# In accordance with nature or against nature?



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2020)

This is probably going to come off as rambling because I’m searching for clarity but thought I would put it out and there and get some thoughts.

Read a quote the other day by Zeno, “Man conquers the world by conquering himself.” This expresses a common theme of the importance of self mastery found in many religions and schools of thought. On the other hand there is the idea that we must live in accordance with nature and with our own nature as human beings. Doctrines such as Marxism that run contrary to and seek to change human nature often lead to horrific consequences. And some aspects of our nature that have been deemed as vice such as selfishness can be explained as important, even necessary to our survival, in evolutionary terms. Ayn Rand argued that selfishness is a virtue. Adam Smith similarly argues that the butcher serves others not out of altruism but out of his own self interest. The point being that even aspects of our nature that may at first glance seem a negative to be diminished are actually instilled in us by nature for good reason. If it’s true that we should live according to nature then how can it be true that we should be in conflict with our own nature which nature has bestowed upon us? Hope that makes sense. I’m inclined to be in agreement with both propositions though they seem to be contradictory. Thoughts?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 22, 2020)

atlashunter said:


> This is probably going to come off as rambling because I’m searching for clarity but thought I would put it out and there and get some thoughts.
> 
> Read a quote the other day by Zeno, “Man conquers the world by conquering himself.” This expresses a common theme of the importance of self mastery found in many religions and schools of thought. On the other hand there is the idea that we must live in accordance with nature and with our own nature as human beings. Doctrines such as Marxism that run contrary to and seek to change human nature often lead to horrific consequences. And some aspects of our nature that have been deemed as vice such as selfishness can be explained as important, even necessary to our survival, in evolutionary terms. Any Rand argued that selfishness is a virtue. Adam Smith similarly argues that the butcher serves others not out of altruism but out of his own self interest. The point being that even aspects of our nature that may at first glance seem a negative to be diminished are actually instilled in us by nature for good reason. If it’s true that we should live according to nature then how can it be true that we should be in conflict with our own nature which nature has bestowed upon us? Hope that makes sense. I’m inclined to be in agreement with both propositions though they seem to be contradictory. Thoughts?




Any Rand, or Ayn Rand in particular?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 22, 2020)

Just kidding.  I'll come up with some heady gobledygook inna minute.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 22, 2020)

Quickly, Evolution seems to have also equipped us with propensity towards working together and altruism.  I don't know too much of Rand, only what I've seen in interviews, but she seems to miss this relatively recent observation.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 22, 2020)

I thought about this recently:

Can we force evolution by shaping our societies to favor certain traits over others? I think the answer is yes.  If we shape society as to favor traits like altruism or helpfulness, make them the sexy traits that women seek, it seems that those are the traits that will proliferate.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Jun 22, 2020)

ambush80 said:


> Quickly, Evolution seems to have also equipped us with propensity towards working together and altruism.  I don't know too much of Rand, only what I've seen in interviews, but she seems to miss this relatively recent observation.


I agree. For example, primitive man taking care of elder members of it's communities once they could no longer contribute by way of food or work allowed them to be able to pass on knowledge from that period that could only be gained through the passage of years like weather patterns, animal migrations, etc. It's been theorized that great story tellers of ancient man would have been highly valued members of communities due to knowledge passed on by those stories.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 22, 2020)

My take is all things in moderation. Sure, look out for #1 because no one else is assured to, but don't turn a blind eye to others around you.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 22, 2020)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My take is all things in moderation. Sure, look out for #1 because no one else is assured to, but don't turn a blind eye to others around you.



We can trim out the motor depending on the conditions.  We can adjust the "Fairness" dial to affect the "Justice" outcome but we should do so carefully.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 22, 2020)

RoosterTodd said:


> I agree. For example, primitive man taking care of elder members of it's communities once they could no longer contribute by way of food or work allowed them to be able to pass on knowledge from that period that could only be gained through the passage of years like weather patterns, animal migrations, etc. It's been theorized that great story tellers of ancient man would have been highly valued members of communities due to knowledge passed on by those stories.



That's the racket I should have gotten into; Shamanism.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 22, 2020)

ambush80 said:


> We can trim out the motor depending on the conditions.  We can adjust the "Fairness" dial to affect the "Justice" outcome but we should do so carefully.



Not sure what you're speaking towards, but I'm literally just talking individual level since that would be the base unit in a naturist viewpoint, IMO.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Jun 22, 2020)

ambush80 said:


> That's the racket I should have gotten into; Shamanism.


