КОНТИНЕНТ - Новости и аналитика актуальных событий в мире, мнения и комментарии экспертов и обозревателей
“Man evil manners live in brass;
Their virtues we write in water.”
William Shakespeare.
Photo copyright: pixabay.com
I am thinking sometimes about my miserable, hungry and dangerous childhood in the first postwar years in ruined, crime-infested and lawless Ukraine.
Why didn’t I become a criminal myself? In fact, I was growing in a poor, not very educated family, and many of my playmates were thieves and burglars.
Obviously, there was something inside me, in my nature that helped me resist the bad environment, survive and become a scientist, while some of my peers gave up and became criminals.
Human nature, mysterious and incomprehensible! For millennia, philosophers and scientists have been arguing about human nature, character and behavior and related topics. But there is no consensus on any of them.
Despite the abundance of information about human nature (types and specificity of human character and behavior; traits and their moral values and similar topics), there is one topic that modern psychologists are trying to avoid at all costs.
This topic is the origin of human nature. Is it a gift given to us at birth by nature or we acquire it through cognition of the surrounding world?
The intent of this essay is to address dichotomies (sharp contrasts) between two opposing views on the origin of human nature, character and behavior and to get readers acquainted with one of the views, which the modern psychologists consider politically incorrect and don’t recommend to discuss openly today.
Let’s call it dichotomy #1. Do you remember a popular movie Trading Places (1983) starring Eddie Murphy? Here is the plot of the film.
Mortimer Duke and his brother Randolph are wealthy owners of a prestigious brokerage firm. The arrogant brothers staged a cruel but hilarious “scientific” experiment—they framed a rich, highly educated and classy executive of their firm Louis Winthorpe III (played by Dan Aykroyd) and replaced him with Billy Ray Valentine (played by Eddie Murphy)—a poor, uneducated and ill-mannered street-hustler whom Dukes randomly bailed out of jail. Why did they do it? Because they made a bet for $1 to prove something to each other!
Everyone agrees that this movie is a brilliant, funny comedy, despite its serious, (buried in the avalanche of hysterical laughs) progressive overtone—rich vs. poor; economic inequality; anti-greed and anti-capitalist rhetoric. But very few noticed that, on a subliminal level, the movie is an echo of an ideological debate about human nature.
You see Mortimer (a disgusting, close-minded conservative) thinks that the qualities you are born with are the keys to your success in a society. But Randolph (a sympathetic, open-minded liberal) disagrees. He believes that anyone can rise to the top or sink to the bottom if placed in a good or bad environment, respectively.
Mortimer thinks that people are born with unequal intellectual capacities, while Randolph believes that everyone has equal intellectual potentials at birth—in line with a concept of French philosopher Helvetius (the father of social engineering) or with Lenin’s famous slogan that every house-wife cook can govern a state.
In other words, conservative Mortimer thinks that human nature as given to us at birth by Nature, and this is what determines our character and behavior, permanently, while liberal Randolph believes that human character and behavior are the products of environment and can be molded by others.
Thus, the authors create a dichotomy—a sharp contrast between two views on human nature—Nature vs Environment.
So, who has won the bet? Liberal Randolph and environment, of course! After being placed in a good environment by the whim of the two brothers, the poor, uneducated beggar Billy Valentine rises to the top turning into a dignified and successful top manager of the brokerage firm, miraculously and just overnight. At the same time, rich and classy Louis Winthorpe III falls to the bottom, also overnight—he becomes a petty thief living at the expense of a prostitute.
Very funny! But can it happen in real life? Can the evil traits of human nature be turned into the virtuous ones at the whims of others?
The great playwright and expert in human psychology William Shakespeare put it bluntly 400 years ago, “Man evil manners live in brass; their virtues we write in water.”
This visionary phrase alludes to how Shakespeare viewed human nature, character and behavior.
The evil manners are bad traits of human character and behavior (greed, egoism, envy, etc.). They are innate, stable and unchanged (engraved into the bronze foundation of human nature).
In contrast, the human virtues are good but acquired traits we learn through upbringing, education and culture (kindness, selflessness, generosity, etc.). They are unstable and dependent on environment—at first hardship (famines, shipwrecks or wars), they are gone without traces as if we write in water.
This is dichotomy #2. So, what is human nature? Here is a standard definition from Oxford dictionary: “Human nature is the general psychological characteristics, feelings and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans.”
