why give a damn

i read mortimer adler's ten philosophical mistakes. it's a great book by a great mind. basically he outlines what he sees as ten major areas in which modern and contemporary philosophy 'get it wrong' and readjusts them with a more or less aristotlean perspective.

anyway, one of the chapters regards the idea of a human nature, specifically that most modern philosophy would say that there is no such thing as human nature. if you look at any species there are certain characteristics, instincts, and predispositions in its behavior. all dogs act like dogs, all bees do generally the same thing. humans, however, have no common behavior practices, i.e., from one culture to another, from one era to another, there are vast differences between, v.g., social hierarchy and political organization, manners and etiquette, language structure (even sounds), 'common sense', taste preferences, means of offense and the list goes on.

since there's no discernible (diZZZZernible, for you certain friend) common trait it is supposed that there is no human nature (a quick side note, which bears repeating, is that most proponents of the 'no human nature' idea are also ones who would say that humans aren't a different kind of animal, rather we are only different in degree [i.e., in the evolutionary process], but, since all other animals do have discernible common traits, and, in their understanding, we don't, wouldn't that make us of a different kind?).

adler goes on to say that we do have a human nature, and our common human behavioral trait is one of potentiality. his meaning is that, while europeans and africans and malaysians may all have different behavioral traits, none of the people started off with them, and if a malaysian baby happened to grow up in africa, with african parents, it would have adopted all of the behaviors, thinking, and preferences (even language and tones) of the specific african people with which it grew up.

personally, i think america is itself the prime proof of this--multifarious ethnic traditions have given way to the western tradition in this, the great melting pot (even proponents of 'the great tossed salad' label couldn't argue that, while many people may have maintained much of their traditional heritage, the western mindset and ways have, by default of association and immersion, been picked up and worked into whatever culture was preserved in the immigration).

there's much more to this chapter and the implications of having a human nature, and it's definitely worth the read, but there's a specific tangent i ran with, with the help of my brilliant and insightful wife.

you know those people who take a good idea, however worthy the intentions, too far, specifically, those who can't handle someone having an issue with any facet of a different culture? here's what i mean--someone says 'i don't like thai people; their food is weird, the inflection in their language is like nails on a chalkboard, and what is with their need to serve?!' at which point someone else (rightly) interjects, 'hey, you're missing all of the beauty of those things--their food is a savory amalgam of spice and flavor, they practically sing while they talk, and a culture of service is what this world needs!'

well played. but here's where it goes too far: 'the general acceptance of prostitution, specifically the abduction and slavery of young village girls, and the prolific homosexual appetite are just parts of their culture. they aren't bad, they just are, and you have no right to have a problem with them. who is to say that they are right or wrong?'

the good idea of general culture-appreciation taken too far gives license for all sorts of human rights violations. a few others off the cuff would be the caste system's utter neglect of the poorest of the poor, abortion, euthanasia, forced female circumcision and credit cards.

first of all, there's a disconnect in this thinking, in the form of a double standard. people who tell domineering westerners not to domineer (bash and purge) other cultures because of the inherent neutrality of cultural practices and behaviors isn't allowing domineering westerners to do what comes culturally natural to them. they recognize that there's something that needs to change in their own western culture, but will accept willy-nilly, in the delusion of cultural celebration and freedom (read as 'license' [the difference between the two terms is left for another exposition]), the rancor practices of other ethnic traditions.

so it is recognized, then, that, while every culture has good and beautiful things about them (which should be appreciated, if not necessarily understood), there are also some things that need to change, for the basic human rights of all people.

the main issue i want to pose, though, the one that connects to adler's point of having a human nature of potentiality, concerns the idea of celebration of cultures at all. we don't praise dogs for sniffing each other's butts. we don't appreciate the self-expression of the cheetah for chasing down and pouncing on a gazelle (do they even hunt gazelle?). why not? because it's in their nature to do these things. a dog instinctually gathers information about other dogs it comes in contact with through its olfactory sense, and a cheetah doesn't rigorously train in order to achieve its remarkable hunting speed. they just do it naturally.

and with the law of extremes (exemplified in 'both extreme darkness and extreme brightness cause blindness'), if humans have no nature, then the behavioral manifestations of each culture have simply just happened and are no cause for celebration. 'hey, you happened to do that thing that way. good... for... you.'

but, if the nature of humans is potentiality, and cultures could have wound up looking any sort of an infinite variety of ways, and this culture developed this way, and that one that way, then there's cause to celebrate! then a culture becomes a living, organic work of art, with each person of each generation contributing and detracting, molding and changing that culture into what it is from what was handed down. now language tones become special, now cultural preferences have significance, now social and political structure have inherent beauty along with utility.

now each culture really is something special, something that couldn't have just been without the actualization of a general, human potentiality.

taking the idea of aristotle that 'at his best, man is the noblest of animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst' (nicomachean ethics, i believe) and running with it, we now have the true freedom not only to celebrate diverse cultures for all that they have that's worth celebrating (even if, again, it isn't all understood or relatable), but we also have the freedom to criticize a culture for its truly horrific social issues, those things which destroy the opportunity for not only basic human survival and hygiene and the owning of property, but also the pursuit of happiness in the form of right moral living, creative expression, and the attainment of excellence in whatever area of work, leisure and play.

we can say something is wrong and help that culture change it, or at least (in an effort not to be a domineering westerner), help them see what is wrong so they can change it from the inside.

now we can give a damn (or in other words, 'social justice, go!').