Human Nature?
Many Philosophers and Psychologists, such as Erich Fromm and Vivienne Burr, state that our perceived sense of ‘human nature’ is a product of the particular social and economic structure that we are born into. A good example to illustrate this point is the capitalist society in which we live. In a capitalist society, where competition is fundamental, it is structured around individuals and organisations that are in a constant state of competition.
The main assumption is that the person with the most skill, ability, charm etc. will succeed where others will fail. So where a society revolves around competition what you will get is ‘competitive’ people and a model of the personality framed upon the ‘individual differences’ that we possess. What this basically means is that we think of ourselves as individuals differing from each other along the personality ‘spectrum’ because we live in a society founded upon competition.
Competitiveness and greed can also be understood as products of the society we live in rather than just features of an essential human nature.
What is Love?
As well as differences in the social and economic structure of various cultures, the way people think and describe their experiences is constantly changing, and we accept that words change over time. The way these changes have occurred is of interest. The verb ‘to love’ is a good example. The word 'love' has different connotations. When we say 'I love you' to our partners, children or anyone else we 'love'; we are often referring to our feelings for them, not our actions. However, this has not always been the case. In the past my Grandmother used to say 'Come here so I can love you for a while'.
To 'love' someone here means to physically interact with them and manifest actions that can be described as 'loving'. This meaning is still used occasionally but it is becoming extinct. When we talk about loving someone we refer to private, intimate feelings and emotions; which are taken to exist 'inside' us and which influence how we behave.
Love has become something that can be seen to motivate our behaviour rather than a word which describes our behaviour.
The argument here is that loving feelings don't give rise to a language which then describes them, but rather the use of language itself encourages us to identify and experience our feelings as loving. Sometimes, when love is relegated to this internal domain it can become so unrelated to conduct that it can be used to excuse the most appalling behaviour ('I hit her when I get angry - but I love her really...').
We are tending more frequently to describe human life in terms of psychological qualities such as feelings and personality traits rather than in terms of what we are doing to other people. This move towards accounting ourselves in terms of internal essences is entirely consistent with the idea above that the way people think about themselves is dependent upon the particular social and economic arrangements prevailing in their culture at a particular time.
What can be deduced here is that the 'correct' behaviour or the 'right' ways to act are in fact flexible phenomena that change as societies change. This is why many of our respected older generation sometimes do not understand why certain things are deemed as acceptable now and others as unacceptable.
So who is wrong and who is right?
Well, the issue here is that one should refrain from passing judgements on a group of people because of their social habits, behaviours and customs (unless they contradict what is deemed as universally wrong). The only way to appreciate certain behaviours or practices is to analyse the basis behind the whole society. What is meant here is that if a particular society is structured around a certain outlook or philosophy, one should not enter subjective baseless arguments about that society's feelings and behaviours, rather they should see if that philosophy or world view is sound.
An example to clarify this is the cultural practices of certain Himalayan villages.
There have been reports that over 70 years ago, Himalayan villagers would immerse their new born babies into freezing cold water. Many would die as a result. This may seem "barbarous" or "backward" to the western mind, but these actions were simply a result of the social structures and the predominant ideas abundant in that society.
Karma, which is a well established philosophy in some Himalayan villages, is the motivating force behind these actions. The Himalayan villager would reply to our gasps of air "If the baby did not survive then it was in the karma of that child, and it wouldn’t have survived the extreme Himalayan winters".
This can have parallels with our own culture. Many in the west feel that it is ok to kill an unborn child just because there is a perceived sense of choice and the power to do what we please - freedom. Without getting into judgements about certain actions, the way to prevent circular debates is to analyse the basis behind from which these actions have come from. This view will begin to open many minds, as the following final example will show you.
My philosophy changed, as a result so did my feelings and actions
Before I converted to Islam my psychological disposition agreed with many things about Islam and disliked many things too. It was only when I started to engage with the Islamic philosophy on life that I started to appreciate the truth of Islam. Once I was convinced of the fundamental components of the Islamic worldview - that the Creator is a reality and the Qur'an can only have come from Him - it was then that I started to appreciate and love many things that initially felt alien and even repulsive.