However, this definition begs the questions. Are human character and behavior innate or they are learned? Are they products of nature or environment?
Since ancient time, philosophers and scientists of many disciplines (psychology, sociology, sociobiology, anthropology, etc.) are trying to answer these questions.
The way conservative Mortimer and liberal Randolph are thinking and debating in Trading Places is not just a clever twist of the plot. It’s based on reality—on two major opposing theories of human nature that reflect the ideological divide in our society.
The traditional “natural” theory of human nature prevailed in the Western civilization claims that humans are born with inborn ideas and natural values implanted at birth. Human character is fixed and is solely responsible for human behavior. In other words, if Man is born bad, bad he will remain.
The opposing theory is called the “blank slate” (BS, for short) theory. It claims that human intellect at birth is blank as a “tabula rasa” (clean slate, in Latin). Man’s behavior is governed only by environment (parenting, education, culture and society). Man is born neither good, nor bad, but molded into one by environment. In other words, Man is malleable just like Louis Winthorpe and Billy Valentine in Trading Places.
The BS theory can be traced back to great philosophers of ancient and medieval time, such as Aristotle and religious philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas. Big names of the Enlightenment era supported it too (John Locke, Claude-Adrian Helvetius, Jean Jacque Rousseau and others), which gives it a great deal of credibility.
In fact, it’s John Locke, a prominent English philosopher, who has laid the foundation for the modern BS theory at the end of 17th century.
French philosopher Claude-Adrian Helvetius went even further carrying the Locke’s theory to extremes. He believed that all human being had equal mental capacity (as demonstrated in Trading Places); and that their behavior can and should be properly molded by a government through mandatory instructions and education. It’s called social engineering, and Helvetius is considered to be the father of this idea, which pursues the goal of changing human nature.
Dichotomy #3. Тhe BS theory ruled public discourse for centuries. But the first cracks in its foundation appeared in 1911 when researchers discovered a manuscript entitled Silence. It was written by an unknown author Heldriss of Cornwell in 13th century France.
In this philosophical novel, the author described a young woman named Silence and two allegoric characters Nature (heredity) and Nurture (environment, upbringing, education and life experience). Nature and Nurture are debating fiercely about who of them the true author of the character and behavior of the young woman is.
The author came to а conclusion that human development was influenced not only by Nurture, but Nature, as well. Such heretical, revolutionary approach to understanding of human nature became the core of a modern debate called Nature vs. Nurture.
Heldriss was way ahead of his time, and his idea received confirmation only at the end of 20th century due to great advances in genetics and better understanding of heredity.
In 1975, Prof. Edward Osbourne Wilson, a psychologist at Harvard University introduced his new theory he named Sociobiology.
He applied Darwin’s evolution theory to animal and human behaviors considering them a product of “heredity, environmental stimuli and past experience.” He viewed genes as a basic element of heredity and considered many human emotions and social behaviors as genetically inherited.
E.O. Wilson challenged the reigning BS theory that claimed that human nature is a product of environment only. In 1978, he boldly declared that human nature is of a biological origin. But he compromised (as Heldriss of Cornwell did). He believed that human nature was shaped as much by genetic inheritance as by culture, if not more; that the social and environmental factors played their roles, but had limits in altering human behavior.
Since that time, the BS theory started to crumble after centuries of domination. In his influential book “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature,” published in 2002, Steven Pinker, Professor of psychology at MIT, flatly rejected the BS theory.
Pinker showed that the BS theory has been steadily undermined by a number of recent discoveries, particularly in behavioral genetics, evolutionary psychology (modern name of Wilson’s sociobiology) and anthropology, as well as in cognitive and neuro sciences.
For example, research showed that at least half of the variations in personalities and intelligence in a society come from the difference in genes. In other words, different genes + the same environment = different behavior.
Also, identical twins separated at birth and brought up in separate homes have a remarkable similarities in talents and taste. Again, the same genes + different environment = the same behavior.
There are 6,000 different cultures in the world! But despite undeniable variations among cultures, there is a wide set of “universal” traits, which are common to all humans. Again, different cultures (environment) = the same human traits and behaviors.
These facts cannot be explained by the effects of environment alone. Human genes and heredity left biological imprints all over the place.
Genes are knocking at the door of social scientists. They don’t give a damn about what these scientists think about the theory of biological origin of human nature—the genie is out of the bottle! Yet, the proponents of the BS theory stubbornly defy reality.
