Human nature vs. Human condition - Essay Example

INSRUCTOR'S Human nature vs. Human condition Human nature takes its origin from something relatable like reasoning, emotions, appetite etc. which can be analyzed in a scientific manner so as to evaluate how they existed and the mechanism they work on which is merely concerned with evolutionary biological studies, genetical studies or by neuroscience. But it needs to be noted here that everything that relates to us is inbuilt. Some features that build up our personality are depending on our past rather than having a scientific background. Things that build up the human condition are marriages, deaths, terrorism, physical activities like sports etc. which are not applicable to any scientific reasoning need to be studied in a more humanly manner. "Thinking about humans and the rest of nature has focused on shared biological properties and environmental attitudes." (Levin, 9) The reason why people confuse these very different branches of anthropology is that these branches despite being quite different share certain features which are quite similar when it comes to human development and growth. It needs to be discriminated here the difference between those features that symbolize the human way of living as we take it to be and the reasonable claim that it has taken origin from the human nature.at times it is easy to discriminate. For instance, cooking is part of one's everyday activity and despite how essential it is to us humans we can still not consider to be part of our nature although it has a past but still the utensils, material etc. required to produce food is not innate but a creation. Likewise sports is not something we were naturally interested in or has an evolutionary history but it is more of a requirement of one's prevailing conditions and desires. But the problem arises with certain issue that is quite intriguing for even researchers because of their dominating biological nature. The philosopher I would like to mention here are Thomas Hobbes and Plato who both in their distinct manner have contributed to propagate this theory. Although "The interpersonal structures of humanity, the genesis of social order cannot be conveyed from a philosophical perspective" (Klein and Sitling, 191) In Hobbes book Leviathan he provides a very detailed analysis about the human condition. In this book he tells that our internal desires, motives and behavior are all because of the biological processes that are taking place inside us. The choice between good and bad, right and wrong is merely the choice of the individual and his/her personal preferences. When one is not bounded by society and is only answerable to him then the objective of living fades. In a natural atmosphere one does not need to abide by justice or injustice but can choose what he prefers and neglect what is not a part of his conscious choice o0r ill for his existence. Apparently the picture Thomas Hobbes tried to draw was fairly vague with no practicality in itself. He believed that the humans did not require moral or ethical values to survive. There was no room for justice, fairness, trust, equality etc. which are such virtues without which a society can never prosper. For instance if the people constituting a society have only desires of basic necessities like food etc. then the one in power and dominance on the basis of his position would oppress the one underneath depriving the oppressed one of his basic necessities. The reason behind such representation was not to portray a scary sort of a depiction but was consciously based on the ethics of society. For instance if today we are bound to morality, value and principles it is merely because we have a sense of responsibility and certain infused respect for others which we have learnt from our surroundings. If these values vanish and humans are not liable to others then an environment will be created that would be free from justice with bloodshed and injustice everywhere. Furthermore an environment would be created that would have people acting as savages for food and water. Even today in a far more civilized world we need constant reinforcement of the difference between good and bad and to outgrow the innate natural desires that prevail within oneself. Another narration of the desires within oneself are found in Plato's work 'Ring of Gyges Myths' which shows another essential point in this theory that is human psychology. In this theory Plato presents the concept of 'Self-preservation ', through this theory Plato gives the principle which states that human beings in general all living things need certain kind of preservation (protection) from danger and death. This point is very essential and also builds up an important point in the theory presented by Hobbes which also argues on self-preservation which stated the origin and foundation of a group's mutual cooperation. An example of this is seen in power saturation. For instance, a strong and powerful person would not be able to oppress a less strong person if he has support of others who are willing to protect as one unit will never be oppressed by a stronger party. This way a society can prosper having common shared rules and policies that build up a stronger defense system within. That means to live in a system having shared beliefs and rules and regulation through which people reside developing cooperation and unity. Therefore Thomas Hobbes and Plato both worked on to build up a perfect