Mid-Term Paper 2011
What does it mean to be human? This is an age-old question that we are still struggling to answer. Human nature is an extremely complex concept. There are many different theories about what it means to be human. Each individual person probably has their own definition about human nature or has adopted a theory. For many weeks now, we have been studying human nature and the characteristics of it. We have been introduced to many of these theories and seen evidence of these theories. We have read several different perspectives - journalistic, linear, non-linear, academic and the like - from various authors. They all try to answer the same question: what does it mean to be human and to be of the human condition?
In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker summarizes many theories about what it means to be human and what human nature really is. Pinker says that some unique characteristics of humans are that humans have a past (or accumulate a history), have behavioral traits and have a culture. "The starting point for acknowledging human nature is a sheer awe and humility in the face of the staggering complexity of its source, the brain…and what it does" (Pinker 197). The brain is the source of who we are. It controls everything that we do - no exceptions. The brain is the most complex organ in the body. We still do not know what much of the brain is used for and how it connects to every thing in the body; however, humans have utilized the brain in a way that other animals have failed to.
We have used our brain not only to remember people, places or things but also to learn new things, something that our fellow animals have yet to do. Each brain develops differently, which adds diversity to our learning capabilities. Our brains are each unique in their own way, which causes each individual to have a unique personality. Pinker believes that behavioral genetics holds the key to individuality. "A handy summary [of behavioral genetics] is this: Genes 50 percent, Shared Environment 0 percent, Unique Environment 50 percent" (Pinker 380). Pinker says that our behavior is caused partially by our genes and partially by our experiences (ones that we do not share with our siblings) growing up. We react to and learn from our individual experiences throughout our lives. Pinker's academic approach reinforces his larger points by providing the reader with sound research throughout his book.
Leslie Marmon Silko believes that it is necessary for us to pass on our history and that culture emerges naturally from the lifestyle that we have. In her book Storyteller, Silko tells many of her Laguna Tribe stories. The purpose of her non-linear style is to bring the oral tradition of Native Americans to the 20th century in the form of a book. She writes
"What she [Aunt Susie] is leaving with us-/the stories and remembered accounts-/ is primarily what she was able to tell/ and what we are able to remember./ As with any generation/ the oral tradition depends upon each person/ listening and remembering a portion/ and it is together- all of us remembering what we have heard together-/ that creates the whole story/ the long story of the people" (Silko 6-7).
The Native American culture was highly dependant upon oral stories for their history to be passed down to their children. This was how people passed on their knowledge. The tradition of oral storytelling is quickly becoming extinct. Silko feels as though the present generations look too much into the future and not nearly enough into their past. She believes that change is good but that changing too much can limit us in the future. According to Silko, it is human nature to have a language and to communicate with one another. Another unique human characteristic is to have religion and to incorporate it into our daily lives, to live by it, whereas most animals live by the laws of nature.
We can infer from Storyteller that Silko believes that humans have strayed away from living peacefully with nature and that this is a bad thing because there is much that we can learn from nature. In one of the stories that Silko tells, man has made a mess of things because he has dealt in black magic and neglected the Mother Corn alter. Thinking that the magician was a medicine man, the town did whatever he said. The "medicine man" caused a lot of harm in the village and the village had to be purified in order to regain Mother Corn's blessings. The only way that they could do this was for the villagers to go between two different worlds. Humans were not able to do this, however, and so they received help from animals. Eventually, Mother Corn forgave the humans (Silko 111-121). In the end, nature helped humans even when humans hurt nature in the first place. Silko believes that nature has much to teach us but that we do not want to learn from nature. Nature is simple, flows together, whereas human nature is complex, and often times clashes within itself.
