What is human nature—is there such a thing?

“Man transcends all other life because he is, for the first time, life aware of itself. Man is in nature, subject to its dictates and accidents, yet he transcends nature because he lacks the unawareness which makes the animal a part of nature—as one with it.”

Wo/man is both body and soul. S/he is part of two worlds, each in conflict with the other. Fromm describes the essence of man as not being a given quality or substance but as being a “contradiction inherent in human existence”.

What can wo/man do to cope with the fright that accompanies consciousness of existence? How can wo/man find the harmony necessary to free her or him self from the torture of aloneness; thereby permitting her to find a unity with nature?

The answer Fromm seeks is not only a theoretical one, but one in which humans can live with in their thought and action--in their whole being. Any answer is better than no answer or no question. More is to be learned in error than in apathy and ignorance. All possible answers must “help man to overcome the sense of separateness and to gain a sense of union, of ones, of belonging.”

Fromm is not supplying us with the definition of the essence of man but he is saying that “what constitutes the essence is the question and the need for an answer; the various forms of human existence are not the essence, but they are the answers to the conflict which, in itself, is the essence.”

Conflict is the essential characteristic of humanness.

Regression to animal existence is one answer to the quest to transcend separateness. Wo/man can try to eliminate that which makes her human but also tortures her; s/he can discard reason and self-consciousness. What is noteworthy here is that if everybody does it, it ain’t fiction; anything everyone does is reality, even if it is a virtual reality. For most people, reason and reality is nothing more than public consensus. “One never ‘loses one’s mind’ when nobody else’s mind differs from one’s own.”

Regression to our animal form of instinctual behavior happens when we replace our lost animal instincts with our own fully developed symbolic instincts; we can then program our self to uncritically follow these culturally formed instincts without further consideration. We can then do like the elephant parade; we hold the tail of the one in front of us with our trunk and march in file without any other thoughts to disturb our tranquility.

Quotes from “The Heart of Man” by Erich Fromm

Questions for discussion

Is there such a thing as human nature? Can something exist without an essence?

Are humans just animals with insignificant differences from other animals? If so what are these differences? Are they significant or are they basically a distinction without a difference? What does it mean to be a distinction without a difference?

Can a person deny his or her difference and just be an animal, unconscious of a difference?

i think the distinction is one of self-awareness. humans have lost an awful lot of exterior sensory awareness, and now go 'inwards'. we are on a journey in this respect, and to back-track is not really an option, so we have to follow the inner-path to its conclusion, rather like exploring the maze, where the clues to the exit (self-realisation) are at the centre.

this seems to be the only real distinction between humans and the rest of nature. not even sure if it has any greater purpose or reason attached to it. probably not. probably just a thing that existence can do when the conditions are favourable.

apart from that, humans and nature cannot be separated; it's our momma!


g.

Gorgeous

I think you are on the mark.

If human nature is not something that makes us humans and other animals ‘not human’ then what does. If this human nature is not the same where does sameness happen? What makes it possible for us to say that here in time these are humans and later in time this is also human? I agree that in real terms all reality is a continuum but we humans need a demarcation line signifying one container from another. We cannot think without containers but we also must identify these containers.

Generally substance or qualities are used to identify one container from another but in the case of the human species I do not think such a distinction works.

Is there a distinction or is there a difference between the human species and other animals? In other words is there a continuum between the human species and other animal species?

I would say that race represents a distinction among humans; whereas language ability represents a difference between the human species and other animal species. There are distinctions within a species and there are differences within various species within the animal kingdom.

How do we separate one species from another? Is this separation just an artificial reality or is there something that is real separating species and especially the human species from all others. I think that there is and I would call it ‘man transcends all other life because he is, for the first time, life aware of itself’. This is the core characteristic that makes up human nature.

It is all very puzzling.

maybe, to see a thing clearly you must distance yourself from it?

clearly humans are one of many life-forms, so is it not just as relevant to say that 'life' exists here on this planet, and we are a part of it?

we have also spent billions of years being formed from within, and shaped by the environment that we have to co-exist with.

how can we call ourselves 'superior', just for being able to contemplate what we are? and, is it not arrogant to presume that other life-forms are not capable of knowing what they are, just because, unlike us, they show no signs of self-destruction? maybe all life is aware of itself, and humans have merely been going through a rough patch of doubt?


as i currently understand things, i would say that the existence of things is able to bring together parts of itself to an accumulated point where 'consciousness' is achieved, and self-reflection becomes possible. it is not a 'given', but merely a possibility, so, being able to exercise this possibility is a rare and grand privilege indeed, considering how much of it we are able to observe in the rest of the universe at this point.

is it advantageous to consider ourselves 'elite' or 'special', or just lucky maybe?


g.