state which was based on the principles that govern human nature. It was eventually found that the human condition and human nature are quite similar yet different from one another. For instance if there are traits like injustice, hatred, intolerance in the nature of human beings then there is human condition that comes into play and makes a difference. When people start to think about others and not just themselves then changes take place and that’s how things change for better or for worse that particularly depends on the scenario. The difference in the approach of these great philosophers is on the point that Plato believed human are internally good whereas Hobbes had this idea that humans were merely materialistic and had no feelings for others but themselves. This is a very negative approach which Thomas Hobbes had about humans. (Johnson, 8) Now at this point I would like to discuss three things which are pretty controversial when it comes to discussing human nature versus the human condition. These three are war, gender and religion. War is something which is ongoing since centuries and is usually affiliated to human nature because of the frustration, aggression and other factors that govern human psyche. It is believed that humans who are dwelling in isolated regions are not quite familiar to this kind of exaggerated violence. Neither engaging into such activities is due to the aggression prevailing inside humanly. If studied it proves that war is merely caused because of correlation that does not exist within humans. Although some researches might be helpful in giving reason to warfare but nothing has been to date proved to advocate its existence in nature. So war is apparently something that has been invented and those who benefit and learn its art are safe whereas those who don't master this art are the ones who have to suffer. Therefore it is part of the history of humans not in nature. (Mead, 96) Religion is something internal and is differs from one person to another depending on his/her approach of it. But when it was scientifically studied and certain experimentation was done then it was observed that it has certain natural origination although it is effected by other factors too like human conditions which includes church, priest, fellow beings, environment etc. The more scientist study religion in depth the more it turns to be an new invention by humans in the recent times not actually having any concrete natural form but more of a concept that developed recently. Gender is something more natural than being based on human conditions. Certain differentiation between the male and female gender are quite prominent. Apart from that gender is quite a complex subject. Male and female are respectively two different species having certain dissimilarities that separate their natural instincts. Men are more complex mentally having far more control on their emotions as compared to women who are naturally soft from inside. For instance the things that differentiate men and women are their roles as well. for instance women has been always been seen as a nurturer whereas men are considered to be the provided. Although men and women cannot function without one another but they have certain traits which are inborn and therefore a part of their nature. It is better to associate nature with human psyche rather than the conditions that build that psyche up. In a nutshell, human nature versus human condition is quite an extensive topic with different approaches of various philosophers depending on the way they perceive things to be. This debate is quite controversial as scientist have a different approach in contrast t anthropologist. These two things are somewhat linked to one another as nature leads to one's condition but they are not exactly the same. In this world humans develop new ways to grow and improve. Some of the inventions include war, slavery or religion. These inventions outgrew and became so popular that they started to take refuge in the culture. People became so much influenced that they considered it to be something inborn rather than adapted hence considering it to be a part of nature. We need to realize that the human conditions are precisely because of their ill or wellbeing; they interpret, reflect and lead to the creation of various inventions. Certain features gain so much popularity that they are then considered to be natural. For instance, slavery became so popular that it was considered to be part of nature. Later better ways were discovered that overcame slavery and this phenomenon merely died. This means that such inventions develop with time and eventually wither off. Thus it won't be wrong to say that humans are merely responsible for their condition and nature is a catalyst that promotes this reaction. WORKS CITED Levin, W.E, and S.J Unsworth. "Do Humans Belong with Nature? the Influence of Personal Vs. Abstract Contexts on Human-Nature Categorization at Different Stages of Development."Journal of Environmental Psychology. 33 (2013): 9-13. Print. Mead, Margaret. Warfare Is Only an Invention, Not a Biological Necessity. S.l: s.n, 1940. Print Johnson, David K. Heroes and Philosophy: Buy the Book, Save the World. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Print. Klein, Rebekka A, and Martina Sitling. Sociality As the Human Condition: Anthropology in Economic, Philosophical and Theological Perspective. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Print. .  Read More