Author: Liu Huajie
Editor-in-charge: Fang Amei Liu Xianghui
Liu Huajie is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Peking University and a researcher of naturalistic culture. He is the author of "Chaotic Semantics and Philosophy", "Fractal Art", "Chinese Science", "Tianya Fangcao", "Naturalistic Life", "Dandao Flower Affair", "Naturalistic Culture and History", "Menghai Botanical Records" and so on.
Rutger Bregman, Humankind: A Hopeful History, translated by Jia Yongmin, Beijing: Beijing United Publishing Company, April 2022.
It is now April of the third year of the new crown, the Russian-Ukrainian war and the new crown epidemic continue to refresh various screens, and the two major technologies of nuclear weapons and nucleic acid (the former threatens to use the latter every day) restrict the current pattern of the Tianren system. Is it possible for the world to fight without war? Is it okay not to tear each other apart so viciously? In modern times, the mainstream answer given by scholars and politicians is that struggle is often justified: survival struggle, survival of the fittest, implying that fighting with heaven and earth and fighting with people is endlessly enjoyable, and the struggle is long and talented. But is it true that human nature is so contentious and unwilling to cooperate? There is no abstract, unchanging humanity, and no one can rigorously prove that man (or life in a more general sense) is this virtue. The academic community may have to learn for a long time to look at problems naturalistically, not from principles, but from reality; it neither elevates nor degrades human nature. The publication of The Young Dutch Scholar Rutger Bregman's book Humankind: A Hopeful History immediately sparked a variety of discussions among scholars. Is it appropriate or inappropriate to introduce China at this time? This is based on personal judgment. The Chinese translation has two prefaces, one for Chen Jiaying and the other for Liu Huajie, and the two have different views. Here is Liu's preface: "Naturalistic Human Nature Research Shows Surprising Facts But the Road Is Long." Liu agrees with Bregman's arguments, while also citing Mr. Zhang Dainian's long-ago paper on the ancient Chinese view of human nature.
Rutger Bregman was born on April 26, 1988, a very young Dutch scholar, more than 2 years younger than me. With clear, independent academic judgment combined with firm conviction, he gave a completely different description of human nature. In my opinion, the basic idea of his Humankind: A Hopeful History is that humans are not as bad as we think!
Such a conclusion is simply too ordinary, but it is extraordinary! This book is a rare genre, the kind of work I've been looking for for years. More than a decade ago, I believed that someone would write such a book, but what I didn't expect was that its author was so young! In 2021, Cham Lu gave me an internal review of Bregman's book "The Goodwill of Mankind". After reading it overnight, I sent a WeChat message to the editor: "Exactly the book I was looking for!" Walking on the street to meet a person, how likely is it that he or she is a liar, according to sexual evil is 100%, according to the general rationalist analysis is 50%, and in fact we all know that it is a small probability event. (May 28, 2021)
However, academics have long disagreed.
1. The humanity bias of mainstream Western scholars
We usually exaggerate human motivation for evil and underestimate human desire to do good. And this judgment will be amplified by "civilization". A pessimistic view of human nature is a kind of "nocebo": what kind of people we believe we are, we tend to be. Thus, the more educated and educated people are, the more selfish they are and more likely to become "refined egoists." Is this really the case? How can this be?
A large number of famous scholars in history have made false judgments about human nature and tend to see the evil aspects of human nature. Thucydides, Augustine, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Luther, Calvin, Burke, Bentham, Nietzsche, Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931), Dawkins, Joseph Henrich, Frans de Waal (1948-), etc., all identified man as selfish by nature, and the starting point of his doctrine was that "man tends to do bad things." A look at the popular rational man hypothesis in Western economics and sociology, the "selfish gene" theory and the "inclusive fitness" theory in evolutionary psychology will further confirm that the contemporary humanities academic community and the natural science community that studies human behavior tend to assume that human beings are selfish and aggressive by nature, and lack goodwill and cooperation. What about real humanity? As this book demonstrates, the large number of practical investigations that have been carried out negate this deep-seated prejudice, and human beings are often able to maintain good upbringing that we ourselves are difficult to realize in times of crisis and in everyday life! Of course, there are many.
