yeah, I think that was maybe my point, it would be a mistake to conclude “human nature is determined by material conditions” and better to say “human nature does not exist, instead human behavior is driven primarily by material conditions” - but I understand if for the sake of brevity a meme might not want to be so verbose

hm, there is nothing that is not “nature” - that’s kinda the premise of naturalism … but that’s not the same as the meme’s point about “human nature” - which is not about whether something is natural or not, but rather about whether humans are innately or essentially something or not (in the meme whether they are selfish or altruistic).

I tend to think altruism and selfishness are probably related to environment and material conditions, but we can’t completely deny the role genetics play in behavior (even as environment helps shape those genetics).

This reminds me a bit of the Chomsky Foucault debate, where Chomsky took the position that there is such a thing as a “human nature” - using the example of human’s innate capacity to learn language. Foucault takes the position that there is nothing but social influence and environment (though he was less focused on the material and more focused on the structural / social). At least that was my understanding of the positions.

I tend to agree with Chomsky that our biology results in some “innate” capacities, though I do think we should reject essentialist views that humans are all X or Y, since the biology is so varied and what we get is not necessarily a monolith of human nature as much as a variety of human beings many or even most with some similarities. Maybe most humans are capable of learning a language, but some probably are not for various reasons (and those reasons may be innate as well, such as a genetic condition, or they may be environment such as due to abuse like social isolation during early development, etc.).

ha, thank you 😅

if “human nature” is just material conditions, then it’s not “human nature” - the phrase implies something essential, and if it’s contingent and conditioned, it’s not inherent

My concept of Christianity is rather expansive, and Christian anarchists are often inspired by Tolstoy, who is someone I have read about and whose works I have given some attention. I can confirm they are rather different than most Christians - Tolstoy in particular rejected the Church after he saw they were committed to enabling war, which is clearly un-Christian. Dorothy Day is another relevant Christian anarchist, and I have worked with a Catholic Workers House locally, so I have some IRL exposure to these folks as well.

I tend to think “Christian” is an almost meaningless term without more context or clarification, people who call themselves Christians hold opposite views on many different positions. “Buddhism” is no different, if anything it is worse, so this isn’t particular to Christianity. Nor is it particular to religion, Marx spent some time in the Communism Manifesto clarifying what he meant by “socialism” and the different kinds of socialism he was aware of - there are many such overloaded terms and concepts. It seems particularly common in any political context, where there is power struggle it seems there are struggles between meanings for a particular word.

It is religion …

Yes, the Christians I am talking about believe in predestination, and they disagree with, for example, Baptists about whether people can save other people or whether people can save themselves. Instead they believe God predetermines who ends up being saved or not, through the grace of God alone.

And to answer your question about what is the ultimate point if there is no motivation through free-will, their answer is usually either “it’s a mystery” or “to glorify God”.

They still believe in a kind of free-will, but only within the confines of God’s pre-determined choices. God chose for you, but it was you that did the choosing and are responsible. One explanation I was given is that you make the choice out of free-will, and then God observes your choice and then goes back in time and determines it from the beginning. It’s not a coherent view, as far as I can tell - there is no compelling logical or reasonable compatibilist account they offer, it just sounds like contradiction and fantastic thinking.

Also, their view is that our nature is fallen (total depravity), and the only good is from God and God chooses who receives the gift of salvation and thus who will become cured of their evil nature. They believe they should do good things and proselytize to convert others to Christianity because God commands them to, not because those things will save themselves or anyone else. Obedience is very important to this mindset.

I don’t agree that it is doomed to fail, but I also don’t believe humans are inherently Fallen, and especially not in the particular soteriological sense that Christians believe (i.e. all later generations have inherited the guilt from the single act of disobedience by Adam & Eve dooming all of humanity to endless toil and suffering, as well as an evil nature).

That said, I do think humans behave in sometimes predictable ways, and it might be useful to look at what kinds of choices about society might alleviate suffering and promote well-being and fairness in society.

That said, I don’t think that’s going to happen without significant social upheaval, and that itself seems to bring about a lot of violence and the kinds of suffering I think we should all avoid … so, yeah - these are hard problems.

Even the more devout Christians I know (who actually have opinions about different theological positions) believe Earth and human society should not be modeled on heaven and attempts to do so will fail due to humans being inherently / essentially Fallen. This is part of how they rationalize their resistance / apathy towards movements for justice, at the very least they believe it is futile to seek justice in this life.