Psychosophy: what is "Human Nature"?
(Sure you get an answer by "Social Sciences"???)
Of course, there are as many concepts of "what is human nature"
as there are thinking entities (individuals, groups)
with their individual (for example: persons like you and me)
or collective (associations, churches, "think tanks" etc.)
thinking capacity.
Hierarchism and Inferiorism are among the essential criteria
to describe rulemaking, conditionmaking and problemmaking
of life
-- including stress-related diseases and low life expectation,
and it should be mentioned that this is regrettably true
as well where parliaments "make the rules",
and also a "majority rule" is NOT a democracy yet!
(70% in a boat, throwing out the other 30% into water,
are not a democratic system; just see Austria, Europe,
or "Hyperstates" like the European Union, for more:
the EU is NOT Europe, just look at Norway or Suisse,
although Norway is a Monarchy and Suisse is governed
by conservatives in majority and Suisse has its
killed prisoners ejected to Africa, as well, like
Austria and Germany and Belgium) --
Concepts of "what is human nature" can be described as pictures
of (combinations of) two discs, representing what is felt as
personal identity (in different forms, by each person on earth)
and as Society (including the Self, beyond the Self,
aside the Self or in any other form Society can be felt,
subjectively), for example felt as "the others":
Roots of democratic coexistence are based on this problem,
-- for example already in Ancient Greece, the resistance
against the tyrannos, compare the respective discs:
concentric XOI
discs: XOI IOX
totalitarian XOI IOX
life pattern, XOI IOX
"social control", XOI IOX
dictatorship, XOI IOX
(no personal identity) XOI
overlaying discs OOO III
in various overlays: OOO OOO III III
the "XXX" area is a OOO XXX III
person's interaction OOO XXXXX III
interface (to others) OOO XXX III
and Society's tolerance, OOO OOO III III
respectively OOO III
discrete OOO III
discs: OOO OOO III III
relation between OOO OOO III III
Ego and Society OOO OOO III III
only "on demand" OOO OOO III III
(unrealistic except for OOO OOO III III
1 person by 1 square mile) OOO III
***
For this consideration, 2 of those concepts may be focused on:
a) the first concept is based on the rigorous definition of
(a clear postulation of) "what is human nature",
for example:
"humans believe in (a) god", or
"people have to be in a paid workplace"
or the like;
-- and whoever does not fit this pattern, obviously is
not a human person and therefore not to be tolerated.
Any deviation from the first picture (full concentric discs)
is considered to be "illegal" or "unfaithful" or "godless"
This concept needs (and USES)
* definition power (as its ideologic basis of existence:
that is the power to say "this exists", or "this is true",
think of any judgement of a court or any other side
you felt to be strange),
* enforcement (as its main ideology to form "public consensus",
think of any "criminal intent" movie philosophy or
"illegal alien" discussion)
* some (minor) elements of tolerance (for denunciation of
"exceptions", i.e. to point on (some) people and to say
"these are not healthy, not the rule, not normal,
take care" etc.)
* or expressedly (mostly) a "zero tolerance" ideology
to form groups (of good church members, good citizens,
good customers, good students etc.)
and to exclude "others".
This concept has become the major (or even only "accepted"
and "legal" concept of contemporary ("globalized, western
democratic") industrial nations in the world, regrettably.
Its daily effect usually is expressed as "zero tolerance"
philosophy, "no subordination, no home" or similar.
It includes and "justifies" hierarchies (and their methods
of "enforcement" up to Hitler concentration camps, jails,
Guantanamo etc., depending who is "upper" in hierarchies)
This "inferiorism" ideology seems to be supported by
30% up to 90% (!) of populations worldwide, depending on
poll time and structure, and on educational level(s).
And it seems on its way to global (worldwide) rulemaking
and conditionmaking,
-- like "a person is only acceptable if (s)he is legal"
or the like --
finally suppressing the whole world.
As it happened (in the respective reach of power)
at roman-catholic inquisition times at its worst time
from 11th to 14th centuries,
at islamistic sharia fundamentalism times wherever this
gained State Power up to today,
and all other ideologic and religious wars, since.