So the question arises, why do so many intelligent scholars have such prejudices? This is a big problem. There are many ways to explain it, but I will give only one: the study of human behavior and human nature has been largely monopolized by transcendentalism and teleology for thousands of years, and the study of naturalistic perspectives usually does not prevail. The former does not necessarily lead to sexual evil theory, but it helps to iterate and expand sexual evil theory. For example, Mussolini, Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt all read Le Pen's The Ragged Crowd: Popular Psychology. News and historical works are also inclined to spread and describe conflicts, wars, crimes, disasters, misfortunes, tyranny, oppression, turn on the television set or log on to the news website with a mobile phone, either this accident or that fire, normal events occur every day, even if it occupies 99.99%, it is difficult to become news, rare events always preemptively invade the human audio-visual, resulting in the world is not peaceful, frequent crises of the illusion. Such an impression in turn in turn incentivizes politicians, capitalists, and technocrats to find excuses for "reasonable" intervention in the world, often exacerbating the situation. This is the routine of the modern world, you and I may not be the protagonists, but as supporting characters have been involved in it, every time you watch it is equivalent to a like.
Dawkins is a key figure, said to be the representative of the scientific rational spirit of our time (this statement is very suspicious, his "rhetoric" not only does not add glory to science but may keep the public away from science), but unfortunately, because of his inappropriate formulation, the reader has many misunderstandings about human nature. It turned out that I recognized his writing and wrote a long essay on the beautiful metaphor of his "River of Eden" (comparing him to the Dharmaguptarian monk), and it was not until 2006, after finishing Chapter 5 of "The Visible Landscape: Naturalist Student Existence", "Reconstructing the Symbiotic Paradigm", that I understood the contradictions of his thinking and bid farewell to his fake Darwinism. Why is he a fake Darwinist? Wasn't he known as Darwin's fighting dog? Yes, perhaps because of his overconfidence and aggressiveness, he lost his way, departed from Darwin's naturalistic tradition, and contracted teleological prejudices. Later, a friend came back to recommend Dawkins's book, and I declined.
E.O. Wilson, a prominent naturalist, entomologist, and sociobiologist, died on December 26, 2021, and I wrote an article commemorating and commenting in passing on the philosophy behind the altruistic spell (see Biodiversity, No. 1, 2022), which I supported in the Dawkins-Wilson controversy. Scholars who are beheaded by the "altruistic curse" have two unreflected presuppositions: (1) the asymmetrical presupposition that "egoism" (or "selfishness") is fundamental, the starting point, and one of the explanans; and "altruism" is the second, explanandum to be explained. (2) The individualistic presupposition, that is, the individual takes precedence, followed by the community. This presupposition is widespread in economics, sociology, anthropology, and evolutionary psychology. Its basic meaning is that in a system, the behavior of individuals is the first, and the behavior of the system is deduced through individual behavior and its combination. But in Marx's view, "the individual is a social being." Both of these assumptions can be questioned.
In fact, as long as a meticulous naturalistic investigation is done, it can be confirmed that "altruism" is an ordinary fact, not a rare event, and there is no need to be surprised by the existence of altruism. There is a big difference between "self-interest" and "selfishness." Classifying nearly neutral "selfishness" as "selfishness" is equivalent to invisibly expanding the scope of the "selfishness" designation. "Look at the world with evil eyes, and the earth is full of villains; look at it with good eyes, and there are saints everywhere." The world itself is colorful, with good and evil, fractally intertwined, and good and evil are not static. In addition, both "altruism" and "altruism" are conditional, a feature expressed at the system level, and a person will not give a single and unchangeable reaction to some people at some times to show "altruism" and sometimes "self-interest" to some people.