In the article "The Long-Legged House" by Wendell Berry, there is prominent focus on the interactions between humans and nature. There is also a large focus on human nature. The linear approach that Berry uses reinforces his larger point, that it would help us all to become one with nature, by putting the reader in his shoes and having them experience what he experienced in nature. Within the article, Berry tells his readers about how he connected to nature. As a young boy, he went to Curran's Camp with his family quite often (which was the remnants of a house right next to a river). When he was older, he would spend weekends up there with some of his friends, fixing up the house and hanging out. Eventually, he and his wife moved into the house. "I…associated it [Curran's Camp] with freedom" (Berry 115). Human nature is to be free. Being in the middle of nature gave Berry the sense of freedom when he could not find it in society. "That was another realization the camp had suddenly lit up for us: We were against civilization, and wanted as little to do with it as possible" (Berry 121).
Berry also believes that while humans are strong willed and stubborn, human nature has a need for peace and tranquility. Nature gave Berry a peace and quiet that could not be found anywhere else. "It was deeply quiet - nobody around anywhere, and nobody likely to be. The world expanded yet again" (Berry 117). "And those days that gave me peace suggested to me the possibility of a greater more substantial peace - a decent, open, generous relation between a man's life and the world" (Berry 122). Berry believes that man should have an open relationship with nature; that we could learn a lot from nature if we only took the time to do so. He feels that it is a necessity to learn about nature and everything that it can offer us.
"As soon as I felt a necessity to learn about the nonhuman world, I wished to learn about it in a hurry. And then I began to learn perhaps the most important lesson that nature had to teach me: that I could not learn about her in a hurry. The most important learning, that of experience, can be neither summoned nor sought out. The most worthy knowledge cannot be acquired by what is known as study - though that is necessary, and has its use. It comes in its own good time and in its own way to the man who will go where it lives, and wait, and be ready, and watch" (Berry 167-168).
Human nature is innately curious. We crave knowledge and want to learn all that we can about everything that we can.
Gretel Eurlich suggests the same thing about human nature in her book The Solace of Open Spaces. She believes that we can never stop learning from nature. Ehrlich suggests that it is human nature to be curious, emotional and to have connections to others. In her book, Ehrlich says, "Everything in nature invites us constantly to be who we are" (Ehrlich 84). Humans are in their most natural state when they are living as one with nature. Ehrlich speaks from personal experience. She worked in Wyoming on various ranches. Many of her jobs required her to be out in the middle of nowhere with no one but animals to keep her company. She writes, "I suspect that my original motive for coming here [Wyoming] was to 'lose myself' in new and unpopulated territory. Instead of producing the numbness I thought I wanted, life on the sheep ranch woke me up…The arid country was a clean slate. Its absolute indifference steadied me" (Ehrlich 3-4). Open spaces offer us a solitude that we cannot have unless we live with nature. Ehrlich complexes her theory when she adds that we also need to have human interaction because it is a large part of our human nature. Without interaction from other people, "idle agitation…becomes fatalistic"; we can go insane or even kill ourselves (Ehrlich 13). She does say, however, that we have the ability to change and adapt to new surroundings. We can change so that our lives become better. Ehrlich's linear approach gives her validity, which strengthens her larger point: we all need to find solace and that that solace is found solely in nature.
On the other hand, Susan Griffin, who wrote an article entitled "Our Secret", said that the key to figuring out humans is to study our past. Griffin's article tells us that by nature humans are bad and easily influenced. She writes of Heinrich Himmler growing up. Himmler had an overbearing father that expected a lot out of his young son. "He [Himmler] has just completed elementary school…From now on he must learn to take himself seriously" (Griffin 117). We put so much pressure on our children to do better than ourselves. Children are easily influenced, especially by their parents. This transfers into our adult lives, as well. Griffin's nonlinear approach reinforces the fact that our childhood shapes who we become through the comparison of Himmler's childhood and the way that he lived as an adult. Himmler wanted to be just like Adolf Hitler, a once-powerful man that affected many lives, effects that are continuing today. Griffin says that our lives are affected by others and that we affect other people's lives. Hitler and Himmler both killed millions of people. One of Griffin's central questions is what would cause someone to do something like that?
