Human Nature
This is an excerpt from the paper...
To answer the question of whether to change is to become someone else presupposes that one has a clear picture of one's identity, or selfhood, that preceded change. Yet to define unambiguously what constitutes the self has been a challenge to philosophers and psychologists throughout history, not least because to define the self entails defining human nature more generally, which in turn reaches the issues of what makes the individual distinct from other individuals and the character of social relationships. It might seem, therefore, that only when one is secure in these previous questions may one be confident enough to consider whether shifts in the identity, or sense of self, and shifts in moral standpoint, which implicates changes in attitudes and behavior, constitute a transformation into another being.Marcel Mauss argues that the concept that the human race has formed of human nature is a function of the larger social history of mankind and that today, modern human nature cannot be understood apart from the emergence of human society. Mauss rejects the idea that human nature as a more or less purely psychological aspect of existence is the valid one. This psychological component of selfhood he refers to as the "cult" of moi and describes it as a recent development in the history of philosophy. A more useful descriptionis that of what Mauss calls personne, with sense of self deriving from one's social relationships and functions. That was in the Roman concept of "person
. . .
ality based on evolution" (2) and that although genes "may instruct us to be selfish . . . we are not necessarily compelled to obey them all our lives" (3). Animal and human behavior, which determines evolution, nevertheless proceeds from genetic traits and facts, which are transmitted down the generations through sex to reveal ESS, or evolutionary stable strategy (144). If the material, genetic basis for evolution is decisive, it follows that, in theory, genetic remixes could materially alter the composition of self from one generation to the next. However, Dawkins admits that sexual behavior is anomalous in human beings, where differences between monogamous, nurturant females and philandering males may have more to do with cultural than gene-pool behavior.
Carrithers rejects a dialectic of self and social experience as an unwarranted theory of progressive consciousness, but his response is less material than cosmic. Rather, he says, the individual's relationship with the universe is more fundamental. He is therefore concerned "not with the personne as part of a collectivity, but with various views of the moi, the psychophysical individual in respect of a spiritual natural order" (Carrithers 240). The demands of the spiritual na
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Roman Empire, Marcel Mauss, , Wesleyans Pietists, Cambridge Cambridge, sense self, human nature, Selfish Gene, Liberal Arts, notion person, Norton Company, Oxford Oxford, social experience, Michael Carrithers, philosophy history ed, superego libido, history ed, philosophy history, spiritual natural, selfish gene, anthropology philosophy, anthropology philosophy history, ed michael carrithers, history ed michael, person anthropology philosophy,
Approximate Word count = 1316
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Human Nature
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
