I am hesitant how to properly call human characteristics. Imperfection is not an entirely apt expression, but I have no other. Some characteristics are ideally given to human species, are immutable and present in all normal humans, and all races (see 48); whilst beyond this part of substance, individuals are unique. This constant is EIDOS – kind of archetype given by Creation of species, the hard core of human nature. So I would say that EIDOS is part of an ideal being; and as such it is imperfect and immutable, and contains certain essential human qualities. They are ethical values, just like emotions, instincts, or strive for prosperity. Its imperfection lies in properties, some of which are not considered as good. I call essence both components: EIDOS which is immutable, and also portion which can be changed by genetic evolution. The core essence (eidos) does not include human traits changeable by adaptation to environment, providing these are normal healthy people with normal social properties (see 45) with racial and ethnic differences.
Anthropological constants are the qualities that are inherent to all mankind. It does not have to be just eidos, but also with a certain tolerance, understood and extended slightly different properties of nature, but also those that are consistently obtained through upbringing and cultural influences because the planet’s environment is to some extent constant and the strategy to preserve family is similar. At birth man receives only the most basic characteristics needed for survival. *Outwardly be socially observed two fundamental constants: Ego and belonging. Ego expresses a kind of willingness to conserve and application of its own people and even against others. Is the basis of self-promotion in competition with others, at the request of freedom for his person, indicates the man as a separate creature who is an individual, and shows that man is not a bee or ant instinctively fully served his community, but has its own separate will. Togetherness is manifested love for other people and collective virtues, which, although one still learning, but has not base its essence. Ego and belonging immanently not just good or bad , and can, depending on the further development of the show as good or evil , yet there are people who sometimes feel solidarity ( maybe it can be called autistic ) , but these are abnormal deviations. It is interesting that ego is the last thing a person leaves. Most of the mentally ill and even people on the edge of possibility of his brain still retains ego. Therefore, the ego is far more intimate than many allegiances and opinions lead to the fact that unity is the only purpose to pretense meet the needs of the ego (human society needs to survive, or at least create a better life for cooperation). I think it is not that human behavior need not education only, must be somehow innate and defense own genes with relatives, his own children and his family, or culture, often risking their lives, proves that even holding for preservation own and related genes has a deep foundation in fact. Nevertheless, it is plausible view that it is not really a human, but the genes and ego and sense of belonging are constants having one meaning – the preservation and dissemination of genes; constants are only the methods of something larger – the competition for the preservation of those capable and stronger genes, which applies to the ego, the sense of belonging as external circumstances require. This is of course already in contemporary society rather suppressed, thus manifests ego and sense of belonging somehow separately, while ego is the basis of the individual competition, but competition for teams is needed sense of belonging within a community.*
Both constants are in conflict. The first objective of society is to align them and create some justice as the first rule of order which is usually passed down from mother to children. The myth of principially”good” man is untrue, just like a “bad” man. Universal human rights (values) are not anthropological constants. An individual naturally shares with others only common characteristics, not norms or values which can only evolve in society. At birth man naturally receive neither liberty nor is automatically equal to others; and does not even have the right to life: all this can only be ensured by order of human society.
History only applies when we acknowledge that man is essentially unchanged. Otherwise it would have been someone else’s history and lessons learned would not be applicable. It is not in the power of a sole creature to change its essence no matter how intelligent and capable one (only via genetic manipulation), neither via normal environment (see 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47). Man does not develop into any higher species and his characteristics only vary within variable part of its nature. If the variable part of nature in the concerned species is no longer capable of adaptation within changing environment, the species becomes unassimilable inevitably ceases to exist. In humans, however, this would only apply if he had not been able to change his surroundings and remove negative aspects of his environment. Man is usually able to change his environment more than he changes himself. In addition, man is poorly equipped with genetically inherited instincts, as human characteristics are primarily determined by environment and upbringing. Order is of great importance for the emergence of characteristics, which is a great advantage against other creatures on the planet whose instincts are fixed and immutable. So in theory there is no danger of extinction, at least in the environment of this planet and in the situation in which we are; however, only providing we avoid complete decadence of biosphere in the future.
Human nature is inherited, and is encoded in genetic code (usually as family instincts, sexual, altruistic, self-interest, defensive reflexes, the desire for self-promotion, acceptance by others, appreciation, and so on). If a mutation arises that one does not reflect these natural patterns (usually a criminal, anti-social individual), he is excluded from society; and if the law of natural selection applies to human society, this mutation is not transferred to subsequent generations. So human nature and general order, utilizing this substance, supplement each other and work together. Evolutionary tested general order of a successful community includes elements of natural laws and just like ideal beings it works together with human nature.
Vital, life characteristics of man is based on his nature and develops through upbringing. It can either be or not to be utilized by the cultural environment and via education; these are the most fundamental anthropological constants, which create a natural life. What has a basis in fundament does not have to be used. Unlike other creatures on the planet, governed almost exclusively by inborn instincts, man does not have to express most of its vital characteristics; it can cease by itself, simply through upbringing in the wrong order. Vital characteristics are not something what shall be tajen for granted and also are incomparable to predescribed instinctive qualities of animals. When talking about instinctual characteristics in humans, these are conditional, not ubiquitous.
