Why do intellegent people tend to be pessimistic re: human nature?

[Ellis]

Why do intellectuals tend to think the "correct" view of human nature is a pessimistic one? I'm talking specifically about such statements as "human nature is inherently evil/greedy/stupid/violent"? The assumption seems to be that anyone who disagrees is "in denial" and refuses to admit "the truth" because it's too depressing.

"Human nature" cannot be described as any one trait. It is a balance between various desires and in some people these desires are stronger than others. To ignore the compassionate, intelligent, and strong parts of human nature is as much of a denial as to ignore the greedy, irrational and weak parts.

Sometimes the "evil" aspects are more noticeable, because it's a lot easier to notice someone who breaks into your house than someone who doesn't, for example. Still, there are some obvious acts of good that have happened in human history; why do some ignore them?

I suppose some people emphasize the negative to counteract the fact that many people are in denial about it. Still, it just makes intellectuals look like a bunch of downers.

Why do people do this? I want to know.

[Zap]

Sometimes the "evil" aspects are more noticeable, because it's a lot easier to notice someone who breaks into your house than someone who doesn't, for example. Still, there are some obvious acts of good that have happened in human history; why do some ignore them?



I don't know, maybe the evil events that have happened in the world are too strong in comparision, and would therefore outweigh the positive events.

Maybe a similar idea could be the scope of pain being greater -- more extreme -- than the scope of pleasure. (I call these physical evils). In other words the harshest pains being far more intense for a human than the greatest pleasures. (What a cruel and impersonal universe, eh). So this might the reason for the stronger imprint made in memory by evil events than by good ones.

[trendkill]

I think this thread need examples of the kind of pessimism it's talking about.

I'll offer my own particular sort of pessimism for consideration: human nature is inherently selfish, as a natural result of the fact that discrete individuals exist and have their own interests, and it's unlikely they will be compatible with the interests of others. Pessimism arises when you take not of this fact along with the fact that it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the whole barrel, so to speak--if everyone is good but a few unscrupulous people, there will still be large-scale strife and misery caused by these peoples' manipulations and injurious behavior, as they inevitably gain power over others (as a result of the fact that they are the only ones who seek power over others). This means that Jesus was right, and Lennon was naive: humanity at large is never going to reach a state of peace and good relations. Such a state would be far, far too fragile to survive in the face of inherent human selfishness. This is of course why Jesus needed to escape into an imaginary paradise.

This is obviously a generalized pessimism about world peace. It doesn't follow from this that everybody, or even most people, are "bad people" or that relationships are always doomed to end in betrayal or anything of that sort. It's not pessimism about the nature of any or all individuals, it's pessimism about the nature of the human species and/or society as a whole.

[sweetiepie]

a stupid person is treated poorly in heavy traffic. he thinks: some people become evil when they are driving.
a smart person is treated poorly in heavy traffic. he thinks: evil people become honest when they are driving.

of course there is a balance. but we perceive different balances, depending on our varied ability to see through (or imagine) deception.

[jaboteer]

Why do intellectuals tend to think the "correct" view of human nature is a pessimistic one?
...
Why do people do this? I want to know.They adore Schopenhauer?

[jaboteer]

I don't know, maybe the evil events that have happened in the world are too strong in comparision, and would therefore outweigh the positive events.

Maybe a similar idea could be the scope of pain being greater -- more extreme -- than the scope of pleasure. (I call these physical evils). In other words the harshest pains being far more intense for a human than the greatest pleasures. (What a cruel and impersonal universe, eh). So this might the reason for the stronger imprint made in memory by evil events than by good ones.Zap, do you mean physical pain or mental pain?

[mattikake]

To improve something, first you must identify the problems. Technology is a solution to a problem. Why bother going on about the bits that are ok?

It's not pessimistic, it's realistic.

[vfr]

Why do intellectuals tend to think the "correct" view of human nature is a pessimistic one? I'm talking specifically about such statements as "human nature is inherently evil/greedy/stupid/violent"? The assumption seems to be that anyone who disagrees is "in denial" and refuses to admit "the truth" because it's too depressing.

"Human nature" cannot be described as any one trait. It is a balance between various desires and in some people these desires are stronger than others. To ignore the compassionate, intelligent, and strong parts of human nature is as much of a denial as to ignore the greedy, irrational and weak parts.

Sometimes the "evil" aspects are more noticeable, because it's a lot easier to notice someone who breaks into your house than someone who doesn't, for example. Still, there are some obvious acts of good that have happened in human history; why do some ignore them?

I suppose some people emphasize the negative to counteract the fact that many people are in denial about it. Still, it just makes intellectuals look like a bunch of downers.

Why do people do this? I want to know.

They are 'too smart' to be at peace.

see my post:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=177948





Take Care,


V (Male) For free access to my earlier posts on voluntary simplicity, compulsive spending, debting, compulsive overeating and clutter write: vfr44@aol.com. Any opinion expressed here is that of my own and is not the opinion or belief of any group or organization.

[mattikake]

Who says we should be at peace? A society that want's you to be a social animal? A peaceful social animal is a nice social animal? What if the social animal always searching for social acceptance is the cause of all problems? Would that mean we should actively NOT worry about seeking social acceptance "because"?

Some deeper, more lateral thinking needs to go on here... ;)

[breathilizer]

I think that non-thinking people who are optimistic tend to view their own worldview as the 'norm,' thus a realistic worldview would seem pessimistic in comparison.

Half-empty or half full?

Optimistic: Half full, of course!

Pessimist: Half empty. Fuck that half-full guy.

Realist: There is .5L of water and .5L of air in a container designed to hold 1L of anything that will shape itself to fill the glass.

[Preno]

Well, people who claim that usually fail to take into account that the current socioeconomic system encourages some of these negative traits. Therefore, one has to be careful when generalizing from human behaviour in this system to 'human nature'. It's more analogical to the situation when people in the Middle Ages thought that the division of people into three castes is natural and in accordance with 'human nature' than most people realize.

[Starlock]

Why do intellectuals tend to think the "correct" view of human nature is a pessimistic one? I'm talking specifically about such statements as "human nature is inherently evil/greedy/stupid/violent"?

Can you provide statistical evidence that intellectuals tend to be pessimistic? Otherwise, I find this assumption easily contestable.

[Zap]

Zap, do you mean physical pain or mental pain?

Well probabily more physical... but it all comes together. Mental can be brutal also.

[Cosmo]

Hmmm,

Smart people have a pessimistic view of nature? Have you conducted a survey of smart people? And have you determined what qualifies as smart?

I think you should have left out the reference to "intelligent people" and just asked why do some people think pessimistically about human nature.

I'd subscribe to the idea that the way society is setup has a lot to do with what we see in human nature. Of course, some would say that human nature determines the society we setup. I guess we all have to take our own counsel on that until someone incontrovertibly demonstrates otherwise.