One's Nature

Is it possible to change one's nature, and if so, how much of it? On one side of the argument, Nietzsche proclaims the philosophy of "becoming" i.e. one should and can always and continually try to improve upon one's flaws and shortcomings until one becomes an "ubermensche" (i.e. super man). Flaws and imperfections, he says is like a mountain that beckons to be climbed and conquered and he says that this can and must be done. On the other hand, Galen Strawson, a modern British philosopher posits that, basically, we are who we are and fundamentally, we can't really change who we are just as Hydrogen can not simply mutate into Carbon. In fact, Strawson extends his argument further and proclaims that there is no free will because, in effect, we do what we do based on who we are and that our actions are fated to be borne out of our nature. He further extends his argument by saying that once free will (personal choice) is expunged from life's equation, concepts like morality and ethics, in the absence of free will, no longer exists or applies to our actions.

For example, much to Strawson's chagrin, Hitler's behavior was not immoral or unethical. Since Hitler by nature (or natural proclivities), according to Strawson, was who he was. Others, with a more humane and compassionate proclivities can claim him to have been a monster. But to Hitler, he was not making any immoral decisions. Because he was acting out of his nature. This reminds me of the parable of the scorpion and the frog. One day, a scorpion wanted to cross the river to get to the otherside. A conviently placed frog offered to be a good samritan and take him to the otherside as long as he wasn't going to be stung. The scorpion gratefully accepted Mr. Frog's offer. But half way across the river, Mr. Frog felt a sharp pain, a sting! in his back and said, "why did you sting me? Now, we are both going to drown!" The scorpion replied, "I'm sorry! But it's my nature!"

Personally, I see truth in both positions. Per Nietzsche, I can see how one can change for the better, as long as the person wants/wills it and has the discipline to change. But I wonder how much of this is theoretical vs. practical? Strawson would argue that if a person, by nature, has the capacity, the will, and the discipline to change, by nature, they can. But if a person, by nature, is incapable of fundamental changes, the best that that person can do is to make adjustments since one can not mutate one's nature. For example, a constant procrastinator will most likely remain a constant procratinator. So, I see validity in both arguments; but with one exception... a catalyst.

I believe that behaviors, the symptom of one's nature, can be modified with guidance or by situation (most effectively, involuntarily). I can think of two examples from the top of my head: 1) a spendthrift person who has always been spendthrift (a carefree spender) may go through an excruciating time in their life where they lose their job, their house, their access to credit, etc. and after having gone through that hellish experience, decides to never have that happen again (re: Scarlet O'Hara: "As long I live, I will never go hungry again!" as she clenches Tara's soil), and once they are back on their feet, begin to moderate their spending, their view of life (e.g. realize that life is full of unexpected, good and bad surprises and rainy days), and begins to save and become, gladly, more mindful of their level and magnitude of consumption i.e. becomes a level headed person. 2) a libertine who has lived always with a devil may care attitude who squanders his or her life in the sole pursuit of pleasure, once diagnosed with a terminal disease, bedridden, and the priest on the way, who somehow escapes death and gets a new lease on life, will most likely and gladly, begin to appreciate the preciousness of life and would think twice before squandering his life away again in meaningless pursuits. Suddenly, he would want to hold onto life as long as he can. Eats healthier, exercises, tends to his relationships with friends and family, and looks forward, gladly, to a more meaningful, productive, and long life.

In conclusion, I think that the vast majority of people really can't change (some do of course (like those people who lose 10s of lbs. because they are fed up with being obese). But the exceptions do not make it a rule) either because they lack the will or the sustained discipline. But I also, unequivocablly, believe that people can change, dramatically and gladly, if their situation forces them to change. Net net, change is hard when it's voluntary. But it is easier, if it's involuntary. Albeit one may have to go through hell and back. Actually, perhaps, voluntary change is in the end, less painful?!

But this whole thing about. "Hey, it's America! You can be whatever you want to be. Just decide and work hard to get there with positive thinking, no excuses, and a bounce in your steps!" I buy it (the optimism, "yes, we can!") and simultaneously, I don't buy it (human nature is very difficult, I dare say, nearly impossible to overcome without a catalyst).

In the end, I admire people who can change for the better voluntarily. It's a hero's journey and it's what indeed does separate the wheat from the chaff.

Why not me?