>>19057>Can't we say anything humans often do is human nature?
No. There's patterns. That's how you set the framework. What is constant? Look at smoking. That's both not something humans inherently do or need to do. People do have the tendency to become addicted to things that make them feel good, but the ability to resist temptation is something anybody can consistently do if they have enough self-discipline. It's in a person's best interest to avoid giving in to temptation(controlling your emotions, not abusing drugs, not procrastinating). Whether or not a tendency to be addicted is part of human nature is subjective I guess. Even then you could consider the motivation behind addiction to fall under prioritizing self-interest(which could mean feeling pleasure). It's probably one of the more extreme forms that that behavior takes.
Look at something like Communism. Human nature will not allow for a system in which each part exists to service the whole and every part is treated equally. People want more for more work. Why should doctors be given the same as factory workers? Why try to make something good if I get nothing more out of it? Why should I try at all if it makes no difference to me? Not only that, but people in, "organizational positions", will always make sure that they're more comfortable than everybody else. Some people who are passionate enough can circumvent this, but not millions of people squirming around and trying to push themselves to the top of the pile over the course of decades. It violates human nature.
I don't really know if it's harder to train self-discipline or train true selflessness. The latter is just totally irrational to me. Maybe i'm projecting, but I don't think anybody is capable of wrapping their heads around why that's something you should aspire to.
Do you see any holes in my list?