After all, just because my Aunty makes awful Moussaka (famous Greek dish), it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or it is not 'true'.
Hence, judgements on certain behaviours of a group of people can't play a role in seeking a truth about something, as they are based upon the social and economic structures within that society. If the philosophy, worldview, basic fundamental thoughts (or whatever you want to call it) can be proven to be true; then whatever feelings or actions that emanate from them will be also be true.
“Because God said so!”
The next time you hear a Muslim say “It’s right, because God says so”, you would appreciate that its not necessarily blind faith or fanaticism. Rather, it should raise the question:
“Did God say it?....and does He exist?”
If He did say it, and if He does exist, then surely wouldn't that change your world view too?
Many Philosophers and Psychologists, such as Erich Fromm and Vivienne Burr, state that our perceived sense of ‘human nature’ is a product of the particular social and economic structure that we are born into. A good example to illustrate this point is the capitalist society in which we live. In a capitalist society, where competition is fundamental, it is structured around individuals and organisations that are in a constant state of competition.
The main assumption is that the person with the most skill, ability, charm etc. will succeed where others will fail. So where a society revolves around competition what you will get is ‘competitive’ people and a model of the personality framed upon the ‘individual differences’ that we possess. What this basically means is that we think of ourselves as individuals differing from each other along the personality ‘spectrum’ because we live in a society founded upon competition.
Competitiveness and greed can also be understood as products of the society we live in rather than just features of an essential human nature.
What is Love?
As well as differences in the social and economic structure of various cultures, the way people think and describe their experiences is constantly changing, and we accept that words change over time. The way these changes have occurred is of interest. The verb ‘to love’ is a good example. The word 'love' has different connotations. When we say 'I love you' to our partners, children or anyone else we 'love'; we are often referring to our feelings for them, not our actions. However, this has not always been the case. In the past my Grandmother used to say 'Come here so I can love you for a while'.
To 'love' someone here means to physically interact with them and manifest actions that can be described as 'loving'. This meaning is still used occasionally but it is becoming extinct. When we talk about loving someone we refer to private, intimate feelings and emotions; which are taken to exist 'inside' us and which influence how we behave.
Love has become something that can be seen to motivate our behaviour rather than a word which describes our behaviour.
The argument here is that loving feelings don't give rise to a language which then describes them, but rather the use of language itself encourages us to identify and experience our feelings as loving. Sometimes, when love is relegated to this internal domain it can become so unrelated to conduct that it can be used to excuse the most appalling behaviour ('I hit her when I get angry - but I love her really...').
We are tending more frequently to describe human life in terms of psychological qualities such as feelings and personality traits rather than in terms of what we are doing to other people. This move towards accounting ourselves in terms of internal essences is entirely consistent with the idea above that the way people think about themselves is dependent upon the particular social and economic arrangements prevailing in their culture at a particular time.
What can be deduced here is that the 'correct' behaviour or the 'right' ways to act are in fact flexible phenomena that change as societies change. This is why many of our respected older generation sometimes do not understand why certain things are deemed as acceptable now and others as unacceptable.
So who is wrong and who is right?
Well, the issue here is that one should refrain from passing judgements on a group of people because of their social habits, behaviours and customs (unless they contradict what is deemed as universally wrong). The only way to appreciate certain behaviours or practices is to analyse the basis behind the whole society. What is meant here is that if a particular society is structured around a certain outlook or philosophy, one should not enter subjective baseless arguments about that society's feelings and behaviours, rather they should see if that philosophy or world view is sound.
An example to clarify this is the cultural practices of certain Himalayan villages.
There have been reports that over 70 years ago, Himalayan villagers would immerse their new born babies into freezing cold water. Many would die as a result. This may seem "barbarous" or "backward" to the western mind, but these actions were simply a result of the social structures and the predominant ideas abundant in that society.
