What a topic, Liv! Whenever one ponders the human condition, he or she cannot but help but ponder the question concerning the nature of the homo sapiens, that is whether it is inherently good or tragically tainted. The Christian perspective states that all are hamartiologically tainted, i.e. each human being possesses a "sinful nature." Let it be stated that "sin" comes from the Ancient Greek word ἁμαρτία meaning, essentially, to miss the mark; in the Hebrew, it comes from עֲבֵרָה which essentially means to overstep a boundary against a fellow member of mankind (man, woman or transperson) or against the Judeo-Christian God Himself. Stemming from the Edenic sin, mankind was made aware of its ability to disobey Divine commands, hence its sinful nature. That sinful nature has been imputed to all. But, Liv, though I am Christian, I realize that many people are not. Thus I believe that it is necessary to view this question from a more philosophical perspective so that the question can be pondered by all, regardless of religion (or lack thereof), belief or opinion. Morality, ethics and the essence of the human condition are extremely complicated topics that have been studied and debated for literal millennia! I truly have no answer in response to the nature of the human being. But I can say this. Across most religions, cultures and civilizations (but not all), the Golden Rule exists, i.e. one should treat others the way one wants to be treated. In general, adherence to this Rule is what leads to the most peace -- but I understand that this postulation would fall apart quite easily if one wanted to deconstruct it or break it down. Also, when you brought up warfare, this forced me to think even more. Though I understand the need for a nation, state, kingdom, etc to have a military, I too think about the reality that those with power can send young men and women to fight -- and die (sometimes in the millions!) just for the telos and goals of the aforementioned holders of power (though some wars could be considered just to some; and others can, in fact, be initiated by the populace). One could take that view of war and transfer it to the political arena; doing that forces one to wonder why the vast majority in the world are left to "struggle" (I use that word liberally, for many have different views of what it means "to struggle") while less than one percent of the global population has a net worth of more than a billion dollars. Is all this an epiphenomenon of the human condition? Again, I shall reiterate that I do NOT have the answer. Shoot, I am not even qualified to leave a comment about this -- period. But I think it is amazing to hear others' views on the topic and learn from them. It's good to at least be thinking about these very important questions, though, again, I do not have the answer. I love the question that you stated at the end: why don't we construct a society built upon the more positive ingredients of human nature? For I wonder how that would turn out! But to end this diatribe -- lol -- again, all of this can be relative. Many may not agree with me; many will be able to destroy the points that I've written. But at the end of the day, this was a great video choice -- for as our generation gets older and is eventually placed in positions with decision-making power, these will be the question with which we will be faced, amongst many others. Another great video, Liv! As per usual, I await your next one!
Hi Calvin, thank you for your constant support of my videos! What you shared about Christian sin is really interesting - it was something that I didn't know before :)
@@livophil Well, thank you for your response! I truly do appreciate your videos. With the topics you discuss, it compels me to think - truly think. You’re obviously intelligent; with that comes the ability to teach others - or at least it should - either directly or indirectly via causing others to think! I’m glad that I could share some info with you! Haha being Christian, I see many within my own community kinda defining “sin” for themselves. Sometimes that can be alright, but it can oftentimes be used for bigotry and hatred - a casual glance at history (secular and ecclesiastical) with show that! “Sin” is definitely an interesting topic, but one must start the study thereof based on what the Bible says (preferably, especially at the academic level, in the original languages, though this is not necessary. I come from a linguistic background. So I see the benefit of the Greek and Hebrew [and a bit of Aramaic] - plus I nerd out on it too hahah) But anyway, thanks for commenting, Liv! It made my day! Now get on that next video haha (I’m joking, not literally telling you what to do). We’re awaiting your next one! Enjoy your day!
You may find it Sabine Fruhstuck's work on children's war games in Japan during the Meiji and Showa eras relevant to your point on developing a taste for war. The book is called "Playing War".