Patricia Limerick, in her article "Haunted America", says "that man by nature is a…mess" (Limerick 33). According to Limerick, it is human nature to be complex, to communicate and to have diversity. "Haunted America" is about the Modoc Wars and how the whites and Indians differed. There were meetings that took place so that the differences between the two peoples could be demolished. "Frequently the outcome of these councils and negotiations hinged on the honesty and efficiency of one person: the interpreter, who had to translate not only two very different languages but also two very different systems for property and law" (Limerick 40). The diversity that is human nature only made things harder. Limerick's linear approach shapes and reinforces her main points, especially that man by nature is a mess, by giving background information and then finding a pattern in that information. She connects everything together using real examples.
Communication and relationships are an integral part of human nature according to Toni Morrison. This is evident throughout her book Beloved. All of the main characters are emotionally- and relationship-oriented. Morrison's nonlinear approach reinforces her main point, that our past constantly affects our present. She does this through the characters' reflection on the past and then showing the reader how those characters act in the present. In the book, Sethe has scattered emotions because she has killed her baby, caused her two boys to run away and has a ghost that is haunting her home. She falls in love with Paul D. and he with her but they fall apart because the ghost pushes them away from each other emotionally. In the end, Sethe has to let go of her past and look towards her future. "He [Paul D.] wants to put his story next to hers. 'Sethe,' he says, 'me and you, we got more yesterday than anybody. We need some kind of tomorrow'" (Morrison 322). The relationship between Paul D. and Sethe is strengthened, as is the relationship between Denver and Sethe. Beloved makes the point that it is human nature to try to heal what has been broken in the lives of those that we care about. Human nature is an emotional rollercoaster that we can never predict accurately.
On the other hand, in Ortega's "Man Has No Nature", Ortega states that humans do not have a nature but that we create our own existence (Ortega 153). He believes that we act in the present based on our experiences and that man has to make his own existence at every moment. Ortega says, "Man lives in view of the past. Man, in a word, has no nature; what he has is - history" (Ortega 157). The reason that Ortega believes this is because "man's being and nature's being do not fully coincide" (Ortega 154). He says that man is completely different from nature in that what makes us who we are is inside of us. This, Ortega's main point, is reinforced through his journalistic approach by concise and clear reasoning with the reader.
Similarly, in his article "The Brain on Trial", David Eagleman says that "human behavior [or human nature] cannot be separated from human biology" (Eagleman 115). We are who we are because of our genetics. He also says that we are constantly trying to figure out more about ourselves and about our minds. We are curious creatures whose appetite for knowledge will never be quenched. This journalistic approach provides a solid foundation for Eagleman's theory.
According to Margaret Talbot, in her article "Brain Gain", it is human nature to be competitive. Talbot writes about neuroenhancing drugs that many students use to improve their grades in school. "We live in an information society. What's the next form of human society? The neuro-society. In coming years…scientists will understand the brain better, and we'll have improved neuroenhancers that some people will use…purely for competitive advantage" (Talbot 36). We all want to be the best at what we do both in the present and in the future. We do not like coming in second, just as we do not like coming in last. Talbot's journalistic approach reinforces the fact that we could have a better future by improving our brains.
All of authors that we have discussed have a variety of viewpoints on what human nature is. They also have a variety of thoughts on what the limits and possibilities of the way that humans might live are. Pinker and Eagleman both believe that human behavior, and our nature, is caused by genetics. Pinker reinforces Eagleman with scientific research (Pinker 372-399). They both say that we limit ourselves by setting boundaries for our minds but that we have the possibility to improve our minds so that we can be better people (Eagleman 121-123).