2. The concept of humanity of ancient Chinese scholars
The concept of human nature in the non-Western world does not seem to be monopolized by sexual evil theory, such as the famous Mencius theory of sexual goodness in ancient China, which has long been praised by the educational circles. Of course, ancient China also had Xunzi's sexual evil theory. None of them are philosophies or sciences based entirely on naturalism, but they are relatively close to naturalism.
The famous philosopher Mr. Zhang Dainian believes that human nature is a concrete universal, not an abstract universal. In his opinion, ancient Chinese scholars have the following kinds of ideas about the good and evil of human nature (see Journal of Peking University, No. 1, 1986):
(1) The theory of sexual goodness: Mencius, followed by Song Ming Lixue and Wang Fuzhi, Yan Yuan, and Dai Zhen.
(2) The theory that sex is not good and there is no goodness: the confession, there is Wang Anshi.
(3) Sexual Evil Theory: Xunzi.
(4) Sex has good and evil theory: Shi Shuo, and then Dong Zhongshu and Yang Xiong.
(5) The Theory of Sex Three Qualities: Wang Chong and Han Yu.
(6) Sexual dualism: Zhang Zai, Cheng Hao, Cheng Yi, Zhu Xi, etc.
Among them, the most obvious type significance is Mencius's "Taoist goodness" and Xunzi's "sexual evil theory". In Mencius's view, "Benevolence, righteousness, and wisdom are not determined by external reinforcements, but I am inherent in them." Mencius believed that everyone has a heart of compassion, shame, resignation, and right and wrong, that is, there is a bud of morality, but it needs to be cultivated and expanded. It is enough to protect the whole world; it is not enough to do to the parents. Mencius was also more flexible, saying only that man could be good, not necessarily good. Xunzi attributed evil to sex and good to habit. The pursuit of goodness, which is man's "desire for good," is described as a proof of "human evil." Mr. Zhang Dainian believes that Xunzi's view is inappropriate. If good is to be learned, evil is also to be learned; good is not sexual, and evil is not sexual. The contribution of Xunzi's theory of human nature is to oppose the "moral transcendentalism", which holds that the nature of the saints is the same as the nature of the people, and the nature of Yao Shun is the same as that of the people. To sum up, Mr. Zhang Dainian said: "If the so-called sex refers to the instinct of not being learned, then it should be said that sex is not good and no evil, and the so-called 'sex is not good and no good' is also correct." If the so-called sex contains the possibility of learning and then realizing, then it should be recognized that sex has good and evil, shi shuo's "sex has good and evil" or the Warring States period's view that "sex can be good, can not be good" is correct. Mencius, on the other hand, was devoted to sexual goodness and fell into a bias; Xunzi was devoted to sexual evil and had contradictions.
According to the naturalistic line of thought, how human nature is or how people behave in a particular environment is not something that can be derived by reasoning, and needs to be actually investigated. As a philosophical assumption, the more persuasive idea is that human nature has good and evil, but it can change; the same person can also be good and evil.
3. The meaning of "Human Kindness" in the present
When I first got the book in 2021 and discussed its value, the editor also admitted that readers may not buy it. As the author puts it, "The best-selling history books are always about disaster and misfortune, tyranny and oppression. The first theme is war, the second theme is war, and the third theme is war, at most it is just a little more seasoning on the war. This may not be the case in China (but there are also many online militants), but sensationalism, inspiration, demystification, and success learning routines are still the main model of best-selling books.
Television stations and online media hope that amazing events will continue to appear, and they can't wait, just like second-rate cross-talk actors are eager to get off the stage and poke the audience's armpits with their fingers to win laughter. Readers, viewers also need news, special news, because they are used to consuming news, just as they are used to eating, sleeping, and having sex. How can these requirements be met consistently? Even if there is nothing to do, we must make things, dig things out. If the "high-ranking politicians" do not have enough wisdom, they are also prone to fall into it and put the whole country and the nation in a vicious circle of struggle. Peaceful and sustainable development should become the macro development strategy of the human species in the Anthropocene, which will be recognized by all. Unfortunately, the escalation of the conflict by the military clique and the war of words by the spokesmen are happening every day, making people feel that the real world is a mess and there is no hope.