The reasoning for why war occurs is interesting to me. I think of organized warfare occuring based of resource acquisition (the people wanting it?) Or protection of recognized territories (the leaders want it?). However Im inclined to believe that organized warfare is beneficial as it provides mutually agreed upon rules under which conflict through violence is acceptable. Prior to the creation of fire arms and innovation of ambush tactics/ gorilla warfare; agreed on terms of engagement was to build a formation of specialized persons familiar with violence would charge into one another then retreat, clear away the fallen and repeat. An example of this being the battle of Thermopylae better the Greeks and Persans. This is mirrored somewhat in combat sports/martial arts in which participants agree to a list of prohibited techniques to take part in modern gladiatorial combat. However now modern "organized warfare" appears more concerned with the identification of whom is the other force or organization with which conflict is to be had with as modern weapons allow for many more non combatants to be harmed by accident. I find that it is likely once the base level of the human hierarchy of needs is met that the "inherit violent nature" subsides. Though violence is potentially a biological reaction to bring one's adrenaline into the body for the sake of the fight, flight, or freeze response. I say this as one having willfully partaken in violence for sport though. Boxing, taekwondo/karate, and wrestling can just be fun things you do. Though it's not that I take pleasure in the harming of others. Additionally the "striking disciplines" in which the object of the movements taken against others potentially damage both parties even when executed successfully so they are ones practiced with the understanding that they cannot be done at all times. You can't get better at blocking punches and kicks if you never place yourself in the situation in which you are able to be punched or kicked. Therefore many systems incorporated dance like movements to build the skills and body's skeletal and muscular structures to perform the arts while not injuring others. Wrestling styles being the one exception as actively resisting partners/opponents are the test of whether the technique is valid. There is likely something to say about those having been close to in not a part or aware of how capable they are at harming other with physical violence that makes them more reserved in terms of enacting it. Though it's likely my bias.
I don't think you can quite say goodness is a manmade concept. Goodness is probably primevally associated with the pleasurable and badness with the painful. So across cultures and ideologies Roman, Christian, and otherwise, you have generally consistent principles of moral goodness - you shouldn't torture people for amusement, you shouldn't betray your friends, etc.
I'm not sure if generalising whether all humans are good or bad makes sense. Everyone and every species uses different strategies to get ahead, and they do it in a different scale or intensity. Ultimately, I do think that most living things are selfish to a degree, as the ones that do not look out for themselves are probably going to be less successful through natural selection and thus their genes go extinct (which influences the level /prevalence expression of personality traits) x.x;;;
As an Anthropology student and actively doing research on workers & indigenous injustice, I feel like I have a good place to make an answer. You are right in that we've basically made our own definitions and put ourselves in them. "Good" and "Bad" are related to cultural norms. But there practices like cannibalism, relationships with minors, and abuse of women as things that are okay and could even be encouraged by communities. This goes into the discussion of, "These are cultural practices and we are being ethno-centric by saying they're bad," and "With globalism, there is now universal good and bad, these practiced were never good in the first place, and we should stop them." I align with the latter statement, but it adds to our understanding of this "nature". No one can agree on what's good or bad. Talking about our human history, it's irrelevant. What would the answer give us? Ok we were bad, and are still bad today. So? Ok we were good, and now we're bad. Why? I personally would not really consider "nature" and "violence" as specific terms. Nature as in what? If you really get down to it, this is an issue of psychology, not history or anthropology. People are all very different, there are psychopaths, narcissists, and pedophiles, but on the other side you have selflessness, compassion, and empathy. The "fluctuation of violence" you note is kind of reflective of this. Civilization, in modern anthropological theory, is not really an "evolution" of "picking and choosing what's better". It's a change. It can be argued that agriculture was horrible for humans, but this was an adaptation to rising population sizes. Same with technology now, you can say "Oh the internet has corrupted us and was horrible." But all in all, it is important to note that this is a change, and it is up to the people within this environment to determine if they like it or not. The "entertainment of the past" and how gore has become taboo today is an argument that goes back to the first paragraph of, this is cultural change, not forward progression in civilization. There is no directionality with culture. But that does not mean we cannot use our own points of views to say, "Hey, from my perspective, I think this is bad. Let's change that." After all, each and every one of us is part of a culture, a society. But as well, entertainment of the past was not malicious, violent, or gory. There existed children's toys, stories of legends, and other things which were much more important than a public execution. TLDR; Yeah we did fucked up stuff, but in general, these are changes and not progressions towards anything. This includes civilization. It's a change, and can be argued for both its benefits and downsides. No one can agree on what's good or bad (that includes violence), but ourselves. If you do not agree with something that exists within your culture or your society, do something about it.
Thank you for sharing this! It was really interesting for me to read the anthropological perspective as I've always been interested in this area, but do not know that much about it.
I personally have not read his book, but you might benefit from an alternative perspective by Robert Wright in his book, Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. The book was actually a major influence on Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature.