Ehrlich and Berry disagree completely with Pinker and Eagleman. They believe that we can best improve ourselves, not by improving our brains or the way that we think, but by becoming more in sync with nature. Ehrlich and Berry say that nature allows yourself to be your true self (Ehrlich 84). Berry extends Ehrlich's ideas further by showing what it is like to incorporate modern-day living with nature (like having the accommodation of a house to live in, but no electricity). Berry makes Ehrlich more relatable to an audience that cannot relate to living on a ranch. They believe that we limit ourselves by rushing around instead of going with the flow and pace that nature has set for us. According to Ehrlich and Berry, we can live peaceful, harmonious lives and find out more about ourselves if we would get more in tune with nature (Berry 167-168).
Yet another view that we receive about human nature comes from Ortega and Griffin. These two authors both say that we do not choose our own life but that we should make the best out of what is given to us (Griffin 164). They agree that humans constantly create their own existence (Ortega 153). These authors complicate one another by saying that we limit ourselves because we do not really learn from our history as a species (such as wars that we have fought), though we do base our actions on our personal experiences. Griffin and Ortega also suggest that we have the possibility to live how we want to live and be who we want to be as long as we learn from our cumulative past.
Griffin also complicates Talbot's view by suggesting that humans are competitive and that we always compare ourselves to others naturally (ever since we are children). They say that we limit ourselves by comparing ourselves to others, and by becoming more like them, because diversity is always a good thing to have. However, we have the possibility to become a more productive species through the diversity we have and from learning about our ancestors mistakes.
The last authors that have complicate, extend or resist each other are Morrison, Limerick and Silko. These three authors all suggest that passing on your legacy is part of human nature and that storytelling and history lessons are a great way to do so. Limerick resists Silko's storytelling by saying that her narratives are "designed to break the self-esteem of storytellers" (Limerick 34). They both support Morrison, however, because Morrison incorporates both of their ideas into her book (telling about the history of slavery, like Limerick, while still bringing the past into the present, like Silko). All three of these authors concur that we limit ourselves by treating others with contempt, when we have the possibility to all work together to create something beautiful from our differences.
Overall, these readings have been interesting. I liked some more than others because they were more interesting or easier to understand. I agree with Pinker and Eagleman in that we have an innate human nature; that we do not, as Ortega and Griffin say, create our own existence. I do believe that we learn from our past and react to our present based on our experiences. I was able to relate to Pinker because of this. I was also able to relate to Ehrlich's book and Berry's article because I have worked with horses before and live in a state where solitude is easy to find. I have found, from experience, that you really can find yourself when you get lost in nature. Similarly, Limerick's work was much easier for me to understand and come to terms with because the way that she connects history and find patterns associates well with my brain. I tend to find patterns between things as well, so this article was better understood. On the other hand, Talbot writes about people using neuroenhancers to get a competitive edge over their competition. I am a competitive person and this drew me into the article. I could understand the points that each side was making, but at the same time, come to my own conclusion. Likewise, Ortega's article was very easy for me to comprehend, though I did not agree with much of it. His thoughts were straightforward and concise. He did not drag out the text like many of the authors, such as Pinker, did.
Some authors truly stretched my way of thinking, namely Pinker, Griffin, Morrison and Silko. I did not like the way that Pinker set up his argument or attempted to support it. I felt like he had a "holier than thou" perspective and thus, could have a slippery slope or other logical fallacy embedded in his argument. I had trouble always following what he was saying throughout his book. Griffin's article really confused me, especially when she would jump around talking about a guided missile, a human cell and Heinrich Himmler. I found it hard to make all of the connections that she was making and to always follow her thought process. Morrison stretched my limits because her book also jumped around quite a bit. Beloved was one of the most interesting books that we read but it was also one of the hardest to understand because there were so many metaphors and symbols. I understand things best when they are laid out in front of me, not when they are put together and hidden behind characters or plots. The same thing happened in Silko's book. The stories were very interesting to read but I had trouble relating to and understanding all of them. I think that this is partly caused by the fact that these were oral stories for Native Americans, so there is a gap between their culture and mine.