I've seen a few super fantastic plastic shamans on Youtube. You need a blue or red bandanna to wrap around your head for it to work apparently. Pretty good money from being a cult leader too but it's hard to stay under the radar.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 22, 2020)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Not sure what you're speaking towards, but I'm literally just talking individual level since that would be the base unit in a naturist viewpoint, IMO.



The base unit is the individual and they can do whatever they want when they're by themselves.  As Atlas points out, a contradiction arises when you add one more person in the mix.  Otherwise, concepts of altruism and selfishness are meaningless.  And if it's true that man has a "social" nature, then that dynamic is what I was speaking to.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 22, 2020)

ambush80 said:


> The base unit is the individual and they can do whatever they want when they're by themselves.  As Atlas points out, a contradiction arises when you add one more person in the mix.  Otherwise, concepts of altruism and selfishness are meaningless.  And if it's true that man has a "social" nature, then that dynamic is what I was speaking to.


Altruism is a lie. I'm not saying you can't do nice things for people, though. I'm saying that the little pleasure tickle you get out of doing it is why you keep doing it. Take that away and people stop doing it. 

Selfishness absolutely exists, however. What I was referring to was tempering that selfishness, i.e. not raiding your neighbor's victory garden in the wee hours of the morning for your own benefit, into something that's at least mutually beneficial, trading some of your excess venison for some of his squash, is the optimal state. 

We were able to evolve how we did because early humans were able to do just that and separate the labor one family unit would have to endure to survive and instead focus on one aspect so that others would have mutual benefit. In that same vein, the quote he used is absolutely spot on and not just from a philosophical standpoint. Mastering yourself is what allows you to synchronize into that mutually beneficial system in totality. Every cog that betrays the whole in blind support of their endeavors damages us and themselves. Not to say that you can't pursue your desires, you just have to master them so they don't control you and become unhealthy.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 22, 2020)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Altruism is a lie.



There's plenty of material to support altruism's evolutionary origins.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm not saying you can't do nice things for people, though. I'm saying that the little pleasure tickle you get out of doing it is why you keep doing it. Take that away and people stop doing it.



Many of those "tickles" are based in evolution.  They tickle in a pleasurable way because they were advantageous.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Selfishness absolutely exists, however. What I was referring to was tempering that selfishness, i.e. not raiding your neighbor's victory garden in the wee hours of the morning for your own benefit, into something that's at least mutually beneficial, trading some of your excess venison for some of his squash, is the optimal state.
> 
> We were able to evolve how we did because early humans were able to do just that and separate the labor one family unit would have to endure to survive and instead focus on one aspect so that others would have mutual benefit. In that same vein, the quote he used is absolutely spot on and not just from a philosophical standpoint. Mastering yourself is what allows you to synchronize into that mutually beneficial system in totality. Every cog that betrays the whole in blind support of their endeavors damages us and themselves. Not to say that you can't pursue your desires, you just have to master them so they don't control you and become unhealthy.



People are different.  Some of them are psychopathic and all degrees of in between.  The more psycopathy someone has, the harder it might be for them to accept the notion of mutual benefit.  There's the other side of the spectrum which would cause someone to be overly empathic to the point where their worldview might become a liability to flourishing as well.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2020)

ambush80 said:


> Any Rand, or Ayn Rand in particular?



Dang cell phone!


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2020)

ambush80 said:


> The base unit is the individual and they can do whatever they want when they're by themselves.  As Atlas points out, a contradiction arises when you add one more person in the mix.  Otherwise, concepts of altruism and selfishness are meaningless.  And if it's true that man has a "social" nature, then that dynamic is what I was speaking to.




I think my question isn't really centered around selfishness vs altruism. I brought that up as an example of an aspect of human nature that perhaps we wrestle with and which is often viewed a bad aspect of our nature but which from an evolutionary standpoint was actually endowed to us with good reason and therefore perhaps should not be diminished as much as many are often inclined to think. Does that make sense? 

I *think* what I'm after or struggling with is the contrast between embracing human nature as it is versus the challenge or even the need to conquer or master ourselves. I'm not even sure the issue here depends on adding other people to the mix although that does perhaps add to the complexity of the issue. Even in the hypothetical man on a deserted island scenario the issue is still there. For example it's in our nature to be lazy. Maybe there is some aspect of that which has a reason like not wasting energy unnecessarily. But if I live according to that nature and don't challenge it then I face other negative consequences. Everything in moderation is I think a generally sound principle. Keep it between the lines. But I think what my mind keeps coming back to is that dichotomy between not fighting your nature and fighting your nature. The path to a life well lived is found in both? Perhaps in developing the wisdom to know when each is called for?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 22, 2020)

I can agree that both propositions "seem" to contradict, and I can agree with both propositions at the same time.

