He believes that "there is no such thing as human nature" because he read some commie gobbldygook

>he believes that "there is no such thing as human nature" because he read some commie gobbldygook

>Commies invented tabula rasa

>he believes there's only one singular 'human nature' and not many forms of human nature that contradict each other

cite the commie cobbldygook faggot

I think it is hard to advance the claim of there being intrinsic and universal moral/social/characteristic preferences, insofar we are using human nature as shorthand for intrinsic human qualities beyond the capacity of rational thought (or if one finds rational thought too controversial a claim, developed abilities of thought) and those shared with all other living beings.

I think this because of Aristotle though.

Everyone I don't like is a Communist. Even if they are a financial mogul who dedicated considerable resources to fighting Communism, like Soros.

>locke wasn't a proto-commie

Locke was right about literally everything.

"Human nature" is such a stupid argument only brainlets use. It's literally whatever you want it to be, depending on the position you defend. I can use it to prove that humans are horny mammals who love to fuck to attack moralist's position. Egalitarians can use it to prove that humans equaly have the necessity for food, shelter and care. Social-darwinists can use it to prove that humans are a violent immoral savages and that to win in life you have to be a violent immoral savage. "Human nature" is such a confusing clusterfuck of emotions, personalities and influences it becomes impossible to treat it as anything other than a subjective buzzword.

If we followed our "human nature" from the start we would still be living in caves smashing each others skulls with sticks. We became what we are because we directly went against the nature, until we conquered it and put it to use that suited us best.

Since when did John Locke become a communist? Also, when did tabula rasa strictly imply no human nature?

You use "human nature" as a convenient monster to justify the practices prescribed by the dominant ideology. Philistines, like you, have done this since the species was conceived of.

>every single animal on Earth has very obvious patterns of behavior
>you believe humans are somehow immune to this

>he believes that human nature just so happens to fit a reactionary, class-structure-worshiping agenda

Any group of humans bigger than a tribe of 120 people develops a structured hierarchy of some kind. There are always leaders, to say otherwise is laughable you child.

And what are these "patterns of behavior"? I will not be shocked to learn that they approximate your superficial ideology, and that you believe the "sole biological purpose" of all animals on Earth (including humans) is to dolefully reproduce reproduction, or, "pass on their genes."

I'm going to ignore your retarded assumptions and answer your question instead.

People form in-groups and outgroups, the cohesion of the group changes depending on perceived threats to the whole, they place strong importance on words and symbols, each culture develops symbols, ways of speaking, songs, philosophies, some kind of moral fabric, dress, customs and traditions. That's a good start.

>muh structuralism

What about the people who don't "form in-groups and out-groups"?

There is no such thing. Every single group has an enemy group and groups they don't mesh with.

>humans throughout time always form reactionary, class-structure-worshiping societies
>this is conveniently not human nature even though it has literally always happened naturally
????

>b-b-but muh structuralism!

What about hermits?

The existence of lone wolves does not change the fact that wolves are pack animals. The existence of hermits does not change the fact that humans are tribal apes.

Stop being a drooling moron.

mental illness exists

Human nature is descriptive not prescriptive, anything we do is human nature. Its human nature to both be selfish and unselfish. When looking at why we do things a certain way to say "human nature" is no different to saying "because we do".
Its the ultimate brainlet non-argument.

Wolves and humans can have no cognitive similarities past the common basis of emotional reaction. Your comparison is utterly flawed because the wolf does not choose to be alone, but the hermit does. In other words, humans can operate against their instincts.

Maybe if you stop making shitty argument I'll stop disagreeing with you

>Your comparison is utterly flawed because the wolf does not choose to be alone,

[CITATION NEEDED]

It's actually just pointing to the fact that some human behavior is instinctual. You get a stress response from crying babies, you put your arms out to the side and raise your voice when in a heated confrontation, you don't like groups of people who think differently than you.

But you already made the flat assertion that wolves are "pack animals," thus they could not choose to be alone, you thoughtless fucking worm

And I also said humans are tribal animals while acknowledging the existence of hermits. You don't read much do you?

If you believe it exists, what is human nature? If you don't know, how could we best analyze and model it?

But we know that hermits choose to isolate themselves, and we also know that a wolf will return to the pack it knows whenever the opportunity presents itself. The designation of wolves as pack animals works empirically, but the designation of humans as "tribal apes" does not. This is why the comparison is inept, and this is why it's absolutely ridiculous to ask for citation on the fact that lone wolves don't choose loneliness.

All "self" is defined through an "other". Identity is constructed from distinguishment. That involves one's understanding of self coming from understanding the differences and classifying others in those ways. Also human nature is not everything that one does at least not without legwork to get there. Human nature is not a thing that can be described strictly by physical phenomena it is a metaphysical idea.

Pauline Christianity>Protestantism>Enlightenment liberalism>Jacobinism>Marxism
Locke was wrong about literally everything because.