The authors that we have read have all had very good points to make and a lot of research to back them up. Some authors made more sense to me than others. Similarly, I was able to relate more to certain authors than to others either because of their writing style, the way that they tied their points in to modern day life or because of what they said about human nature. All of these authors helped me to reexamine my own perspective on life and human nature.
In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker summarizes many theories about what it means to be human and what human nature really is. Pinker says that some unique characteristics of humans are that humans have a past (or accumulate a history), have behavioral traits and have a culture. "The starting point for acknowledging human nature is a sheer awe and humility in the face of the staggering complexity of its source, the brain…and what it does" (Pinker 197). The brain is the source of who we are. It controls everything that we do - no exceptions. The brain is the most complex organ in the body. We still do not know what much of the brain is used for and how it connects to every thing in the body; however, humans have utilized the brain in a way that other animals have failed to.
We have used our brain not only to remember people, places or things but also to learn new things, something that our fellow animals have yet to do. Each brain develops differently, which adds diversity to our learning capabilities. Our brains are each unique in their own way, which causes each individual to have a unique personality. Pinker believes that behavioral genetics holds the key to individuality. "A handy summary [of behavioral genetics] is this: Genes 50 percent, Shared Environment 0 percent, Unique Environment 50 percent" (Pinker 380). Pinker says that our behavior is caused partially by our genes and partially by our experiences (ones that we do not share with our siblings) growing up. We react to and learn from our individual experiences throughout our lives. Pinker's academic approach reinforces his larger points by providing the reader with sound research throughout his book.
Leslie Marmon Silko believes that it is necessary for us to pass on our history and that culture emerges naturally from the lifestyle that we have. In her book Storyteller, Silko tells many of her Laguna Tribe stories. The purpose of her non-linear style is to bring the oral tradition of Native Americans to the 20th century in the form of a book. She writes
"What she [Aunt Susie] is leaving with us-/the stories and remembered accounts-/ is primarily what she was able to tell/ and what we are able to remember./ As with any generation/ the oral tradition depends upon each person/ listening and remembering a portion/ and it is together- all of us remembering what we have heard together-/ that creates the whole story/ the long story of the people" (Silko 6-7).
The Native American culture was highly dependant upon oral stories for their history to be passed down to their children. This was how people passed on their knowledge. The tradition of oral storytelling is quickly becoming extinct. Silko feels as though the present generations look too much into the future and not nearly enough into their past. She believes that change is good but that changing too much can limit us in the future. According to Silko, it is human nature to have a language and to communicate with one another. Another unique human characteristic is to have religion and to incorporate it into our daily lives, to live by it, whereas most animals live by the laws of nature.
We can infer from Storyteller that Silko believes that humans have strayed away from living peacefully with nature and that this is a bad thing because there is much that we can learn from nature. In one of the stories that Silko tells, man has made a mess of things because he has dealt in black magic and neglected the Mother Corn alter. Thinking that the magician was a medicine man, the town did whatever he said. The "medicine man" caused a lot of harm in the village and the village had to be purified in order to regain Mother Corn's blessings. The only way that they could do this was for the villagers to go between two different worlds. Humans were not able to do this, however, and so they received help from animals. Eventually, Mother Corn forgave the humans (Silko 111-121). In the end, nature helped humans even when humans hurt nature in the first place. Silko believes that nature has much to teach us but that we do not want to learn from nature. Nature is simple, flows together, whereas human nature is complex, and often times clashes within itself.
In the article "The Long-Legged House" by Wendell Berry, there is prominent focus on the interactions between humans and nature. There is also a large focus on human nature. The linear approach that Berry uses reinforces his larger point, that it would help us all to become one with nature, by putting the reader in his shoes and having them experience what he experienced in nature. Within the article, Berry tells his readers about how he connected to nature. As a young boy, he went to Curran's Camp with his family quite often (which was the remnants of a house right next to a river). When he was older, he would spend weekends up there with some of his friends, fixing up the house and hanging out. Eventually, he and his wife moved into the house. "I…associated it [Curran's Camp] with freedom" (Berry 115). Human nature is to be free. Being in the middle of nature gave Berry the sense of freedom when he could not find it in society. "That was another realization the camp had suddenly lit up for us: We were against civilization, and wanted as little to do with it as possible" (Berry 121).
