Mark Twain: What is Man?

[hsifeng]

Did you know that Mark Twain wrote books besides “Tom Sawyer” and the “Adventures of Huck Finn”? Well, now you do.

‘Old Man’ from “What is Man: And Other Essays”, pg. 119-120 (this section explains why one shouldn’t fear the collapse of society into chaos at the introduction of the idea that man is not special, unique or extraordinary as a creature

Comments

Re: clarification?

[hsifeng]

Bad on me (naughty typer - no biscuit!), it should read: "Considering what it can stand, and be happy, you do me too much honor when you _say_ that that I can place before it a system of plain cold facts that can take the cheerfulness out of it.

This is a comment by the 'Old Man' who has laid the entire thesis and argument about man’s nature as a ‘teachable machine’ up to this point. The ‘Young Man’ has stated that evidence of such a thesis would destroy man’s higher moral nature because it would mean that none of his actions are based on his own will and impetus, but are merely manifestations of his training and environment. The Old Man is countering that this would only be true if man does not recognize that his inherent nature is to be cheerful and to move forward under any circumstances. Twain’s arguments include the idea that man shouldn’t credit himself for his own actions any way because they all originate outside himself (ultimately, with God), but that this does not mean that one cannot and should not strive to attain the best ‘training’ possible in order to ensure that ‘the machine’ is working at maximum efficiency.

Re: clarification?

[docryder]

Not sure I agree with the whole argument. I watch the Small kids, as well as others. Children under a certain age are very self-serving. They want everything for themselves. Cam has been taught a certain level of empathy, and Maurelle is learning it. They are not being led to God, or being given any particular moral training (that I'm aware of) beyond "Do Unto Others..." and being taught to follow rules we adults give them.

So, my observations lead me to believe that our nature is to be greedy and selfish, and only through learning of other ways of being do we seek those more communal ways. Admittedly, there is now a good deal of science that now says that we do get benefits from being altruistic and "good."

Now, that said, I also don't believe in the idea that we are "born sinners." Children don't know good or evil (sin) until they're taught it. They simply act from a more amoral, animalistic level until they learn to access their empathy. (Assuming they ever do, which I think is a large part of the problems with our country.)

Re: clarification?

[hsifeng]

You should probably read more of the essay - your arguements are actually the same as those offered for why we are 'teachable machines'. The arguement isn't that "God Makes Us Good", rather it is that "God Made Us Trainable" - what training we get is environmentally based and is influenced by our lifetimes experiance to end up in a final expression as our actions.