Tabula Rasa

>Every human life has the same intrinsic value because everybody is born like a tabula rasa
Do people actually believe this?

No, it's a simplifications for the problems that follow people are born of varying quality and skill, wealth is passed down no matter the incompetence of the next in line.

Life has no value at all

Yes, it is the foundation of all leftism, human nature has no impact, it is all due to capitalism, people are innately good, etcetera...

Even if they disagree with it in the abstract their whole belief system works with that assumption and it is difficult to shake off because it is so seductive. Trying to go against your own nature is physically painful, you cannot remake yourself without suffering as you are both the marble and the sculptor, as Alexis Carrel said. What if you could cheat? What if doing what you feel like is edgy and magically right while discipline is "anal retentive" repression and unhealthy?

People used to believe it. These days even most commies accept that there is such a thing as human nature, albeit they still believe it can be "perfected" thru education / indoctrination.

Hegel writes about "Human Nature" being so far removed from modern society that it's not particularly a useful thing to talk about since it's always effected by culture, society, and social standing and things which we'd consider human nature change through history or culture. To examine "human nature" through the lens of modernity is simply a cold take on much deeper and complex topics.

>Hegel

Okay, and? He was wrong. Modern commies don't even think he was right, why should we care what he thought about a subject he knew exactly nothing about?

>Tabula rasa
That's an absurd oversimplification. Social sciences demonstrated that the biological differences between human groups or within groups are very thin and could not be a justification for social inequalities. They are in fact politically and historically constructed thus they are subjective and culturally situated.

>Human nature
Please tell us what it is. Bonus point if you can cite actual academic sources

Don't attack the person, attack the argument, why is the idea that Hegel presented, wrong?

>there is a non-violent solution to every problem
[citation needed]

Because human nature is not nearly as malleable as he supposed, as decades of scientific investigation his proven. Really tho why should we take his opinion seriously at all,, he had zero relevant training and lived before much of the relevant science was done. You might as well cite PG Wodehouse.

It's not about how malleable human nature is, it's that it has little impact on our day to day lives over culture, society, politics, etc. and is hard to pin down to the point that there we even have to have this thread.

Your argument states that it's much less malleable then what Hegel writes and thus is more easily discernible, but the problem is that even if it is discernible it still has little impact on our lives. It's importance is still small even if it is wholly or at least partially definable.

Secondarily, we also change our nature based on the interpersonal relationships we develop and our experiences. Building on that, It is also a cold take to say that our nature now is similar to our historical nature from before modernity, in which it could possibly be viewed "pure" as many like to think of it. Thus human nature is at least partially subjective and thus harder to define.

Although I do agree with you that he had zero relevant training, it is still a useful point to make.

>Human nature is...

>Human nature was...

>Human nature still...

>Human nature does...


[ C I T A T I O N N E E D E D ]

>Your argument states that it's much less malleable then what Hegel writes and thus is more easily discernible

No, much LESS discernible. Our nature colors everything, from our language t our culture to our dreams, Morons like you and Hegel imagine culture is superior to our nature, because you have a fetish for imposing your idiot notions on everyone, and realize this can't work because human nature i so pervasive and variable. So, you just wish it away.

>but the problem is that even if it is discernible it still has little impact on our lives.

Our nature has little impact on our lives? What the actual FUCK are you talking about? Our nature defines every aspect o our lives. Don't believe me? Try not eating ever again, or try jumping off a cliff in defiance of gravity. I'll wait.

>It's importance is still small even if it is wholly or at least partially definable.

It isn't definable, because it pervades EVERYTHING we do. Unimportant? In cosmic terms maybe, it's petty fucking central to US.

>Secondarily, we also change our nature based on the interpersonal relationships we develop and our experiences.

You have evidence for this miracle? Because no, we don't.

> to say that our nature now is similar to our historical nature from before modernity, in which it could possibly be viewed "pure" as many like to think of it

What are you babbling about? Pure? What does that mean in the context of human nature?

>Thus human nature is at least partially subjective and thus harder to define.

Human nature is objective, our responses to our nature are subjective. The two are impossible to untangle and I defy anyone to define either unambiguously.

>Although I do agree with you that he had zero relevant training, it is still a useful point to make.

No it's anti-scientific garbage that teaches those unlucky enough to be contaminated with it to ignore their own natures, to their great cost and to the detriment of our species.

What the fuck are you even talking about when you say "human nature"?
>Try not eating ever again, or try jumping off a cliff in defiance of gravity. I'll wait.
What does this even mean, is human nature the survival instinct? This is too funny to be real, please tell me you're just pretending to be retarded.

>Every human life has the same intrinsic value
>because everybody is born like a tabula rasa
This is not an argument I've ever heard...

I've heard things like:
- Cuz God says so.
- Cuz we can find a use for everyone.
- Cuz everyone has potential.
- Cuz if the value of life is as good a source axiom as any.

But I've never heard the excuse, "because everyone is a blank slate". Seems, at that point, a rock would have the same value as human life. I mean, you can make anything of anything, eventually.

Human nature is self evident.

This thread badly needs a proper definition of human nature. Obviously things like the craving for food, water, sex or the fight or flight response are definitely part of human nature. But what of human behaviors that are colored by culture yet also have a clear genetic basis ? Where is the cutoff between nature and nurture ? Western ideologies tend to have a bias towards nurture but current scientific research doesn't really back them.

Existence precedes essence dummies

Unless you throw nuance to the wind, something that is as deep as, has as many implications as, and is as multifaceted as human nature can be whittled down to "self evident".

Hegel is a cunt

your stupid nature is not my nature tbqh

What is human nature anyways?

>But what of human behaviors that are colored by culture yet also have a clear genetic basis ? Where is the cutoff between nature and nurture ?

There really isn't one. Take height for example. Purely genetic, right? Well only if you get enough food (nurture) growing up will you reach your "genetic" height. For hings like culture it's even more complex, obviously there is a non-genetic component to culture but on the other hand there are many universals that are found in ALL human cultures, no matter how isolated they might be. Are these "nature or "nurture"? Nature, surely? But they include such things as a concept of spirits / "naive dualism", which most people would identify as purely cultural. What about language? Surely THAT'S 100% culture? Except pre-language exists among many animals, and again there are universal features found in AL human languages, that seem to exist not for any practical reason but because of the way or brains are organized, which is "nature". And so on for any variable you could name, there is no simple way to categorize them as "natural" or "cultural", only as some mixture of both.

>Obviously things like the craving for food, water, sex or the fight or flight response are definitely part of human nature.

Even these basic things are wholly colored by culture. If you're starving to death yo might eat a rotten maggot-infested dead horse, or even another human being, but if you're just hungry you're going to turn your nose up at eating cockroaches, even tho there are cultures who consider such things a delicacy.

"Self evident" is not an argument.

Fuck, it's probably pointless at this point but I meant
*can't be whittled

I've learned on Veeky Forums that people of Slavic descent are better than other humans because they are related to Indians.