Berry also believes that while humans are strong willed and stubborn, human nature has a need for peace and tranquility. Nature gave Berry a peace and quiet that could not be found anywhere else. "It was deeply quiet - nobody around anywhere, and nobody likely to be. The world expanded yet again" (Berry 117). "And those days that gave me peace suggested to me the possibility of a greater more substantial peace - a decent, open, generous relation between a man's life and the world" (Berry 122). Berry believes that man should have an open relationship with nature; that we could learn a lot from nature if we only took the time to do so. He feels that it is a necessity to learn about nature and everything that it can offer us.
"As soon as I felt a necessity to learn about the nonhuman world, I wished to learn about it in a hurry. And then I began to learn perhaps the most important lesson that nature had to teach me: that I could not learn about her in a hurry. The most important learning, that of experience, can be neither summoned nor sought out. The most worthy knowledge cannot be acquired by what is known as study - though that is necessary, and has its use. It comes in its own good time and in its own way to the man who will go where it lives, and wait, and be ready, and watch" (Berry 167-168).
Human nature is innately curious. We crave knowledge and want to learn all that we can about everything that we can.
Gretel Eurlich suggests the same thing about human nature in her book The Solace of Open Spaces. She believes that we can never stop learning from nature. Ehrlich suggests that it is human nature to be curious, emotional and to have connections to others. In her book, Ehrlich says, "Everything in nature invites us constantly to be who we are" (Ehrlich 84). Humans are in their most natural state when they are living as one with nature. Ehrlich speaks from personal experience. She worked in Wyoming on various ranches. Many of her jobs required her to be out in the middle of nowhere with no one but animals to keep her company. She writes, "I suspect that my original motive for coming here [Wyoming] was to 'lose myself' in new and unpopulated territory. Instead of producing the numbness I thought I wanted, life on the sheep ranch woke me up…The arid country was a clean slate. Its absolute indifference steadied me" (Ehrlich 3-4). Open spaces offer us a solitude that we cannot have unless we live with nature. Ehrlich complexes her theory when she adds that we also need to have human interaction because it is a large part of our human nature. Without interaction from other people, "idle agitation…becomes fatalistic"; we can go insane or even kill ourselves (Ehrlich 13). She does say, however, that we have the ability to change and adapt to new surroundings. We can change so that our lives become better. Ehrlich's linear approach gives her validity, which strengthens her larger point: we all need to find solace and that that solace is found solely in nature.
On the other hand, Susan Griffin, who wrote an article entitled "Our Secret", said that the key to figuring out humans is to study our past. Griffin's article tells us that by nature humans are bad and easily influenced. She writes of Heinrich Himmler growing up. Himmler had an overbearing father that expected a lot out of his young son. "He [Himmler] has just completed elementary school…From now on he must learn to take himself seriously" (Griffin 117). We put so much pressure on our children to do better than ourselves. Children are easily influenced, especially by their parents. This transfers into our adult lives, as well. Griffin's nonlinear approach reinforces the fact that our childhood shapes who we become through the comparison of Himmler's childhood and the way that he lived as an adult. Himmler wanted to be just like Adolf Hitler, a once-powerful man that affected many lives, effects that are continuing today. Griffin says that our lives are affected by others and that we affect other people's lives. Hitler and Himmler both killed millions of people. One of Griffin's central questions is what would cause someone to do something like that?
