Are Humans Good, Bad, Ugly, Or None Of The Above?
June 15th 2007 19:49
It’s an ongoing debate, yes? One of the wonders of the human experience is that we are able, it seems, to consider our very experience of that which we consider. Go figure?!? Clearly, such a circumstance creates opportunity for discourse, debate, disagreement, and occasional diatribe.
Some operate from the position that humans are inherently bad, so benefit most from seriously external loci of control. You know, the police, the law, the gubment, the boss, and all others that help us understand how best to operate in the world. This is all essentially the parent-child model, and presumes either patriarchically or matriarchically that without oversight and supervision all the little people will create chaos. If not chaos, they will at least make poor decisions and likely find unfortunate consequences.
Others operate from the position that humans are inherently good. Since we are all good and benign and wonderful and creative and flowers in the garden, if you will, then external forces in many cases will only impede that which we may not wish impeded. Perhaps another way to put it would be “get the $#@% out of my face”. Now, it must be said, that wonderful and benign persons would probably not speak in such a hostile way. Unless, of course, they are feeling encroached upon by those who think they are evil and inherently bad.
Damn. This stuff gets confusing.
Consistent with the afore-mentioned garden with all the wonderful flowers, is the notion that there are ugly ones among us. No, no, no. Everyone is but an expression of the nature, and nature does not seem involved with any such polemics such as ugly and pretty.
I try whenever possible to extract myself from the dialogue of polemics. Perhaps out of laziness. Perhaps out of wisdom. I seem to be most at ease when I see humans neither as good, bad, ugly, pretty, or any other criteria which is essentially meaningless.
I think that humans simple ARE.
deorre
Some operate from the position that humans are inherently bad, so benefit most from seriously external loci of control. You know, the police, the law, the gubment, the boss, and all others that help us understand how best to operate in the world. This is all essentially the parent-child model, and presumes either patriarchically or matriarchically that without oversight and supervision all the little people will create chaos. If not chaos, they will at least make poor decisions and likely find unfortunate consequences.
Others operate from the position that humans are inherently good. Since we are all good and benign and wonderful and creative and flowers in the garden, if you will, then external forces in many cases will only impede that which we may not wish impeded. Perhaps another way to put it would be “get the $#@% out of my face”. Now, it must be said, that wonderful and benign persons would probably not speak in such a hostile way. Unless, of course, they are feeling encroached upon by those who think they are evil and inherently bad.
Damn. This stuff gets confusing.
Consistent with the afore-mentioned garden with all the wonderful flowers, is the notion that there are ugly ones among us. No, no, no. Everyone is but an expression of the nature, and nature does not seem involved with any such polemics such as ugly and pretty.
I try whenever possible to extract myself from the dialogue of polemics. Perhaps out of laziness. Perhaps out of wisdom. I seem to be most at ease when I see humans neither as good, bad, ugly, pretty, or any other criteria which is essentially meaningless.
I think that humans simple ARE.
deorre
| 75 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
This Nurture vs Nature debate is older than both of us.
You first have to know what is good and evil before you decide whether people are not one or the other.
Perhaps we are not essentially bad or essentially good but just people with flaws and faults of our own.
Now that just opens another can of worms.
Why would people be faulty and the rest of nature not?
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
You got your multiple choice answer all wrong.....humans are ....All of the above....is the right one.
Well done, whoever said examiners got it right anyway.
katyzzz
Comment by Deorre
Stress Alive
Man Lessons
Maybe we are all those, rather than none, katyzz. If so, then they have about as much value as if they were none.
Yes?
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
katyzzz
Comment by Deorre
Stress Alive
Man Lessons
Comment by Nickoftime's Sanity Corner
a thinking man's post...well done there...you want opinion? I used to think, many many moons ago, that people were basically good and decent...
Unfortunetly, I've found out through the years that that really isn't the case...and again here's my Father's old Irish philosophy that was drummed into my head since birth...
"Son, people are no damned good. They'll strip ya naked, tear ya ta pieces and leave yer bloody corpse ta rot on the midday sun!"
But then again, the Irish are a notoriously depressed and bitter species lolol
Great post!
Take care,
Nick
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
I love the way you finished this post. I think you're exactly right. People just are. Some are good, some are bad. People are too varied to ever be lumped in a single category.
From a personal point of view, I think most people are good. They have good intentions.; But you can't make the mistake of thinking everyone is good.
I'd never want to be the kind of person who thinks that everyone is inherently bad.....how depressing would that be??
Kylie
Comment by Deorre
Stress Alive
Man Lessons
Now, if you see the absence of good as bad, and the absence of bad as good, then that becomes a merry-go-round that has circular perpetuity. Sometimes that makes me dizzy.