That is why, when a person wanted to separate himself from the general order that burdened him, perhaps from the burden of family or the need to work and strive, he also had to break away from his vital nature (instincts, virtuous behavior), because both facts interact, and one can not exist without the other. The result was mutual disjunction because instincts form relationships between people (suppression of instincts distorts relationships toward isolation, fragmentation of relationships and separation). At the same time only a portion of substance is used. Other, new features in human nature do not appear; therefore unnatural life is only a limited life.
The fewer elements of natural rules the order has got and the more freedom it leaves to man, the more chaotic the life of man is. Human nature, even though it is a natural principle, requires cooperation with general laws, otherwise it itself leads to chaos. We know that the castaways on islands formed mutually murderous clans; and that rebels from ship Bounty on an island paradise they sought murdered each other. Research in the U.S. showed that if a person is given unlimited power over others he almost always exploits it to violence and ultimately murder. This of course was proved by despots and kapo in Nazi concentration camps, too. Also rulers by the “grace of God” exhibited tendencies to act imperfectly, cause unnecessary wars, and “squeeze” of their subjects unnatural performances to the extent to which they could. No enlightenment will change human nature; there is no enlightened guru with other essential characteristics than other people. Yes, even ordained priests showed their imperfect nature, and some of them burned witches and heretics. That is why one can probably count on the fact that unlimited power conferred on the person is (once) always exploited. Of course there are exceptions which do not do this.
On the other hand, behavior is due to human nature altruistic and protective, sometimes highly emotionally charged, which can have both positive and negative consequences, possibly unpredictable. Human nature itself is not sufficient to create a functional society. Therefore, we say that man is a social animal and needs social order to exist. As mentioned above, human nature contains elements of creativity, and therefore freedom has to be preserved as far as possible, to utilize creativity.
Also, people who are acting based on their imperfect nature, uncontrolled by any order, become a mob that can cause much harm. Rules of general order are therefore dangerous to cross. Wise peoples are those whothat he admit their foolishness, but is wise enough to recognize the wisdom of individuals (providing some such individuals exist), which they respect. People today are really not wise but usually merely elevated voters bootlicking fools, but that does not mean that it is all bad, and that it does not feel compassion and solidarity. The people of today are not wise because they fell for ideas of hedonism and unnatural life. If wise people exist, then the crowd does not understand them, usually because they demand from people work and responsibility.
It is the democratic mechanism that under certain circumstances has a chance to overcome human imperfection. Usually it is said: “Man is bad, but the people are good”. The abovementioned bad people behave this way when they are alone without control, but when in society they behave differently. This is given by human nature, in which cooperation is anchored to ensure survival. Most people generally agree on fair things fair, but the problem can rather be rather inability to understand the truth and inability to manage society.
This is exactly the opposite of lies produced by modernist agendas which claim that bad man is merely product of broken society. Most evil is in man himself, as experience shows; this evil can only be suppressed in society of free people, while highlighed where freedom to defend oneself is limited.
Not all attributes of human nature are always utilized during lifetime within the environment. Unnatural life due to all the agendas of unnaturalness utilizes in people in developed countries only part of human nature, exactly that one that works just like a machine for self-preservation and well-being of the individual. Man perceives natural principles only marginally: as continuity of lineage, the predatory principle, balance and so on. Because human nature cannot be changed, I believe that the environment may change original segments of human nature yet again.
Immutability of human essence clearly shows that its eidos is part of an ideal being. Man was created with certain anthropological constants given to human kind, as it was done with the other creatures on this planet. However, we see it in other creatures whose nature is at the mercy of human activity, which seeks to develop new and new races (ofo dogs, cows, and horses). Characteristics can only be changed within the species, the hardcore essence that characterizes the species, can not be changed. Let’s not be fooled by external characters (different size, skin color, and shape of some proportions); dog will always remain just a dog, just like other creatures. The essence of a species is the set of characteristics that define a species. Constancy of human nature, as we can historically observe, refutes Darwinian concept of evolution of species by evolution through successive mutations. The essence of other higher animals does not change either, as surely every breeder will certainly confirm. Yet it is not a full proof against evolutionalism (see 42); the evolution of marginal characteristics (extended part of the essence) is possible.
Only constructivists believed that anthropological constants can be changed for the better (communists), others believed that they change through some spiritual effects (the Nazis) and a new creature – Superman – appears. The Communists failed to change people even after 70 years of influence. Confused people were created who did not know right from wrong, double-dealing, behaved differently at home and in public. No “new and better” person occurred, that’s for sure. Imperfection and also the immutability of human nature can be substantiated in recent history by behavior of Nazis in developed European nations, which was comparable with primitive tribal murdering their opponents to prepare existential space for themselves. So the nature of man in history did not change over the extent of millennia. Proponents of the theory that man is evolving towards a more perfect creature, did not present any evidence.