The "three natures" of Homo sapiens
Our first nature consists of innate feelings, reactions, and preferences that evolved over the course of hundreds of thousands of years and proved their effectiveness in the daily lives of small groups of hunter-gatherers.
The products of our first nature include myriad propensities, such as love between parent and child, a sense of fairness and outrage at injustice and inequality, a loathing for incest and infanticide, a fear of strangers and concern for reputation, a feeling of obligation after receiving gifts or assistance, jealousy, revulsion, and—not to forget our sense of religion—the tendency to see supernatural actors at work everywhere. In a nutshell, our first nature makes itself known in the form of intuitions and gut feelings.
Our second nature consists of habits, conventions,ways of thinking. These cultural products cannot be inherited; once they have proven themselves, they can only be handed down and learned. Adults actively ensure that children internalize these behaviors during early childhood—to such a great extent that they come to make up our second nature.
If we consider our first nature our “natural nature,” this second nature is our “cultural nature.”
It is important to keep in mind that our innate feelings still underlie our second nature, which may even co-opt them for its own purposes. This is why people react with revulsion (first nature) to the eating habits (second nature) of other cultures.
The realm of second nature includes traditions and customs, religion as a cultural product (the kind that is practiced in church, for example), and most of the things that Norbert Elias describes in The Civilizing Process.
Our third nature reflects our rational side. Third nature consists of the maxims, practices, and institutions that we follow consciously—due to a targeted analysis of a given situation, for example. Third-nature products are also internalized to a certain degree, but this usually occurs at a later phase of development—at school or in other institutions.
In the prehistoric environment in which human evolution took place, we used our first nature’s feelings and intuitions as a compass to navigate daily life. Our second nature supplied us with special habits, techniques, moral prescriptions, and social practices such as rituals, which varied from group to group. Our third nature only came into play in emergency situations when we faced new challenges and tried-and-true mechanisms no longer performed as expected.
The result is a latent discontent with civilization, a recurrent feeling of living in an upside-down world. Our second and third natures are cultural products. They have helped us survive, but they don’t necessarily make us happy.
(Adapted from the book "The Good Book of Human Nature: An Evolutionary Reading of the Bible" by Carel van Schaik and Kai Michel)
6
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
7 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
There is an old Japanese axiom which this reminds me of.
Everyone has three faces.
The outer face is for the world, a presentation of who you are and your place in the world.
The middle face is for those we love and care for, family and friends.
The inner face is only for the self, and it is not readily apparent. It cannot be shared and must be found by each person.
A person is truly, fully complete when all three faces are one and the inner self, known, is expressed to all.
Davesnothere
Level 7
Oct 31, 2019
1
I feel the third nature is what sets humans apart from other animals. It is in conflict with first nature to the extent it tries to suppress primival instincts and even the need for such behaviour. Third nature doe not bring always joy, sometimes frustration, often conflict, but yet I think most of our daily conscious activity lies in this area.
Siva3037
Level 3
Oct 30, 2019
1
I do not see humans as apart from animals. I see humans as animals, with only a few things seperating us, opposable thumbs, language, tools and social structure.
That idea, that humans are different than the animals, fundamentally, is a root of the christian faith, and I think largely responsible for the state of our global ecosystem.
@Davesnothere
Interesting side note: scratch opposable thumbs...
[animalsake.com]
@skado Have we outgrown that model already due to crow and cephlapod research?
@Davesnothere if we observe the effect and influence of one species on other, humans stand out.
@Siva3037 which makes humans another species of animal which has achieved top position in the food chain, and like those before it unbalanced the ecosystem, to which we have achieved new heights due to social and technological exploitation of resources.
OUR termite mounds cover the planet and we pave the ways between mounds.
Like the Trees before us we have killed ourselves through global ecosystem destruction, and seemingly share as much awareness of that reality as the trees did then.
I wonder if it would be presumptuous to elaborate on that third nature a bit, the one of conscious awareness and analysis. That is the part of humanity that created art, science, religion, philosophy and technology. The first nature might give us contentment and happiness such as a cow out on a pasture might enjoy. The third nature potentially brings deep awareness, reverence, joy and ecstasy.
The third nature also gives us the mental tools needed to create depression and despair, but we have a choice of not using those tools. Fire can burn you, but with care you can be warmed without being burned.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Oct 28, 2019
1
@Allamanda Very well said!
It feels good when it quits hurting. 
William, biased as I am against any reading of the Bible, I’m questioning your combining art, science, philosophy and technology with religion which originated in more ignorant times and explicitly utilizes fear, guilt, shame and even violence to achieve its ends.
@yvilletom well, I agree that the Bible doesn’t fit very well with science. I was thinking that religion and art arose together and that religion was a collection of art-forms: drama, oratory, storytelling, literature, music. Apparently our animal cousins don’t have religion. At some point there was an exciting spark of awareness that prompted our early ancestors to make up stories which became myths and legends. Funeral rituals were developed and Medicine men emerged to ward off evil spirits, etc. It seems to me that after writing was invented philosophy was developed and then science was built upon that.
I am not trying to elevate dogmatic religions to equal status with mankind’s other creations, but I do think they have common roots and were enabled by the birth of higher consciousness.
Too bad we got stuck with an old Hebrew based religion infested with the harsh desert code. Maybe we’ll advance beyond that someday and move on to something better. I won’t be a Bible thumper if you promise not to be one .
@WilliamFleming I understood the early Egyptian religions as having places in a life after death for only pharoahs and their families, servants and prized possessions.
Whoever devised a place in an afterlife for the common folk, and even slaves, attracted large numbers of people who previously had no reason to accept religions.
@yvilletom Well, I am antithesist, but I do recognize the idea of religion as a form of philosophy that tries to explain the existence of everything. Akin to cosmology for those more versed in science. So, as an explanation, religion is not bad per se; it is just a bad explanation with no empirical support whatsoever, but alas, an explanation, harmless in itself.
It is its misuse to frighten ignorant masses into submission the one that is deplorable. Coupling that to the personality of some who want you to think the way they think you should, or else, and you have a recipe for disaster.
An airliner is a beautiful product of engineering and design, but in the hands of someone who wants to crash them into buildings, they become a lethal machine. But it is not the machine, is the deplorable thoughts of the pilot.
So, I do believe that we can place religion along with art and science and technology in that it is a product of our third nature. Not a product of fear and ignorance.
Is there really a difference between your definitions of "second" and "third" nature? And where does learned response, such as my "duck" reflex (thanks, first hubby!) to sudden movement fit in?
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Oct 28, 2019
0
I must say that in principle this is a good book to whet the appetite, but I have to agree with Bowersock in his criticism: it pre-supposes certain pre-historic psychologies and an understanding of The Bronze Age Levantine environment and practice.
A good read but not to be mistaken for conclusive academic research.
Geoffrey51
Level 8
Oct 28, 2019
3
Cheers for that, it has helped in formulating my thoughts for a couple of psychology assessments due over the next couple of weeks.
I'll follow up the references, as I'd like to read more deeply into them. I see a similarity whit a lot of what Georg Simmel wrote on human sociology prior to WWI.
Sofabeast
Level 7
Oct 28, 2019
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.