Patricia Limerick, in her article "Haunted America", says "that man by nature is a…mess" (Limerick 33). According to Limerick, it is human nature to be complex, to communicate and to have diversity. "Haunted America" is about the Modoc Wars and how the whites and Indians differed. There were meetings that took place so that the differences between the two peoples could be demolished. "Frequently the outcome of these councils and negotiations hinged on the honesty and efficiency of one person: the interpreter, who had to translate not only two very different languages but also two very different systems for property and law" (Limerick 40). The diversity that is human nature only made things harder. Limerick's linear approach shapes and reinforces her main points, especially that man by nature is a mess, by giving background information and then finding a pattern in that information. She connects everything together using real examples.
Communication and relationships are an integral part of human nature according to Toni Morrison. This is evident throughout her book Beloved. All of the main characters are emotionally- and relationship-oriented. Morrison's nonlinear approach reinforces her main point, that our past constantly affects our present. She does this through the characters' reflection on the past and then showing the reader how those characters act in the present. In the book, Sethe has scattered emotions because she has killed her baby, caused her two boys to run away and has a ghost that is haunting her home. She falls in love with Paul D. and he with her but they fall apart because the ghost pushes them away from each other emotionally. In the end, Sethe has to let go of her past and look towards her future. "He [Paul D.] wants to put his story next to hers. 'Sethe,' he says, 'me and you, we got more yesterday than anybody. We need some kind of tomorrow'" (Morrison 322). The relationship between Paul D. and Sethe is strengthened, as is the relationship between Denver and Sethe. Beloved makes the point that it is human nature to try to heal what has been broken in the lives of those that we care about. Human nature is an emotional rollercoaster that we can never predict accurately.
On the other hand, in Ortega's "Man Has No Nature", Ortega states that humans do not have a nature but that we create our own existence (Ortega 153). He believes that we act in the present based on our experiences and that man has to make his own existence at every moment. Ortega says, "Man lives in view of the past. Man, in a word, has no nature; what he has is - history" (Ortega 157). The reason that Ortega believes this is because "man's being and nature's being do not fully coincide" (Ortega 154). He says that man is completely different from nature in that what makes us who we are is inside of us. This, Ortega's main point, is reinforced through his journalistic approach by concise and clear reasoning with the reader.
Similarly, in his article "The Brain on Trial", David Eagleman says that "human behavior [or human nature] cannot be separated from human biology" (Eagleman 115). We are who we are because of our genetics. He also says that we are constantly trying to figure out more about ourselves and about our minds. We are curious creatures whose appetite for knowledge will never be quenched. This journalistic approach provides a solid foundation for Eagleman's theory.
According to Margaret Talbot, in her article "Brain Gain", it is human nature to be competitive. Talbot writes about neuroenhancing drugs that many students use to improve their grades in school. "We live in an information society. What's the next form of human society? The neuro-society. In coming years…scientists will understand the brain better, and we'll have improved neuroenhancers that some people will use…purely for competitive advantage" (Talbot 36). We all want to be the best at what we do both in the present and in the future. We do not like coming in second, just as we do not like coming in last. Talbot's journalistic approach reinforces the fact that we could have a better future by improving our brains.
All of authors that we have discussed have a variety of viewpoints on what human nature is. They also have a variety of thoughts on what the limits and possibilities of the way that humans might live are. Pinker and Eagleman both believe that human behavior, and our nature, is caused by genetics. Pinker reinforces Eagleman with scientific research (Pinker 372-399). They both say that we limit ourselves by setting boundaries for our minds but that we have the possibility to improve our minds so that we can be better people (Eagleman 121-123).
Ehrlich and Berry disagree completely with Pinker and Eagleman. They believe that we can best improve ourselves, not by improving our brains or the way that we think, but by becoming more in sync with nature. Ehrlich and Berry say that nature allows yourself to be your true self (Ehrlich 84). Berry extends Ehrlich's ideas further by showing what it is like to incorporate modern-day living with nature (like having the accommodation of a house to live in, but no electricity). Berry makes Ehrlich more relatable to an audience that cannot relate to living on a ranch. They believe that we limit ourselves by rushing around instead of going with the flow and pace that nature has set for us. According to Ehrlich and Berry, we can live peaceful, harmonious lives and find out more about ourselves if we would get more in tune with nature (Berry 167-168).
