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 of this planet):

 

“Nations do not think, they only feel. They get their feelings at second hand through their temperaments, not their brains. A nation can be brought – by force of circumstances, not argument – to reconcile itself to any kind of government or religion that can be devised; in time it will fit itself to the required conditions; later, it will prefer them and will fiercely fight for them. As instances, you have all history: the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Russians, the Germans, the French, the English, the Spaniards, the Americans, the South Americans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Hindoos, the Turks – a thousand wild and tame religions, every kind of government that can be though of, from tiger to housecat, each nation knowing it has the only true religion and the only sane system of government, each despising all the others, each an ass for not suspecting it, each proud of its fancied supremacy, each perfectly sure it is the pet of God, each without undoubted confidence summoning Him to take command in time of war, each surprised when He goes over to the enemy, but by habit able to excuse it and resume compliments – in a word, the whole human race content, always content, persistently content, indestructibly content, happy, thankful, proud, no matter what its religion is, nor whether its master be tiger or house-cat. Am I stating facts? You know I am. Is the human race cheerful? You know it is. Considering what it can stand, and be happy, you do me too much honor when you that that I can place before it a system of plain cold facts that can take the cheerfulness out of it. Nothing can do that. Everything has been tried. Without success. I beg you not to be troubled.”

Comments

clarification?

[shadowd1.livejournal.com]

fifth to the last sentence: Considering what it can stand, and be happy, you do me too much honor when you that that I can place before it a system of plain cold facts that can take the cheerfulness out of it.

Re: clarification?

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

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.livejournal.com]

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.livejournal.com]

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.

[mojo-iv.livejournal.com]

Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is still one of my favorite books.

--m4