(1600-1700 Europe, American Civil War on Slavery,
1848 Metternich in Austria, 1920ies Stalin in Russia,
1930-45 Hitler in Europe, still ETA in Spain and
IRA in Northern Ireland -- this list is incomplete)
As a matter of fact, this concept USES
-- but does not speak out --
all the elements of concept b) which are verbally denied
and "intolerable":
* hierarchism and inferiorism (against people who do not
"sufficiently fight for their existence),
* warfare ("against terrorism"),
* killing and destroying (freedom and wealth or even
pure existence) of non-conformists
(in this case, of non-conformists towards contemporary
"globalism-", "market-", "workplace"ideologies" etc.)
remark: in the USA, historically, "work ethics" means
the necessity to have an ability or product which others
(customers) are going to (HAVE MONEY AND) pay for,
while in Europe and Asia (and their reach of influence)
"work ethics" means the subordination under
"workplace ideologies" with emphasis on hierarchism
and inferiorism of company structures.
Finally, scientism (the believe in Science as the basis
for rulemaking and conditionmaking,
inother words: trying to have science ruling over the world)
has
* perverted "rule" from a regulation to make things easier
(like a traffic light) to "ruling" (over people) and
* created its own rulemaking and conditionmaking
hierarchyism and inferiorism
(first in Social Sciences, later in Economic Sciences
and Management)
b) the second concept comprehends a reasonable distinction
of identity and collective,
-- an Ego ("I am") and Society ("the others") --
where "the others" are accepted and tolerated as naturally
as the individual Ego (the person like you and me) are
(to be) accepted and tolerated by "the others".
This concept heavily depends on elements suitable for
humans when brought to conscience,
but too complicated for animals, such as
* personal tolerance (as an integral element of
personal character) and
* Society tolerance (implementable by institutions and
ritualizations -- such as treaties and "consensus" --
but basically unstable because personally corruptable in
"modern" society as well as in outspoken banana republics)
This concept has come into discredit because
it used to include
-- at times when wealth "needed" to take it from others --
therfore
* warfare against these others,
* killing and destroying these others,
* dependencemaking (of personal dependencies, i.e.
"I say what you do")
* intolerance "up" to "zero tolerance" to keep groups alive.
And if these violence patterns are exluded (and if
hierarchism and inferiorism are excluded),
this second concept is discredited als "anarchy", easily.
Its historic roots can be described as democratic tolerance
philosophy, "my home is my castle" or similar.
Without
* positive experience (that rulemaking sometimes is
eased by unsubmissive persons within personal reach,
see the remark on the roots of democracy, above)
* during youngest childhood (and at least from time to time,
then) and
* corresponding group structures in daily life
the second concept (above, b) drifts towards political and
economic and personal totalitarism of the first concept.
***
The DIFFERENCE of these 2 concepts is like
"sharing a cake" -- cake pieces have to be smaller
when there are more persons,
corresponding to traditional cultures
in Asia and Europe --
versus
"making the cake bigger" -- by "working ethics" of
non-roman-catholic churches,
corresponding to Anglosaxon
and American culture
Both conclusions (smaller pieces as well as "work ethics")
are wrong:
First, "smaller pieces" (saving or expense reduction ideologies,
produce dis-generousity, back-focussing and unfreedom religions)
are the reasons for
* more and more wealth and products for less and less people
(while more and more people simply cannot buy them,
having less and less or no money at all)
("smaller pieces" ideologies are true and ONLY true in market
sectors where supply is too low: for example
food, 200 years ago in OECD nations except wartime,
or food, still today in poverty regions of the world,
or clothing before mass industrialization
-- provided that people have money to play the customers --
or mobility/communication before car and internet industries,
or mobility still today in aviation and railway business
between empty seats and crowded compartments)
Then, "work ethics" (needing paying customers or paid workplaces)
are the reasons for
* "hard working environment desctruction":
the priority ideology is "hard working" (necessary to live and
even to survive;
in conflict with environment and climate problems,
the latter are dropped as a priority
(environment is the more destroyed, the more people work hard;
regrettably, this is even true in environmental technology
-- which again leads more and more to
"this-is-true-if-it-is-allowed-to-be-true" mentalities,
historically rather in Laws and Economy but for 100 years
now in Natural Sciences as well)
Their combination ("globalization" of the G8 and Davos Economic
Forum type) drastically accelerates the spread of
* totalitarism
* hierarchism
* inferiorism
* poverty and
* destruction of democratic coexistence, worldwide
***