then it’s an obvious no. We have free-will and people are not always moral. It can be argued that I’ve done something moral, but I believe in forgiveness and I’ve not made immoral actions a habit as much as possible.
But I don’t know what the hang-up on “should” is, maybe it’s the way I interpret it.
“What is at stake is the liberty of the poor not to be interfered with in stealing the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs.”
Sorry, I couldn’t read any further than that. It’s too late at night to laugh that loud.
One would think “should” has that connotation in this connection, but in truth for moral systems built off assertoric (since you value X, then do Y)/hypothetical (if you value X, then do Y) imperatives it doesn’t I suppose, except in an attenuated sense.
Yes, you’ve asserted it. That means nothing, though. Since the pursuit of ends requires life, to even “sacrifice” your life requires being alive in the first place.
About the “human nature” talk, let’s get real: on a certain level, the very concept of “violating your own nature” is not coherant. If something is your nature, it is intrinsic or innate, an inherent and unavoidable aspect of your being. In this way, it makes no sense at all to proclaim that you should be what you already are (I.E. human), unless one is using a non-descriptive sense of the meaning of “humanity” (I.E. unless one’s concept of “human nature” is transcendental relative to the analytical reality of “human nature”). To take things further, if we adequately take time and evolution into account, let alone the diversity between individual humans, it may be rather decieving to think in terms of some sort of absolutely fixed human nature. Nor is it reasonable to cling to either a romantic and idealistic or hobbesian and pessemistic vision of human nature. So the language of “human nature” can certainly be confusing (and prone to a certain naturalistic fallacy).