Here is a piece of sobering reality! Do you remember a sensational story about a famous American progressive writer Norman Kingsley Mailer and his protégée?
In 1981, following his liberal convictions, Mailer helped a notorious convicted murderer Jack Henry Abbott to start his literary career. He got him out of prison, made him his assistant and introduced him to the literary and motion picture elites of New York (put him in good environment).
Ideologically left-leaning Mailer believed that good environment would override murder-provoking traits of Abbot’s character and turn Abbott into a civilized man (like Eddie Murphy in Trading Places).
But the guy killed again within months after being released. No surprise there, environment has limits in altering human character and behavior—exactly, as E. O. Wilson predicted.
And here we came to dichotomy #4—the main point of this essay. For millenniums, the debate about human nature, character and behavior have been going on between philosophers using logic and arguments.
But in 19th century, it turned into a real war when the BS theory was embraced by Marxist ideology. And especially in the 20th century, when Russian communists, Italian fascists, German national-socialists and others followers of collectivist ideologies put it into practice in the bloodiest human experiments in history—to create a new type of Man!
Although all these experiments have failed, the war between two theories of human nature didn’t stop. Left-leaning academia and progressive intellectuals continue it in many universities, on college campuses and in the media. But instead of logical arguments, they use brainwashing and instead of debates—intimidation trying to shut up the opponents and ban their views.
The case of Prof. E. O. Wilson at Harvard University is a good example. His biological theory of genetic origin of human nature was met with open hostility
No, Wilson was not burnt as Giordano Bruno, and he was not excommunicated as Galileo. But there were protests, open letters, demonstrations, denunciation, picketing, petitioning, etc.
To allow the public to believe in biological (genetic) origin of human nature has been socially, morally or politically unacceptable for them. Why? Because it could undermine their progressive agenda!
Really, if the public recognizes that the genes of greed and egoism exist and they are genetically inherited, then it will make social, altruistic reforms impossible.
If it’s accepted that genes are responsible for human IQ and mental capacity, it will lead to discrimination of minorities.
If criminals believe that they possess genes of violence or aggression, they will refuse to take responsibility for their bad behavior.
In other words, the left fear that the Wilson’s theory, which puts nature in charge of human character and behavior, may cause all kind of social ills in society. Therefore, the theory must be wrong and has no right to exist!
(In philosophy, such doubtful approach is called a moralistic fallacy. It means that any aspect of nature that has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist).
Still, this fear doesn’t explain all this anger, hatred and hostility. There must be more serious reasons. Yes, there are! Ideology!
The Wilson’s theory states that people are born with unequal talents and capabilities. Therefore, it may jeopardize the effort to achieve economic equality, the corner stone of Marxist, socialist and communist ideologies.
The theory contradicts the Marxist dogmas that human character and behavior are malleable (like dough), and can (and should) be molded by others (government or party) to create a new type of Man. No wonder this dogma was embraced by all ideologues of collectivism—in fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, communist Russia and in other countries.
Тhe BS theory has always been an important part of Marxism, and Prof. Wilson threatened the very core of this ideology, which he openly despised.
No wonder не was even physically attacked by the members of the front group of the…Marxist Progressive Labor Party. He was called “the Nazi” and accused of “racism and misogyny, social Darwinism and eugenics.”
Wilson was not alone. In 2002, MIT Prof. Steven Pinker confirmed the connection of the BS theory to ideologies of Marxism (and, ironically, Nazism too) in his book mentioned earlier. And, as Wilson in 1975, he was savagely attacked by the same establishment.
As Pinker noted (nodding at the modern progressive sociologists), “They create forbidden zones for any incoming, competing idea turning it into the third (high-voltage) rail—you touch it, you die.”
Such attacks on academic freedom is common in the departments of social sciences at the US universities, sociologists being the most vicious attackers.
The father of sociology, French philosopher Auguste Comte, sends them his blessing from his grave: “Freedom of personal opinions makes no sense…the future of such freedom will be similarly inappropriate in social sciences.”
Comte was a visionary! Soon, the freedom of personal opinions will become inappropriate in the US everywhere!
More related information and references you can find in the book “Altruism, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly” by Valdemar Malin (Amazon.com).
Эта рассылка с самыми интересными материалами с нашего сайта. Она приходит к вам на e-mail каждый день по утрам.