I enjoyed that read, thank you, Justin- it makes complete sense, up to a point, because understanding why the conflict occurred in the first place, is vital to solving the issue of our human condition*, without which, conflict between rider and elephant will continue.
To add to Haidt's hypothesis, I suggest, based on biologist Jeremy Griffith's and many other thinkers' idea, that the Haidt's elephant represents our instincts (genes/instincts) and the rider, our intellect (nerves/ego/conscious-thinking-self).
"How does biologist Jeremy Griffith’s ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation of the human condition differ from other theories that recognise these elements?
There have been many other thinkers throughout history who, like biologist Jeremy Griffith, have recognised that our divisive, competitive and aggressive human condition is a product of a clash between our instincts and intellect. Such thinkers include Moses, Plato and Hesiod, and in more recent times, Richard Heinberg, Eugène Marais, Laurens van der Post, Nikolai Berdyaev, Erich Neumann, Paul MacLean, Arthur Koestler, Julian Jaynes, Christopher Booker, William Wordsworth, Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Blake, John Milton, Robert A. Johnson and Bruce Chatwin.
However, what was missing from the analysis of all these other thinkers was the ability to explain WHY this conflict occurred—which is that while gene-based naturally selected instincts give species orientations to the world, only the nerve-based conscious intellect can understand cause and effect and thus manage change; so when the fully conscious mind emerged and began managing change from a basis of understanding the instincts were in effect intolerant of such experiments, putting them at odds with the intellect. This understanding of WHY the conflict between our instincts and intellect occurred that Jeremy presents is all-important because it is only this clarifying, redeeming and reconciling explanation of the nature of the struggle between our instinctive self and conscious self that at last brings peace to our divided selves, and transforms the human race.
As Professor Harry Prosen, a former president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, has said: ‘I have no doubt this biological explanation of the human condition is the holy grail of insight we have sought for the psychological rehabilitation of the human race.’" Source: https://www.humancondition.com/wtm-faq-is-this-idea-original/
* (What is the human condition? While it’s undeniable that humans are capable of great love, we also have an unspeakable history of brutality, rape, torture, murder and war. Despite all our marvellous accomplishments, we humans have been the most ferocious and destructive force that has ever lived on Earth—and the eternal question has been ‘why?’ Even in our everyday behaviour, why have we humans been so competitive, selfish and aggressive when clearly the ideals of life are to be the complete opposite, namely cooperative, selfless and loving? In fact, why are we so ruthlessly competitive, selfish and brutal that human life has become all but unbearable and we have nearly destroyed our own planet?!
The agony of being unable to truthfully answer this fundamental question of why we are the way we are—divisively instead of cooperatively behaved—has been the particular burden of human life. It has been our species’ particular affliction or condition—our ‘human condition’" www.humancondition.com)
Thank you for your energetic response, James. Anything that serves to reduce futile and unproductive conflict is a welcome contribution to a necessary conversation.
I enjoyed that read, thank you, Justin- it makes complete sense, up to a point, because understanding why the conflict occurred in the first place, is vital to solving the issue of our human condition*, without which, conflict between rider and elephant will continue.
To add to Haidt's hypothesis, I suggest, based on biologist Jeremy Griffith's and many other thinkers' idea, that the Haidt's elephant represents our instincts (genes/instincts) and the rider, our intellect (nerves/ego/conscious-thinking-self).
"How does biologist Jeremy Griffith’s ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation of the human condition differ from other theories that recognise these elements?
There have been many other thinkers throughout history who, like biologist Jeremy Griffith, have recognised that our divisive, competitive and aggressive human condition is a product of a clash between our instincts and intellect. Such thinkers include Moses, Plato and Hesiod, and in more recent times, Richard Heinberg, Eugène Marais, Laurens van der Post, Nikolai Berdyaev, Erich Neumann, Paul MacLean, Arthur Koestler, Julian Jaynes, Christopher Booker, William Wordsworth, Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Blake, John Milton, Robert A. Johnson and Bruce Chatwin.
However, what was missing from the analysis of all these other thinkers was the ability to explain WHY this conflict occurred—which is that while gene-based naturally selected instincts give species orientations to the world, only the nerve-based conscious intellect can understand cause and effect and thus manage change; so when the fully conscious mind emerged and began managing change from a basis of understanding the instincts were in effect intolerant of such experiments, putting them at odds with the intellect. This understanding of WHY the conflict between our instincts and intellect occurred that Jeremy presents is all-important because it is only this clarifying, redeeming and reconciling explanation of the nature of the struggle between our instinctive self and conscious self that at last brings peace to our divided selves, and transforms the human race.
As Professor Harry Prosen, a former president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, has said: ‘I have no doubt this biological explanation of the human condition is the holy grail of insight we have sought for the psychological rehabilitation of the human race.’" Source: https://www.humancondition.com/wtm-faq-is-this-idea-original/
* (What is the human condition? While it’s undeniable that humans are capable of great love, we also have an unspeakable history of brutality, rape, torture, murder and war. Despite all our marvellous accomplishments, we humans have been the most ferocious and destructive force that has ever lived on Earth—and the eternal question has been ‘why?’ Even in our everyday behaviour, why have we humans been so competitive, selfish and aggressive when clearly the ideals of life are to be the complete opposite, namely cooperative, selfless and loving? In fact, why are we so ruthlessly competitive, selfish and brutal that human life has become all but unbearable and we have nearly destroyed our own planet?!
The agony of being unable to truthfully answer this fundamental question of why we are the way we are—divisively instead of cooperatively behaved—has been the particular burden of human life. It has been our species’ particular affliction or condition—our ‘human condition’" www.humancondition.com)
Thank you for your energetic response, James. Anything that serves to reduce futile and unproductive conflict is a welcome contribution to a necessary conversation.