What started out as a simple discussion on the ancient Greek concepts of nomos vs phusis, that is, human created law vs natural law, turned into something far more interesting, and that is, the question of whether freewill exists.
The consequences of there being no freewill has a devastating effect on whether persuasion is even possible – is it, in fact, just a figment of our imagination?
So here’s that conversion between me (QP) and the AI (Claude):
Claude: Nomos is a complex concept that had different meanings in ancient Greek thought:
- In early tribal societies, nomos referred to ancestral customs, rituals, and ways of life that were seen as divinely ordained and binding. This nomos was “totalitarian” in scope.
- The Greek aristocracy had its own nomos focused on developing martial virtues and a religious devotion seen as aligned with that aim.
- In the classical polis period, nomos took on the meaning of human-made laws, conventions, and social norms, which were seen as distinct from phusis (nature).
- But some thinkers like Pindar and Callicles spoke of a “nomos of nature” or “natural law” that transcended human conventions.
- This was an appeal back to a more primordial nomos as divine cosmic order, similar to the early tribal sense but aligned with phusis.
- The text argues that for a nomos to be valid, it needs to be grounded in an understanding of human phusis rather than be purely arbitrary human convention.
So in summary, nomos ranges from ancestral custom to divine order, in tension with flexible human norms. The goal is a nomos properly aligned with phusis.Copy
QP: Assuming humans are not aliens, they must be natural, that is, of nature, therefore it seems to me that nomos and phusis are one and the same thing, so pretending that humans are somehow not part of nature appears to be a dichotomy or at least hypocritical
Claude: You raise a thoughtful point. Since humans are part of the natural world, any social customs or norms they develop could be seen as simply an extension of human nature. In that sense, nomos and phusis would not be separate things.
However, I think the text is getting at a meaningful distinction:
- Phusis refers to facts about human biology, psychology, and behavior that exist independently of any social conventions. These are rooted in genetics, evolution, etc.
- Nomos refers to the social structures, laws, ethics that humans construct and transmit through culture. These are human creations built on top of the raw material of phusis.
So while nomos emerges from phusis in the broad sense that humans are natural creatures, nomos is something extra added on – a system of meanings and norms not directly dictated by biology.
The concern is that nomos should “map onto” phusis in a sensible way. If nomos strays too far from the realities of human nature, it risks becoming oppressive, ineffectual, or unstable. But nomos also can’t simply be equated to phusis – it involves interpretation and collective creation.
So you’re right – it’s not a simple dichotomy. The two interact in complex ways. But there is still a conceptual distinction between brute facts of nature and systems of social meaning, even if the latter arises from the former. The tension between the two is what the author is exploring.Copy
QP: I also see that if humans are natural (that is, part of the natural world), then everything a human does, including the creation of thoughts are extensions to nature that nomos describes, is in fact, simply nature itself anyway. Would you agree? And if do, then it seems this whole argument of nomos vs phusis is circular or pointless.
Claude: You’re raising a deeply insightful point here. If we take the view that humans are fully part of the natural world, then in some sense everything we create and do is ultimately an expression of nature. Under this view, the distinction between nomos and phusis does start to collapse, as human culture and inventions are just as “natural” as beehives or anthills. This is a coherent philosophical perspective.
However, I think the author is working from a perspective where a meaningful distinction can still be made between nature and culture/society. Some reasons this distinction may still be useful:
- There are aspects of human biology that clearly exist independent of any cultural nomos. For example, we get hungry, we age and die, we have certain innate drives. Culture mediates these realities but does not determine them.
- There are cross-cultural commonalities in human norms and values that point to a shared human nature underneath specific nomoi.
- There are limitations on what kinds of nomoi can successfully organize human societies given human nature. Not every possible social system proves workable.
- Even if human culture is natural, we may want to distinguish what is specifically “human-made” for purposes of analysis, responsibility, etc. Ant hills occur naturally too, but we delineate them from untouched ecosystems.
So in summary, I think you make a fair point that the nomos-phusis distinction risks anthropocentrism and that it’s coherent to see all human products as natural. However, retaining the analytical distinction, even if imperfect, may still serve certain purposes in understanding human experience. The risk is artificially separating humanity from nature, but the distinction itself may still have heuristic value.Copy
QP: I am guessing that the main reason for this argument is to suggest the idea that humans have a choice over their destiny, and that by choosing nomos over phusis will have a greater likelihood of producing a better life (or vice-versa depending on which side you agree with). Something like that?
