Aren’t we grand.
We are animals, first and foremost- we want to survive, to reproduce, to eat and sleep and be alive for the sake of it because that's what our body tells us to do. But it seems that we have an extra thing tacked onto us, a thing that many call a mind, and this thing seems to give us the power to override what we might consider our more natural desires, our instincts. This power has immense potential.
Where many (if not all) other animals are slaves to their desires, we can break free; and so when our body tells us to eat, to sleep, to mate, to run or to stand our ground we are not obliged to agree, no, we can deny them. We can stay up all night despite of our fatigue, or sleep when we are already well rested; eat nothing when our belly rumbles, or eat more when we are full; stand up to threat or run from that which is harmless. As humans, it seems, we have a nature that can transcend nature... Are we not then God's?
There are many, I'm sure, that would love to subscribe to this notion: the human as God, with the divine power to do as He wishes! To act for reasons that exist outside of His body, to ignore His natural inclinations and act instead in the name of some perceived absolute Good. It is this sort of thought that has led religions past and present to brand the desires of the body as lesser, immoral, evil. It allows humans to stand upon a pedestal of egotism, and to look down upon all else and to genuinely believe that this power to ignore ones instinct makes them better.
Well, then, does it? Is our capacity to negate nature enough to stamp our superiority upon the world of living things? There is the argument that this ability makes us free, which in turn makes us capable of moral decisions: we humans, the moral animal- free to do that which is Good! And so, freedom is part of human nature, and surely it is better to be free than not?
Perhaps.
But if we are free because we can choose not to follow our instincts, then it can be said that we are free in so far as that we are not inclined to do one thing over another. The less inclined we are, the more free we are. And so it must follow that he who has no inclination towards either good or bad is more free than he who is inclined towards that which is good... and then surely he who only does what is good is even less free than he who is only inclined towards that which is good. And so we have it, that the most free is the one who acts with complete indifference! The one who only does good is a slave, just like the other animals, unable to negate his desires: he just desires that which is good. Is it really better to be free?
It appears that any freedom that pertains to human nature is not so clearly a hallmark of our superiority, but evidence of an immense capacity that should be treated with caution. Yes, it is the capacity to act well, to be good, and perhaps this is the way that we are inclined (although I see no evidence that this is the case), but it is equally the capacity to do wrong, to be evil. We have a power, as I have said, to negate whatever inclination we have, natural or otherwise, and therefore we have the capacity to act terribly, negating all that our intuition tells us. And, in doing so, we will likely pat ourselves on the back, raise our glasses and cheer as we and only we could have done this! We, humans, free to negate nature, free to destroy and annihilate, to create and nurture... whatever we do, it will be grand, as it could have only been us. Maybe we are superior, insofar as we are more powerful, but better? The ego to make such a claim could only be human.
By George Dunn
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Human Nature' Issue 36
