tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post114771296538940714..comments2024-03-25T11:49:21.281-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: What Does It Mean to Say "Human Nature Is Good"?Eric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1147989528014773602006-05-18T14:58:00.000-07:002006-05-18T14:58:00.000-07:00I'll take what I can get, Eric. I'm quite glad tha...I'll take what I can get, Eric. I'm quite glad that you are interested in getting us out of the ghetto. Admittedly there are a few that seem inclined to stay there, but I think most see all kinds of opportunities for cross-fertilization.Justin Tiwaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15004961943595375641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1147876092042949352006-05-17T07:28:00.000-07:002006-05-17T07:28:00.000-07:00Brad, on my view there's more than one way for a t...Brad, on my view there's more than one way for a trait to fail to be natural: It might not be a part of normal, "healthy" development, OR it might be "externally imposed". So bad-boy Freud fails to think that human nature is good by (at least) the first criterion, while friendly Freud fails by the second. That's the thought, anyway.<BR/><BR/>Analogy: My hair might turn purple due to disease (not a normal, healthy process) or due to dye (external imposition). Either way, that's not its "natural" color.<BR/><BR/>Justin, I can't promise that I'll write frequently on Chinese philosophy. But I do think that anyone with a serious interest in moral psychology would do well to acquaint herself with Chinese thinkers (and recent Western commentators such as Ivanhoe, Shun, etc.). As I'm sure you'll agree, there's no need to ghettoize discussions of such thinkers to specialized journals and forums specifically dedicated to them!Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1147832241362312672006-05-16T19:17:00.000-07:002006-05-16T19:17:00.000-07:00Eric, I can't express how delighted I am to see so...Eric, <BR/><BR/>I can't express how delighted I am to see someone blogging on Chinese philosophy. I've been conferencing for the past two days and fallen a bit behind on my work, but I should have a chance to read your paper soon.Justin Tiwaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15004961943595375641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1147802390719542942006-05-16T10:59:00.000-07:002006-05-16T10:59:00.000-07:00That makes sense. One more try at figuring out wh...That makes sense. One more try at figuring out what is worrying me: what would you say about the Friendly Freud we find in, say, Scheffler's "Human Morality". The idea is that, pace Freud (and Wollheim), the moral sentiments are part of healthy development. Nonetheless they are, roughly as Freud thought, the result of internalizing an intially external demand. <BR/><BR/>If the sound moral sentiments develop only if a certain external factor (say a certain type of "good enough" parenting) is present, then it consequently makes sense to deny that humans are naturally moral. <BR/><BR/>But given your definition of "natural" the Friendly Freud view entails the thought that humans ARE naturally moral.<BR/><BR/>Hope you see the worry.Brad Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12698027539432083841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1147795129426496242006-05-16T08:58:00.000-07:002006-05-16T08:58:00.000-07:00You're right that I would classify Freud as a pess...You're right that I would classify Freud as a pessimist. I think I can interpret him this way because, for him, the internalization of moral standards is not a <I> healthy </I> developmental process -- at least if it goes too far. Not to make a cartoon of his view, but if morality is a kind of pathology or sickness, then even if human beings commonly have it, it's not part of our "nature", on the sense of the "natural" that I favor. (I actually think Freud's view is more nuanced than this.)Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1147722593873806382006-05-15T12:49:00.000-07:002006-05-15T12:49:00.000-07:00I should read your essay before posting this but s...I should read your essay before posting this but since I am procrasinating instead of working on the dissertation as it is...<BR/><BR/>I agree it is plausible to build some sort of socialization into our idea of "normal" development (man is a social animal), but isn't there a danger here about begging the question against the "human nature is not good" view?<BR/><BR/>I assume that Freud, for example, is a paradigmatic pessimist (like Hobbes). He thinks we are socialized into the "non-natural" emotion of guilt, when we internalize our parents disapproval. (I esp. thinking of Deigh's "Love, Guilt, and the Sense of Justice" in this context)<BR/><BR/>To avoid classing Freud as an optimist about human nature, we need to have a sense of "normal socialization" that does not include the sort he thought gave rise to the moral sentiments.<BR/><BR/>You write: "What is natural is what arises in a healthy process of normal development, in normal people, without external imposition. "<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the sophisticated pessimist will agree that we (well at least "we" westerners) usually *internalize* an initally external demand as a part of socialization. I guess I am asking: do you mean to classify Freud as a fan of the "human nature is good & morality is natural" party? <BR/><BR/>If not, why doesn't his account of morality make it "natural" according to your definition?<BR/><BR/>Ok...back to work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com