Sunday, January 17, 2010


I have a hunch about human nature that I think is universal. Humans want to be taken seriously. What does that mean?

Humans want to be valued for their own sake. This means that humans will not be agendas on another's plate of delicacy. They do not have to fear being devoured by another's ferocious and unwhetted appetite or passion. The individual can live peacefully in his society without fear of intrusion of his personal space, whether physical, spiritual or psychological. Society exists for the individual's well-being, and as the individual flourishes, then society will flourish as a result.

Socialistic understanding is necessary for foundational learning, as in the establishment of a social identity, but adults do not always understand themselves in liberal or free societies as always functioning within their familial frames. Individuals, in this sense, are unique in framing or forming their identifying factors.

People desire to be known, and that means that we allow another to grow, become and be without dominating their "way of being" in the world.

Although my hunch and my analysis is "ideal" and won't be found in this world in all places at all times, I believe it is what a human "is".

I recently read a review of a book on a new understanding of genetics and biology. The review was supporting the book's contention that Darwin's evolutionary theory was too simplistic. Even a Neo-Darwinian view will not describe a philosophical or theological coherent view of the world in natural terms.

The nature/nurture debate should not be viewed as separate or conflicting compartments of personhood, but interdependent, just as the "self" and society are interdependent. Internalization of "all that is" is uniquely configured, it seems, just as our DNA coding.

The "new" understanding it seems is a cooperative wholistic view that is immensely complex and irreducible.

How do we take this complexity seriously, when there are so many trying to "take it apart" so that humans can be understood? And what is the reason for wanting this understanding? What will this kind of knowledge breed?

I am not suggesting that psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, natural scientists should not investigate human beings or human societies. I just wonder what is the purpose of such knowledge, and if it is worth the costs to gain that knowledge.

No comments: