Saturday, September 27, 2008
Do humans have a nature?
One of the places where the left and right often part company is on the question of whether human nature is subject to change. Leftists often fall in love, oddly, with tyrannical thugs who try to recreate their subject peoples in the image of the Socialist New Man or some such thing. Mao, Pol Pot, the whole evil Marxist enterprise. If only The Right People were in charge, Progress would bring us closer to Utopia. It ends in the Killing Fields and the Gulag.
Righties, on the other hand, tend to think that history is a more reliable predictor of human behavior than theory. On that model, we can expect more of the same. Despite their Enlightenment bravado, our Founding Fathers put together a governmental form that would both give us room to try new things and, via the tripartite balance of power among the legislators, executives and judges, intentionally use our natural vices to keep each other in relative check.
I have often said that Original Sin is the only Christian doctrine that requires mere observation, not faith, to accept.
Anyhoo. Being a Jungian in many things and not a liberal --a none too common combo these days, in which Jung's followers are dominated by utopian feminist boomer pacifists-- I read this review by VDH on the role of war in human life.
Archetypes are not ghostly beings, but the natural repertoire of the species: our inborn and hardwired predilections for perception, attitude, thought, and action. No surprise for me in this book.
at 6:13 AM