There has to be a standard / foundation to operate from. What’s natural, and to who? 

With that in mind, is conquering ourselves the same as self control / discipline? Basically, just because it’s natural to do, or even ok to do, is it the right thing to do?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 22, 2020)

Richard Dawkins said something like "The role of society is to undermine Evolution (Natural Law)"  I butchered that but it was similar.  I don't like that he comments on the "Role of Society".  I do appreciate that he understands the impact society can have, though.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 27, 2020)

atlashunter said:


> I think my question isn't really centered around selfishness vs altruism. I brought that up as an example of an aspect of human nature that perhaps we wrestle with and which is often viewed a bad aspect of our nature but which from an evolutionary standpoint was actually endowed to us with good reason and therefore perhaps should not be diminished as much as many are often inclined to think. Does that make sense?
> 
> I *think* what I'm after or struggling with is the contrast between embracing human nature as it is versus the challenge or even the need to conquer or master ourselves. I'm not even sure the issue here depends on adding other people to the mix although that does perhaps add to the complexity of the issue. Even in the hypothetical man on a deserted island scenario the issue is still there. For example it's in our nature to be lazy. Maybe there is some aspect of that which has a reason like not wasting energy unnecessarily. But if I live according to that nature and don't challenge it then I face other negative consequences. Everything in moderation is I think a generally sound principle. Keep it between the lines. But I think what my mind keeps coming back to is that dichotomy between not fighting your nature and fighting your nature. The path to a life well lived is found in both? Perhaps in developing the wisdom to know when each is called for?


You don't go buy a Ford and then spend the whole time you own it trying to turn it into a Chevy. Sometimes things work better the way they were originally designed.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 27, 2020)

NCHillbilly said:


> You don't go buy a Ford and then spend the whole time you own it trying to turn it into a Chevy. Sometimes things work better the way they were originally designed.


By nature, real men just go ahead and buy a Chevy?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 29, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> By nature, real men just go ahead and buy a Chevy?


If they are the type of men who greatly prefer working on a vehicle to actually driving it somewhere, and have lots of money to spend on parts. I know, I've owned several in the days before I realized I was stupid for buying them.


----------



## Israel (Jul 27, 2020)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Altruism is a lie. I'm not saying you can't do nice things for people, though. I'm saying that the little pleasure tickle you get out of doing it is why you keep doing it. Take that away and people stop doing it.
> 
> Selfishness absolutely exists, however. What I was referring to was tempering that selfishness, i.e. not raiding your neighbor's victory garden in the wee hours of the morning for your own benefit, into something that's at least mutually beneficial, trading some of your excess venison for some of his squash, is the optimal state.
> 
> We were able to evolve how we did because early humans were able to do just that and separate the labor one family unit would have to endure to survive and instead focus on one aspect so that others would have mutual benefit. In that same vein, the quote he used is absolutely spot on and not just from a philosophical standpoint. Mastering yourself is what allows you to synchronize into that mutually beneficial system in totality. Every cog that betrays the whole in blind support of their endeavors damages us and themselves. Not to say that you can't pursue your desires, you just have to master them so they don't control you and become unhealthy.




I like Ambush's construct without denying your observations.

I don't think it's an unworthy place to start.


One man.
2 men. (Wilson!!!! WILSON!!!!)
Three men...etc...

And I appreciate the OP.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 27, 2020)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Altruism is a lie. I'm not saying you can't do nice things for people, though. I'm saying that the little pleasure tickle you get out of doing it is why you keep doing it. Take that away and people stop doing it.
> 
> Selfishness absolutely exists, however. What I was referring to was tempering that selfishness, i.e. not raiding your neighbor's victory garden in the wee hours of the morning for your own benefit, into something that's at least mutually beneficial, trading some of your excess venison for some of his squash, is the optimal state.
> 
> We were able to evolve how we did because early humans were able to do just that and separate the labor one family unit would have to endure to survive and instead focus on one aspect so that others would have mutual benefit. In that same vein, the quote he used is absolutely spot on and not just from a philosophical standpoint. Mastering yourself is what allows you to synchronize into that mutually beneficial system in totality. Every cog that betrays the whole in blind support of their endeavors damages us and themselves. Not to say that you can't pursue your desires, you just have to master them so they don't control you and become unhealthy.





> Altruism is a lie. I'm not saying you can't do nice things for people, though. I'm saying that the little pleasure tickle you get out of doing it is why you keep doing it. Take that away and people stop doing it.


I completely agree with that ^. 
However I disagree that it somehow makes altruism a "lie".
As I read this -
*



			Altruism
		
Click to expand...