Yet another view that we receive about human nature comes from Ortega and Griffin. These two authors both say that we do not choose our own life but that we should make the best out of what is given to us (Griffin 164). They agree that humans constantly create their own existence (Ortega 153). These authors complicate one another by saying that we limit ourselves because we do not really learn from our history as a species (such as wars that we have fought), though we do base our actions on our personal experiences. Griffin and Ortega also suggest that we have the possibility to live how we want to live and be who we want to be as long as we learn from our cumulative past.
Griffin also complicates Talbot's view by suggesting that humans are competitive and that we always compare ourselves to others naturally (ever since we are children). They say that we limit ourselves by comparing ourselves to others, and by becoming more like them, because diversity is always a good thing to have. However, we have the possibility to become a more productive species through the diversity we have and from learning about our ancestors mistakes.
The last authors that have complicate, extend or resist each other are Morrison, Limerick and Silko. These three authors all suggest that passing on your legacy is part of human nature and that storytelling and history lessons are a great way to do so. Limerick resists Silko's storytelling by saying that her narratives are "designed to break the self-esteem of storytellers" (Limerick 34). They both support Morrison, however, because Morrison incorporates both of their ideas into her book (telling about the history of slavery, like Limerick, while still bringing the past into the present, like Silko). All three of these authors concur that we limit ourselves by treating others with contempt, when we have the possibility to all work together to create something beautiful from our differences.
Overall, these readings have been interesting. I liked some more than others because they were more interesting or easier to understand. I agree with Pinker and Eagleman in that we have an innate human nature; that we do not, as Ortega and Griffin say, create our own existence. I do believe that we learn from our past and react to our present based on our experiences. I was able to relate to Pinker because of this. I was also able to relate to Ehrlich's book and Berry's article because I have worked with horses before and live in a state where solitude is easy to find. I have found, from experience, that you really can find yourself when you get lost in nature. Similarly, Limerick's work was much easier for me to understand and come to terms with because the way that she connects history and find patterns associates well with my brain. I tend to find patterns between things as well, so this article was better understood. On the other hand, Talbot writes about people using neuroenhancers to get a competitive edge over their competition. I am a competitive person and this drew me into the article. I could understand the points that each side was making, but at the same time, come to my own conclusion. Likewise, Ortega's article was very easy for me to comprehend, though I did not agree with much of it. His thoughts were straightforward and concise. He did not drag out the text like many of the authors, such as Pinker, did.
Some authors truly stretched my way of thinking, namely Pinker, Griffin, Morrison and Silko. I did not like the way that Pinker set up his argument or attempted to support it. I felt like he had a "holier than thou" perspective and thus, could have a slippery slope or other logical fallacy embedded in his argument. I had trouble always following what he was saying throughout his book. Griffin's article really confused me, especially when she would jump around talking about a guided missile, a human cell and Heinrich Himmler. I found it hard to make all of the connections that she was making and to always follow her thought process. Morrison stretched my limits because her book also jumped around quite a bit. Beloved was one of the most interesting books that we read but it was also one of the hardest to understand because there were so many metaphors and symbols. I understand things best when they are laid out in front of me, not when they are put together and hidden behind characters or plots. The same thing happened in Silko's book. The stories were very interesting to read but I had trouble relating to and understanding all of them. I think that this is partly caused by the fact that these were oral stories for Native Americans, so there is a gap between their culture and mine.
The authors that we have read have all had very good points to make and a lot of research to back them up. Some authors made more sense to me than others. Similarly, I was able to relate more to certain authors than to others either because of their writing style, the way that they tied their points in to modern day life or because of what they said about human nature. All of these authors helped me to reexamine my own perspective on life and human nature.