Here's a philosophy question for y'all.?

Question

''Human nature is fixed, therefore human beings are not free agents.''To what exent is this a valid statement.

Answer 1

Change, uncetainty and hesitation are all elements of the human condition. nothing about humans is fixed even their appearance. where does that leave your deductions.

Answer 2

How's about this y'all I think Calvinism the worst heresy perpetrated on the Western World. The idea anything whatsoever is fixed and pre-determined is utter nonsense. If humans live, they grow, their nature itself changes. Otherwise Redemption's a lie and the birth of another baby sheer foolishness. I'm not the man my forebears were, and thank God my grandchildren aren't the man I am and never have to put up with some of the things I've changed in my life.. "The days of Man are three-score years and ten, and though some may come to four-score years, yet is their time but labour and heaviness", a fairly good observation of "normal" life expectancy until you put it up against our rapidly aging and debatably healthier older population, or run a comparison with other human populations and periods of history like Medieval Europe (17 years). Don't bother with the absurdly multi-century ages in the Genesis account (the numbers are, and were meant to be mythic and figurative representations of nations), there's no verification whatever for any but the rare individual as old as 120 ( six-score years, incidentally the age given on 17 year old King Tut's death certificate. Pharaohs just lived to that ripe old age, even Ptolemy whom his sister Cleopatra "offed" a bit sooner than he'd have liked.). Ever heard of "Revolution"? That's what happens when folks get too high and mighty with their so-called societal formulae. Norms change, I can hardly count how many I considered "fixed" have changed in the brief span of the past 25 years despite how many people would earnestly like to turn back the clock. Of course I once operated under the delusion that people in this country were civilized , but I guess we're still going through all the pains of evolution. Go ahead and "shun" all the freaks you will, before long you'll find yourself locked up alone in your house (which they own and have the keys to, like all those other "normal" little islands some call "their world").

[It's validity as a statement. per se, may lie along the various permutations and convolutions "path less traveled" takes it below, but I don't think I'd follow that path from the contradictions in his initial statement. ( I prefer the analytic logic given above, but like to look at other forms and types of syllogisms and statements. I'm an hermeneutic phenomenologist, not a logical positivist.) I hope "path less traveled" is practising a bit of mindful irony to further people's thinking on the subject, rather than utterly confuse and befuddle them 'til they don't know whether they're coming or going, where the path is, or if they truly believe what they end up saying. If you look at the argument that's there "truth" and "validity" are separate categories, one not necessarily joined to, much less consequent upon the other. Thus no proof to either statement or judgement.]

Answer 3

The premise is false and can be demonstrated quite easily. Some humans kill and some don't. Clearly, killing and not killing are not fixed features as to the nature of our species.

Some will kill if they feel provoked, others will and do walk away in the same type of situation. Clearly, the behaviour is not fixed in our nature or our psyche.

Some are excellent mothers. Some kill their own children. This is not a fixed nature in humans. Some men are paternal. Some are not. This is a trait that is not fixed.

I could go on, but I think the pattern is clear that nothing is fixed in terms of human nature.

Answer 4

Well, for starters one can question the first premise and look to see exactly what it means. Is human nature fixed in the sense of being predetermined in its choices? I don't think so. You can't predict what a given person is going to choose in a certain situation.

The first premise could also mean that human nature is fixed in the sense of having limits, to which we could agree. Humans can't fly without mechanical assistance. We can't breathe underwater for long periods of time without mechanical assistance. Our knowledge is limited.

Until we know what exactly is meant by the first premise we can't make a determination as to whether this is vaild.

The other problem is that if we are looking at this as a syllogism, we are missing a premise. Deductive syllogism requires three terms to arrive at a conclusion. We only have two terms.

Answer 5

Human nature is NOT fixed. I do not know who told you that but they're wrong. Some people say that certain things may be just "human nature" the only human nature is love. So we are all "free agents" as you say.

Answer 6

We might look at and into all life to draw with and from; peer into to see just somewhat this carries: we must assure unequivocally that human nature 'is' indeed fixed -- whether truth or postulate: we must peer into one's meaning of 'fixed': we must ask, who or what or is it both that says so -- what individual or cohort, what time, got up by whom, what condition, just somewhat shall constitute "valid?" So is it true generally--that we should come to that state to which to all this is evident, even amidst to each not a one equals another in state of consciousness: nay, here we constrain to assert in relative terms, which otherwise again only equals that selfsame latitude.

Where the fixation is determined by mere conveyance of words alone, then rest assuredly we have problems at resolving, for nature -- of any kind -- is centered in spheres that exist beyond the compass of latitude that words could convey with exactitude: careful otherwise as well to the trap you will need to crawl out of, for a trap it is, herewith we will have found need to identify and summon still a line of assertion that requires still another and another no less a kindred protocol of reason, which constrains us to latitude still again -- a lateral cycling -- a grand if vainglorious merry-go-round. We have proof that many never get on to ride; and others if boarded, verily knew to get off.

But before we should travel that far and 'waste,' inquire that we should have the experience or merely one of supposition or leap; ask might ours be but regurgitations of thoughts and ownerships of said educated men and women? ‘An inquiry on truth?--only does it but impress those of how well you are learned about their school and camp, and thus, yes, may we then label it "valid" and import nothing to Nature.

Rather, we might resolve to economy and know: that – where we begin to preface an idea or reality with " if ", we are one remove of the nature of dimension beyond the mere human one, one broader, more vast, wisdom of dimension three, four, and onward and upward into an infinite progression; each whose nature and behavior is unique and imprecise to the dimension that preceded.

Answer 7

To a degree - Society has formulate "accepted" reactions for us to certain situations. Although most would fit into society's norms, there are very few who would actually go the opposite way, because that is there specific reaction (not just to stand out or for alternate reasons). Were people to go against society's "norms," they would be considered outkasts, and almost "left out" in a sense from the rest of society in all other calculations of "the norm," at any given point. Though we are to a degree, "free," we must live up to societal norms in order to ensure our own survival in our community (was one to be considered "that freak on the block," the neighborhood/community would fail to, or at least would to a much lesser degree, care for the welfare of the person). Thus there are people who adjust themselves to societal norms in fear of exile.

Answer 8

how is human nature fixed, when we have free will?

I am not disputing your statement, but that needs clarification.

Answer 9

Nope....I have free will. Therefore, I alone, invalidate that statement.

Answer 10

what if this were not a hypothetical question?