‘man is not truly one but truly two’
What a topic, Liv! Whenever one ponders the human condition, he or she cannot but help but ponder the question concerning the nature of the homo sapiens, that is whether it is inherently good or tragically tainted. The Christian perspective states that all are hamartiologically tainted, i.e. each human being possesses a "sinful nature." Let it be stated that "sin" comes from the Ancient Greek word ἁμαρτία meaning, essentially, to miss the mark; in the Hebrew, it comes from עֲבֵרָה which essentially means to overstep a boundary against a fellow member of mankind (man, woman or transperson) or against the Judeo-Christian God Himself. Stemming from the Edenic sin, mankind was made aware of its ability to disobey Divine commands, hence its sinful nature. That sinful nature has been imputed to all. But, Liv, though I am Christian, I realize that many people are not. Thus I believe that it is necessary to view this question from a more philosophical perspective so that the question can be pondered by all, regardless of religion (or lack thereof), belief or opinion.
Morality, ethics and the essence of the human condition are extremely complicated topics that have been studied and debated for literal millennia! I truly have no answer in response to the nature of the human being. But I can say this. Across most religions, cultures and civilizations (but not all), the Golden Rule exists, i.e. one should treat others the way one wants to be treated. In general, adherence to this Rule is what leads to the most peace -- but I understand that this postulation would fall apart quite easily if one wanted to deconstruct it or break it down.
Also, when you brought up warfare, this forced me to think even more. Though I understand the need for a nation, state, kingdom, etc to have a military, I too think about the reality that those with power can send young men and women to fight -- and die (sometimes in the millions!) just for the telos and goals of the aforementioned holders of power (though some wars could be considered just to some; and others can, in fact, be initiated by the populace). One could take that view of war and transfer it to the political arena; doing that forces one to wonder why the vast majority in the world are left to "struggle" (I use that word liberally, for many have different views of what it means "to struggle") while less than one percent of the global population has a net worth of more than a billion dollars. Is all this an epiphenomenon of the human condition? Again, I shall reiterate that I do NOT have the answer. Shoot, I am not even qualified to leave a comment about this -- period. But I think it is amazing to hear others' views on the topic and learn from them. It's good to at least be thinking about these very important questions, though, again, I do not have the answer.
I love the question that you stated at the end: why don't we construct a society built upon the more positive ingredients of human nature? For I wonder how that would turn out!
But to end this diatribe -- lol -- again, all of this can be relative. Many may not agree with me; many will be able to destroy the points that I've written. But at the end of the day, this was a great video choice -- for as our generation gets older and is eventually placed in positions with decision-making power, these will be the question with which we will be faced, amongst many others. Another great video, Liv! As per usual, I await your next one!
Hi Calvin, thank you for your constant support of my videos! What you shared about Christian sin is really interesting - it was something that I didn't know before :)
@@livophil Well, thank you for your response! I truly do appreciate your videos. With the topics you discuss, it compels me to think - truly think. You’re obviously intelligent; with that comes the ability to teach others - or at least it should - either directly or indirectly via causing others to think!
I’m glad that I could share some info with you! Haha being Christian, I see many within my own community kinda defining “sin” for themselves. Sometimes that can be alright, but it can oftentimes be used for bigotry and hatred - a casual glance at history (secular and ecclesiastical) with show that! “Sin” is definitely an interesting topic, but one must start the study thereof based on what the Bible says (preferably, especially at the academic level, in the original languages, though this is not necessary. I come from a linguistic background. So I see the benefit of the Greek and Hebrew [and a bit of Aramaic] - plus I nerd out on it too hahah)
But anyway, thanks for commenting, Liv! It made my day! Now get on that next video haha (I’m joking, not literally telling you what to do). We’re awaiting your next one! Enjoy your day!
You may find it Sabine Fruhstuck's work on children's war games in Japan during the Meiji and Showa eras relevant to your point on developing a taste for war. The book is called "Playing War".
The reasoning for why war occurs is interesting to me. I think of organized warfare occuring based of resource acquisition (the people wanting it?) Or protection of recognized territories (the leaders want it?). However Im inclined to believe that organized warfare is beneficial as it provides mutually agreed upon rules under which conflict through violence is acceptable. Prior to the creation of fire arms and innovation of ambush tactics/ gorilla warfare; agreed on terms of engagement was to build a formation of specialized persons familiar with violence would charge into one another then retreat, clear away the fallen and repeat. An example of this being the battle of Thermopylae better the Greeks and Persans. This is mirrored somewhat in combat sports/martial arts in which participants agree to a list of prohibited techniques to take part in modern gladiatorial combat. However now modern "organized warfare" appears more concerned with the identification of whom is the other force or organization with which conflict is to be had with as modern weapons allow for many more non combatants to be harmed by accident. I find that it is likely once the base level of the human hierarchy of needs is met that the "inherit violent nature" subsides. Though violence is potentially a biological reaction to bring one's adrenaline into the body for the sake of the fight, flight, or freeze response. I say this as one having willfully partaken in violence for sport though. Boxing, taekwondo/karate, and wrestling can just be fun things you do. Though it's not that I take pleasure in the harming of others. Additionally the "striking disciplines" in which the object of the movements taken against others potentially damage both parties even when executed successfully so they are ones practiced with the understanding that they cannot be done at all times. You can't get better at blocking punches and kicks if you never place yourself in the situation in which you are able to be punched or kicked. Therefore many systems incorporated dance like movements to build the skills and body's skeletal and muscular structures to perform the arts while not injuring others. Wrestling styles being the one exception as actively resisting partners/opponents are the test of whether the technique is valid. There is likely something to say about those having been close to in not a part or aware of how capable they are at harming other with physical violence that makes them more reserved in terms of enacting it. Though it's likely my bias.
I don't think you can quite say goodness is a manmade concept. Goodness is probably primevally associated with the pleasurable and badness with the painful. So across cultures and ideologies Roman, Christian, and otherwise, you have generally consistent principles of moral goodness - you shouldn't torture people for amusement, you shouldn't betray your friends, etc.
Interesting video. I'm not exactly amazing at philosophy, so I don't got anything huge to say.
I'm not sure if generalising whether all humans are good or bad makes sense. Everyone and every species uses different strategies to get ahead, and they do it in a different scale or intensity. Ultimately, I do think that most living things are selfish to a degree, as the ones that do not look out for themselves are probably going to be less successful through natural selection and thus their genes go extinct (which influences the level /prevalence expression of personality traits) x.x;;;
Uh, also, violence isn't necessarily just physical imo.
About Pinker: the average age of the population in the world is also getting older - and older people tend to be less violent overall.
As an Anthropology student and actively doing research on workers & indigenous injustice, I feel like I have a good place to make an answer.
You are right in that we've basically made our own definitions and put ourselves in them. "Good" and "Bad" are related to cultural norms. But there practices like cannibalism, relationships with minors, and abuse of women as things that are okay and could even be encouraged by communities. This goes into the discussion of, "These are cultural practices and we are being ethno-centric by saying they're bad," and "With globalism, there is now universal good and bad, these practiced were never good in the first place, and we should stop them." I align with the latter statement, but it adds to our understanding of this "nature". No one can agree on what's good or bad.
Talking about our human history, it's irrelevant. What would the answer give us? Ok we were bad, and are still bad today. So? Ok we were good, and now we're bad. Why?
I personally would not really consider "nature" and "violence" as specific terms. Nature as in what? If you really get down to it, this is an issue of psychology, not history or anthropology. People are all very different, there are psychopaths, narcissists, and pedophiles, but on the other side you have selflessness, compassion, and empathy. The "fluctuation of violence" you note is kind of reflective of this.
Civilization, in modern anthropological theory, is not really an "evolution" of "picking and choosing what's better". It's a change. It can be argued that agriculture was horrible for humans, but this was an adaptation to rising population sizes. Same with technology now, you can say "Oh the internet has corrupted us and was horrible." But all in all, it is important to note that this is a change, and it is up to the people within this environment to determine if they like it or not.
The "entertainment of the past" and how gore has become taboo today is an argument that goes back to the first paragraph of, this is cultural change, not forward progression in civilization. There is no directionality with culture. But that does not mean we cannot use our own points of views to say, "Hey, from my perspective, I think this is bad. Let's change that." After all, each and every one of us is part of a culture, a society. But as well, entertainment of the past was not malicious, violent, or gory. There existed children's toys, stories of legends, and other things which were much more important than a public execution.
TLDR; Yeah we did fucked up stuff, but in general, these are changes and not progressions towards anything. This includes civilization. It's a change, and can be argued for both its benefits and downsides. No one can agree on what's good or bad (that includes violence), but ourselves. If you do not agree with something that exists within your culture or your society, do something about it.
Thank you for sharing this! It was really interesting for me to read the anthropological perspective as I've always been interested in this area, but do not know that much about it.
I personally have not read his book, but you might benefit from an alternative perspective by Robert Wright in his book, Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. The book was actually a major influence on Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature.