How Has Nature Been Theorized - Coursework Example

How has nature been theorized? Introduction If one takes a close look at the human civilization, one can not help noticing that it can be characterized by an increased self awareness. Indeed, this peculiar feature can be traced almost to the very dawn of the society. The early people tried to understand their place in the universe as well as the nature of laws that governs their lives. Similar questions were asked by the people in the future centuries, trying to unveil the mystery of the humanity. It must be noted that the approaches towards human nature may be quite different. Some scholars argue that by nature we are good, but others point out the innate aggressiveness that guides our lives. This paper will articulate the view of Thomas Hobbes, supporting it with evidence that is taken from other scholars on the issue in question, stating that people are competitive and are prone to fighting with each other. The views of Thomas Hobbes The necessity of survival This philosopher argued that in the state of nature people were primarily preoccupied with the need to survive. Indeed, life prior to the society as we know it today was completely different: there were no rules and people were able to satisfy all their desires at will. Hobbes suggests that the above mentioned desires primarily meant negative consequences for the weak; so, the latter tried to do their best to survive. In other words, in spite of the fact that nowadays the society is largely seen as a platform that contributes to the development of the inner potential of a person to its fullest, before it emergence there was not common ground that people shared, but only individualistic desire to ensure one’s future. The significance of regulation As one can easily understand from the above mentioned idea, the major contribution that the emergence of society made to the human civilization is introduction of a system of regulations. Contrary to that, in the state of nature there were no laws as we understand them today. The validity of one’s claim was primarily supported by force and it could be overridden by a bigger force only. In other words, humans are not willing to rely on abstract matters to guide their lives, but often obey the force that they can not resist. The same kind of thinking can be traced nowadays as well: people may be obeying the criminal code not because they think that crimes are immoral or wrong, but because they are not able to resist the law enforcing agencies. The kind of life conditioned by our nature In his fundamental work Leviathan Thomas Hobbes explored the state of nature that existed prior to creation of the society. In rather vivid terms he concludes that at that time “the life of man [was] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 126). It is beyond any doubt that some might regard such depiction as an exaggeration, but if one takes a close look, one can not help noticing that the philosopher in question was right in many aspects. The human nature urged one to take care about oneself and, therefore, the life for solitary to a certain extent; there was no cooperation, not economic activity, so it was poor in every meaning of this word; it was nasty since there were no moral values; it was brutish since people relied on physical force; the fact that it was short it undeniable since there were was no health care system or mercy that is show to the weak. Bellum omnium contra omnes All the points that were articulated by Hobbes with regard to the peculiarities of the human nature resulted into the development of the doctrine of "war of all against all" (Hess 92). Indeed, as it has already been proved, the humans were in constant state of war with each other because they wanted to ensure their individual survival, there were no rules that would regulate the relationships between them and there was no cooperation. In addition to that, people relied on their physical force to satisfy their desired. As one can clearly see this state of affairs clearly resembles a war. The ideas of Sigmund Freud The primacy of sexual desires It may be particularly important to engage the idea of other scholars that fall in line with what Thomas Hobbes expressed in his works. Thus, the first figure the views of which will be used to support the theory about aggressive nature of humans is Sigmund Freud. This psychoanalyst is famous for placing a particular emphasis on the significance of sexual desires in life of a person. Keeping in mind that the latter are often guided by passion and urge a person to satisfy them no matter what. This complies with the ideas of Hobbes in terms of innate aggressiveness. Society as a tool for oppression of sexual desires Just like the British philosopher who believed that the society is responsible for oppression of natural aggression of the people, Freud argued that the society does not allow people to express their true sexual desires by making them comply with various rules and regulations (Freud 103). As one can easily see, both scholars suggested that life that people experience within the social environment does not fully reflect the true nature of humans. That is why to a certain extent the society oppresses people which is a source of possible disruptions in the future. The inner and outer world of a person Based on the above mentioned considerations, Freud concludes that within the social environment a person exists in an oppressed state: it complies with the conventional morals (the outer world), but one is never free of the true nature (the inner world). This means that just like aggressive savages that wanted to ensure their survival with the help of brutal force, people in the society are not able to follow their natural sexual desires that are condemned by the society, for example Oedipus complex. Sublimation as a productive way of reuniting inner and outer human Both Freud and Hobbes conclude that the society is a mechanism that is not natural, it suppresses people and leaves some of their natural desires unsatisfied. However, Freud points out that there is way to bridge the two parts of the human identity - he calls it sublimation. Indeed, the fundamental part of it lies in the ability to satisfy the above mentioned desires through ways that are accepted within the social environment. As a result a person will no longer feel the pressure of inner world and will be able to function as a healthy social unit. All this leads to the understanding that human nature should be changed to a certain extent in order to fit into the framework where numerous people coexist together. The Darwinian perspective Competition is a part of human nature There was another scholar who shared similar views on the human nature. Indeed, Charles Darwin is known to be the founder of the evolutionary theory and it was he who argues that competition is an essential part of coexistence. He points out that in nature all the species have to fight for survival. There is no doubt that this is a great analogy to “war of all against all” which was articulated by Hobbes. Despite the fact that people are more sophisticated spices, the relationship between them are guided on the similar principles. One might even draw a stronger analogy, showing that the strong often oppress the weak, just like Hobbes described. The necessity of developing a competitive advantage According to the view of Darwin, the competition for survival never ends. That is why if every party that is involved in the process possessed similar characteristics, then this race would have ended rather soon. However, over time spices are able to develop new characteristics that provide them with better chances for success. If one applies similar thinking to the state of affairs which was developed by Hobbes, one will be able to see that some individuals could not rely on their physical force, so they developed other characteristics, such as wisdom or dexterity in order to ensure their future. What is more important is that latter when the society emerged, everyone tried to secure their competitive advantage; however, as extensive use of physical force was prohibited, those who relied on it did not benefit for this change. Development is a gradual process If one takes a close look at the state of nature that was described by Hobbes as well as the current state of affairs, one can not help noticing that there is a tremendous gap between them. It is clear that transition from the former to the latter should have taken a considerable amount of time. Indeed, it must have been gradual: the original barbarians had to transform into modern people. Darwin explains this mechanism quite well: he introduces the concept according to which there were many intermediate forms. That is why one might argue that the evolution of the human spirit underwent a similar process. Survival of the fittest It would not be a mistake that the idea which Darwin is famous for deals with the principle that ensures that spices will adapt to the conditions of life. To put it simple the organism that is fittest to the circumstances will survive: that is the famous “survival of the fittest” (Darwin 133). With this in mind, one should point out that a similar process might be observed in the society in general. As it has already been noted, those who relied primarily on their physical force could no longer enjoy the same benefits within the society as they did in the state of nature. That is why those who were more fitted to the new conditions could extent their power and ensure that physical supremacy will no longer be the foundation of the interaction. Conclusion Having examined all the evidence that was brought up in the paragraphs above, one might suggest that there is a well developed view, according to which human nature is seen as aggressive and competitive. Thomas Hobbes elaborated on this issue and concluded that prior to the emergence of the society there was “war of all against all”. Sigmund Freud supported him in that the society suppressed many natural desires of the people, contributing to building up of pressure between inner and outer world. Finally, Charles Darwin argued that competition between individuals is a natural part of life and only the fittest will survive. Works Cited Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996. Print. Freud, Sigmund. Totem And Taboo Some Points of Agreement between the Mental Lives of Savages And. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis, 2013. Print. Hess, Jonathan M. Reconstituting the Body Politic: Enlightenment, Public Culture and the Invention of Aesthetic Autonomy. Detroit, MI: Wayne State UP, 1999. Print. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Print. Read More