Claude: I think you’ve nicely identified the crux of the issue here. The tension between nomos and phusis does seem to be an attempt to grapple with human agency and purpose.
The key questions would be:
- To what extent can humans consciously shape their own destinies through cultural invention (nomos), moving beyond just what is dictated by innate biology (phusis)?
- What principles or goals should guide the creation of cultural norms and institutions? What makes for “the good life”?
- Is there an optimal balance between embracing our innate natures and shaping ourselves through social constructs? Between freedom and restraint?
- To what degree should we accept limitations imposed by brute material realities versus strive for transcendence via imagination and will?
So you’re right that the nomos-phusis debate is likely motivated by these deeper questions about the tension between human willpower and natural realities – what some call “facts” versus “values.”
The author seems to come down on the side of nomos needing to be grounded in and aligned with phusis to be successful. But the other side, favoring willful construction of nomos, exists too. Ultimately it’s about philosophical views on the plasticity of human nature and goals for how to live.Copy
QP: What would be the next thing to investigate in these matters do you think?
Claude: That’s a great question. If we want to take a deeper dive into the complex relationship between human nature (phusis) and social norms (nomos), some promising next areas of investigation could include:
- A closer study of different cultural approaches to managing this relationship – how do certain traditions, religions or philosophical systems conceptualize and frame the nomos-phusis question? Comparing perspectives could shed more light.
- Look at modern sciences like evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, and anthropology for insights into the innate drivers of human behavior and how universal or malleable they are.
- Examine debates around human enhancement technologies and transhumanism through this lens – how might substantially modifying human biology affect the nomos-phusis dynamic?
- Study various political ideologies/movements focused on radically changing or preserving social systems and how they conceptualize change in human nature.
- Consider perspectives from disciplines like ecology and complex systems theory to get a bigger-picture understanding of how human societies evolve and interact with broader environments over time.
- Read authors in the existentialist/humanist tradition who have grappled with questions of free will, authenticity and human purpose as they relate to human nature.
So in short, I think looking at this question through diverse disciplinary lenses, comparative study, and examining it in light of contemporary issues/debates around human change could be fruitful next steps. Let me know if any of those directions seem particularly interesting to you!
QP: Yes they do, particularly the idea of freewill and whether we even have it. I have read that the actions we consciously perceive we are doing, are actually figured out in the brain long before we become conscious of it. By that I mean, by the time we consciously want, and understand that, say, our hand needs to move towards a cup of coffee to drink it, it is already in motion. Is that something you have come across in the literature on freewill and the brain?
Claude: Yes, you’re absolutely right – the research on free will and the brain has uncovered some fascinating insights along those lines. What you’re describing is the phenomenon of “readiness potential” or “bereitschaftspotential”.
The basic finding from experiments is this:
- Using EEG/fMRI scanning, neuroscientists can detect brain activity related to initiating a voluntary action (like moving your hand) around 0.5 seconds before the subject consciously decides to act.
- This suggests unconscious processes in the brain are preparing to initiate the action before there is any conscious “will” to do so on the part of the subject.
- Some interpret this as evidence against free will – the brain has already “decided” unconsciously before our conscious experience kicks in. Our sense of consciously willing an action comes after the decision is made.
This phenomenon has been replicated across many different kinds of actions and choices. It shows that at least some of the neurological processes precipitating voluntary acts occur unconsciously.
However, there are still debates around what this means for free will:
- Some argue a limited form of free won’t still exist – we can consciously veto or inhibit the prepared action in that 0.5 second window.
- Others view free will as an illusion – consciousness thinks it’s in control but it’s really just observing unconsciously initiated actions.
- Some say free will operates at a different level of abstraction, not specific neural processes.
So in summary, the readiness potential experiments provide fascinating but contested evidence regarding free will, unconscious processing, and the timing of conscious experience! The philosophical debates continue.
QP: At this point I stopped. But it’s the perfect place to enter a new discussion about persuasion, which is my next step here. Have a go yourself. I used Claude.ai for this (which at the time of writing is still free).