This is one of the tragedies of modernity. However, when we narrate this, we fall into or confirm the pessimistic belief of human nature!
The book is not limited to the determination of human nature, but also extensively deals with how to study complex systems, such as the problems of the Milgram shock experiment. The "control experiment" method has excellent effects on inorganic mechanical, physical, chemical systems, and even a small number of living systems, and is an emerging part of the "naturalistic and experimental inquiry" advocated by Bacon (the latter), which has become the most core and efficient method in the four traditions of natural science today (natural material, mathematical, control experiment, and numerical simulation). However, it really cannot be simply applied to the study of human behavior. Some of the experimental conditions (i.e., control) deliberately set may not be allowed, and the resulting data, even if reproducible, may not reflect the system as it is, just as torture of suspects leads to grievances. Such scientific research is actually not scientific enough, and it belongs to unqualified inquiry. But it operates in the name of science and robs the right to speak.
In an mundane, stereotyped world, human behavior is increasingly devoid of intrinsic drivers. Social managers and bosses with "enterprising spirit" want to change this state. Management measures designed based on poor behavioral science and psychological research are quite problematic. The incentives commonly used in economic management will be distorted, people will be burdened by expectations of goals, bonuses and punishments, and the "moral compass" will be weakened. This is equivalent to human beings enslaving themselves, and man is treated like some kind of machine. According to the survey, only 13% of employees feel "engaged" in their work, that is, they really like their work. The psychologist Edward L. Deci (1942-) concluded that one should not think too much about motivating others, but about how to shape a good community, a society in which people can self-motivate, that is, mobilize the subjective initiative of the individual.
The book also talks about the lack of outdoor games in the process of growing up, the high incidence of bullying in prisons and schools, "unity is our nature", the highest crime rate in the United States, the contradiction between the "broken window theory" and "the finishing theory" and general human nature, "more contact helps to alleviate and eliminate hatred", etc., I believe many people care about this kind of thing.
Since the beginning of 2020, mankind has entered a "new (crown) era", and everyone has clearly felt the unprecedented inconvenience, suspicion and depression, and the country-to-country, region-to-region, and people-to-people have shown unprecedented distrust and slander, pessimism and conspiracy theories that have enveloped the world. Pessimism, on the other hand, tends to become a "self-fulfilling prophecy." Human society is indeed progressing in many ways, no matter how much we struggle with the definition of "progress." But at the same time, due to many factors, people become anxious, not optimistic enough, lack of trust in each other, and unable to get along patiently. Perhaps after reading this book, such negative emotions can be partially alleviated.
Human nature is better than we think, as "Human Kindness" reminds us repeatedly. How to prove this simply? I suddenly thought of an example that may be scolded, but I am willing to say it: in contemporary times, the number of successful scams has not decreased, and being deceived has little to do with education. Who in the world has not been deceived? Why would people be deceived by a botched scam? There are thousands of scams, and most people are deceived not because they are stupid, but because they are kind-hearted. If you are rarely deceived, it may not mean that you are really a cow, and it is likely that you are bad enough.
Pointing this out is not to hope that more people will be deceived or to believe that they deserve to be deceived, but to remind all subjects to be kind to the good parts of human nature. What else could it be? "Accept the fact that you're occasionally being deceived. This is just a small price to pay in exchange for trust in others. ”
The "realist" that the author Bregman repeatedly refers to throughout the book, I think, should be a more accurate expression of "naturalist". "We actually live on Planet A, where people are naturally inclined to be kind to each other." What is Planet A? Please read Chapter 1. Note that this book is not preaching, nor is it fooling others into doing good, but only in the hope that people will have a proper assessment of the actual situation, so that we will be faithful to our own nature and do things with honor and integrity.
(February 11, 2022 in Xiaojiahe)
END