Gods and Monsters: The Scientific Method Applied to the Human Condition - Book II Page 8
Chapter 4:
Human nature and its specific sociality
The human nature has basic characteristics: original and autonomous, with respect to the biological nature general. This is due to the sociality of new type, made by human beings, based on a more high individualization. Human nature is in continuous evolution, and therefore definable with parameters adapted to measure a reality in continuous evolution, whose destination is definable only on the basis of the data of departure.
The conquest of knowledge, and of the conscience, has implied, to the human being, the toil of work and the unhappiness resulting from structural reality historic. The mythology “biblical” speaks of punishment (fatigue of work and death) divine, due to the desire of the human being to seek “the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, namely, of trying to know the essence of their own historical condition, identify the causes and remove them, determining the conditions of the realization of the fullness of its own essence. The Myth The “biblical” derives from the need to allocate to other entities in the pain and suffering that an undertaking necessary and inevitable involves. There was also the need of raising a wall of the unknowable on structural reality historic. The Myth “biblical” had made, however, the Divinity: the cause second of the human condition. This, although it is designed to retain the divinity not directly responsible for the “evil” of the human condition, demotes the divinity, creating a contradiction. In reality the “evil” not born within the human being, but comes from the outside, namely from the problems arising from its psychological evolution and from different process of this with respect to its psychic evolution. The different degree of development between these two entities or potentiality, at a given amplitude level, has determined the need of the rise of the structural reality of history.
The historic structures are the direct consequence of the gap that occurs between natural evolution or bio-physical and intellectual progress and cognitive. This gap creates, in the human being, the consciousness of the inadequacy of the social reality with respect to the needs of sociality and, therefore, the perception of the unnaturalness of the structural reality historically formed. The primordial men, or Hominids, they had an instinctuality addressed to sociality, but with an actual sociality: very low or non-existent. The realization of structures pre-statual, determined by the conscience of the grow of economic needs, has determined a progress in the sociality manifested or lived, although, accompanied by conflict and violence, more or less marked. There is, therefore, a manifest conflict between the essential nature of the human being, which tends to a sociality free of conflicts and violence, and the structural reality, which implies a sociality: conflictual and, often, violent. This structural reality is, therefore, inappropriate to the full manifestation of the social nature of the human being, stemming from his innate need and developed, gradually, in relation to the development intellectual. The further development of intellectual capacities and of the social conscience of the human being, will lead to the overcoming of historical structures.
Gian Franco Minguzzi lists three criteria to indicate the psychological reality of social groups:
1 - the feeling of being “together”,
2 - the influence it has on the individual the participation at a group,
3 - The interaction between the members.
The first criterion is complementary to the third, because the interrelationship has its psychological reality, namely, is it psychologically perceived (1). Minguzzi states as many psychologists consider that the structures are formed to provide “self-understanding” (2), avoiding: uncertainty, insecurity and anguish. But this is not the analysis of root causes (lack of a communication inter-individual satisfactory) of the constitution of social organizations structured, but of immediate causes of accession thereto.
The generalization of the reality structural historic, derives from the need to correspond to a given stage of development of the degree of manifestation of the being. The ineluctability of structural reality historic determines a dualism in human behavior, which assumes the irrationality of having to adapt to a reality, for which feels aversion and to which is continually tempted to rebel. The structural reality historic has not universal value, but general, being extraneous to authentic human needs, source. the latter, of each universality. The existence of the historical structures is justified by the fact that the actual needs of individuals are inauthentic and mutually contradictory as well as contradictory with the needs of other individuals. Where the needs of individuals are truly authentic or consistent with their deep trends, the society would acquire a universal value, overcoming the conflict interior of the individuals, of individuals against the society and of individuals between them (3). In society natural animal, or unconscious, there is no form of irrational power, there being no consciousness of a distinction between the individuality of the individuals and society. This, due to the low level intellectual and for the absence of self-consciousness and of the natural sociality. With to constitution of the structures you create a rift between individuality and collectivity, that determines the maximum of irrational power on individual, power which it goes attenuating with the emergence of the individuality, and may disappear if the individuality is accompanied to a manifestation of sociality, fully conscious and able to meet fully the needs of sociality proper to the human being (4). Piotr Kropotkin had recognized as “sociality” and “individuality” are inseparably connected and evolve in harmony (5). It can be assumed that the size purely inner of the individual both in evolution consistent with their social dimension. If this is true, it can be inferred that the sociality of the individuals is all the greater the more profound is their individuality, namely their knowledge and awareness of self and the ability to satisfy their natural needs. It follows, moreover, the need for consistency, generatrix of harmony, of the human being with the society.
The specificity of the human nature is not in an alleged “ontological leap”, but in a greater progress, accomplished in the field of sociality and of the individualisation (6). The material nature of the human being is subject to his spiritual nature or intellectual, in its elements: rationals, affective and cognitive. The spiritual nature of the human being, dominating the material nature of the human being himself, acquires the awareness of their own freedom. If in the physical nature and in the essence of reality structural historical there is the law of the predominance of force majeure, in human nature there is the law of equal communication of the equals or equivalent.