*


> Altruism is the principle and moral practice of concern for happiness of other human beings or animals, resulting in a quality of life both material and spiritual.


It seems to me the definition of Altruism wouldnt exclude the "pleasure tickle".
Every single action a human makes comes from something in their brain getting tickled so its an ingredient in every single thing a human is involved in.
If we use a "tickle" as the disqualifier then we just proved just about everything a "lie".


----------



## Israel (Jul 27, 2020)

WaltL1 said:


> I completely agree with that ^.
> However I disagree that it somehow makes altruism a "lie".
> As I read this -
> 
> ...


Do you think the "tickle" may have something to do with empathy...or ability to identify with another's pleasure? And what then are the limits, if there are? (that question is found in regards to what follows)

I know Ambush likes thought experiments...do you? Seems sometimes they are useful.

You give a car to a dear friend. Do you feel the "tickle"? (Maybe even a stranger...it may not matter.)
Now, your friend comes to you in a week and says he has given that car away...to one (unbeknownst to him) who is taking you to court for your dog pooping on his lawn.
Tickle/no tickle...? anti-tickle? Cancel previous tickle, make it go away? More than cancel previous tickle? Anger? Are you "worse off" now for having given it to your friend? (Cynics generally believe they have _enough experience _to not call themselves cynics_...but realists.)_

The "act" may not take place in a vacuum and therefore be very hard to evaluate as though "on its own".

I think it could be taken one step farther even. The friend knew this other guy was suing you. Knows that guy didn't like you at all. Now...what?

Ya ever read the book of Jonah?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 28, 2020)

For a long time I thought that men sacrificed their personal lives for family. Men had a brief period in their lives when they were number one to someone and then the babies came and dad gets to be numbered down on the list of favor.

Add to this my view that  women especially those craving pregnancy and  wanting babies sacrificed their selves less and were still  expecting to be number one in their relationship with dad. I now realize that women do the same as men in sacrificing their "selves" for their family.

When a baby comes into the world, it is natural to sacrifice. The challenge in the conquer the self is to conquer the selfish view that men make extreme personal sacrifices for their families, while women don't and that personal sacrifice and altruism is not natural to the human condition in general.  However, extreme selfishness is not natural. It took a bit of conquering of the self to see past my selfish views on altruism. It is natural to sacrifice the self for others. Ayn Rand was just not here yet.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 30, 2020)

Me and my neighbors played the grim game of "Would you give me your kidney?" the other night.  With the exception of one friend, who has bad kidneys, all of us agreed that we would.  I looked for the self interest but found it took a back seat to the love I have for my friends. Love is a weird thing.  Sometimes it makes people do strange things. 

Not everybody is a "Jump on the grenade" type.  And some of those guys might do it because of allegiance to their team.  They might see something bigger than themselves as being more important than themselves.  It doesn't seem that important to me to call that self interest.  I'm not sure what "work" it does to frame it that way.   

Why do we save children before ourselves?  Seems like a bad strategy considering how helpless human babies are.  No other female animal of mating age will risk her life to save a baby. At some point they cut their losses.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 31, 2020)

ambush80 said:


> Me and my neighbors played the grim game of "Would you give me your kidney?" the other night.  With the exception of one friend, who has bad kidneys, all of us agreed that we would.  I looked for the self interest but found it took a back seat to the love I have for my friends. Love is a weird thing.  Sometimes it makes people do strange things.
> 
> Not everybody is a "Jump on the grenade" type.  And some of those guys might do it because of allegiance to their team.  They might see something bigger than themselves as being more important than themselves.  It doesn't seem that important to me to call that self interest.  I'm not sure what "work" it does to frame it that way.
> 
> Why do we save children before ourselves?  Seems like a bad strategy considering how helpless human babies are.  No other female animal of mating age will risk her life to save a baby. At some point they cut their losses.


Love and instinct ultimately separates animal and human.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 31, 2020)

It is interesting to note when studying white supremacy ideology in Europe from the 1870 to the 1930  that for white supremacists what distinguished the "Nordic race" from others was that naturally the Nordic race was not selfish and materialistic while most others were said to be... I don't think Ayn Rand would have done well with them although she strikes a match here with conservatives.


----------



## Israel (Aug 1, 2020)

Para-Nordic Lives Matter


----------



## Para Bellum (Aug 6, 2020)

NCHillbilly said:


> If they are the type of men who greatly prefer working on a vehicle to actually driving it somewhere, and have lots of money to spend on parts. I know, I've owned several in the days before I realized I was stupid for buying them.



Hater!


----------