Karma, which is a well established philosophy in some Himalayan villages, is the motivating force behind these actions. The Himalayan villager would reply to our gasps of air "If the baby did not survive then it was in the karma of that child, and it wouldn’t have survived the extreme Himalayan winters".
This can have parallels with our own culture. Many in the west feel that it is ok to kill an unborn child just because there is a perceived sense of choice and the power to do what we please - freedom. Without getting into judgements about certain actions, the way to prevent circular debates is to analyse the basis behind from which these actions have come from. This view will begin to open many minds, as the following final example will show you.
My philosophy changed, as a result so did my feelings and actions
Before I converted to Islam my psychological disposition agreed with many things about Islam and disliked many things too. It was only when I started to engage with the Islamic philosophy on life that I started to appreciate the truth of Islam. Once I was convinced of the fundamental components of the Islamic worldview - that the Creator is a reality and the Qur'an can only have come from Him - it was then that I started to appreciate and love many things that initially felt alien and even repulsive.
After all, just because my Aunty makes awful Moussaka (famous Greek dish), it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or it is not 'true'.
Hence, judgements on certain behaviours of a group of people can't play a role in seeking a truth about something, as they are based upon the social and economic structures within that society. If the philosophy, worldview, basic fundamental thoughts (or whatever you want to call it) can be proven to be true; then whatever feelings or actions that emanate from them will be also be true.
“Because God said so!”
The next time you hear a Muslim say “It’s right, because God says so”, you would appreciate that its not necessarily blind faith or fanaticism. Rather, it should raise the question:
“Did God say it?....and does He exist?”
If He did say it, and if He does exist, then surely wouldn't that change your world view too?
Posts
2 comments:
Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah,
True, for the most part Western (especially English and American) societies tend to be individualistic rather than collective - thinking pattern exhibit the 'me' and not the 'we'. Darwin, also considered a psychologist of the time, came up with what you described - survival of the fittest.
"Hence, judgements on certain behaviours of a group of people can't play a role in seeking a truth about something, as they are based upon the social and economic structures within that society."
I remember taking an Anthropology class and we were discussing the issue of Cannibalism. Some tribes eat their dead loved ones - but not out of maliciousness, rather out of honor. They believe that eating the dead person would keep the person 'in them' (literally) and not have to be dug beneath the dirt. In that frame of reasoning, Cannibalism is truly justifiable for that society.
Your Aunty's Moussaka - lol I think you mentioned this in a past lecture :^) Is it really that bad? :P
"Because God Said So."
- I tend to accompany it with reasoning too when I can, but this is absolutely viable - and your lectures on Allah (swt)'s existence would nicely answer these last 2 questions in the post.
Wasalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah
It seems logical to try and understand behaviour and thought in the context from which they arose, and a logical thread I support wholeheartedly. Some often say this "open" way of thinking (as some may call it) is too forgiving, or excuses inexcusable thoughts and actions. I don't think I necessarily agree and often I actively disagree, but I still think the understanding you talk about is vital, regardless of if you intend to try and influence that view or not.
I think criticism of the "Because God said so" line arises from the idea that one may believe that person not to have engaged their rational minds. It's not surprising that in a secular society, where the mind is considered the source of knowledge, that we want the mind to explain actions/beliefs rather than religious script. However, surely if secular folk claim to be so rational, they can understand this viewpoint of religious people. One can even argue it is more logical to follow the words of the creator God, but we are often predisposed depending on our upbringing to believing in the arguments for or against God or religions, and many are in the "against" camp due to general cynicism towards religion in the UK. I know some people may see their logic and proof as so clear (evolution of all species for many atheists, "indisputably" miraculous scriptures for Hindus and Muslims etc...), it must be a flaw in the minds of others that doesn't allow them to see this truth, but that, in my view, is a close minded view to take of humanity.
I may be an advocate of secular liberal thought in the UK, but I'm stunned at how close minded many similarly positioned people are towards the idea that societies can develop fine if not better than we can with different principles due to the context created by the situation.
I wish more people could read posts such as these and understand the implications of accepting this more open-minded doctrine.
Post a Comment