Human Nature in studies of philosophers - Essay Example

Module Module ID: Personal Narrative Distinguished Chinese philosopher of ancient era Mencius (372-289 BCE) strongly believes in the innate goodness of human nature, which humans inherit from their ancestors. It is therefore he vehemently advocates in favor of following the life patterns of the ancestors in order to achieve perfection in their character and personality ultimately. Moreover, according to him, if humans are provided with adequate education and training, their qualities could further be polished and improved. (Circa, 2010) However, Hsun Tzu (298-238 BCE) does not find righteousness in human nature. On the contrary, he is of the view that human nature is evil and can be improved through socialization. In other words, man’s involvement into positive and constructive activities turns his evil nature into good one, and man can overcome the feelings of envy, disloyalty and jealousy because of entering into interaction with others. Hence, both the philosophers maintain absolutely divergent views about human nature. Another eminent philosopher of ancient times, named Kao Tzu (420-350 BCE), aptly acknowledged to be one of the most talented thinkers in the history of China, refutes both the above-mentioned doctrines, and declares human nature as clean slate, which studies and follows only what it observes being practiced by others in its social and natural environment. Thus, human nature is neither good nor bad altogether, according to Kao Tzu, and follows the same which is taught to it. (Circa, 94) It is therefore, he views nature as willow wood out of which windows and cups i.e. human behavior is shaped. (Austin, 2010) Consequently, both Hsun Tzu and Kao indirectly support the nurture theory of goodness, which argues in favor of learning process in order to make humans refined, cultured and responsible citizens of society. Mencius does not see eye to eye with Kao that human nature is like swirling water, and wherever it goes, it adopts the same shape subsequently. On the other hand, Mencius views that human nature transfers from one generation to the other in the same manner as water flows from upward to downward. (Circa, 95-96) He also alludes to the example of the growth process of various plants and flowers, which equally sprout and flourish provided they are watered and cared in an appropriate manner. Hence, both the philosophers maintain divergent views about the imperative role and status of the nature of humans and the socialization procedure they undergo. Eminent 19th century German philosopher Georg Hegel (1770—1831) has also made a comparative analysis of the doctrines presented by Hsun Tzu and Mencius while elucidating the concepts of innate evil and innate goodness respectively. Somehow, Hegel seeks further wisdom in both these theses, where both these doctrines serve as thesis and antithesis to each other. Hegel declares goodness and evil as occasional in nature and scope due to the very reality that absolute righteousness or complete wrong-doings do not prevail in any part of the globe. In other words, no one can be stated as completely sublime and righteous or absolutely monstrous and obnoxious. For instance, a robber could be harmful and destructive for society, though would be a kind and benevolent person in his domestic life, and may treat his children with great love and affection. Similarly, a pious person may commit genocide out of sheer feelings of revenge or abhorrence for his opponent or rival. Moreover, Otto von Bismarck (1815--1898) is regarded as a great German nationalist, though his name brings displeasure on the countenances of the French public at large. Since absolute goodness and evil do not exist in any part of the globe, declaring anyone as the representative of good or evil does not carry weight in the eyes of the philosophers, thinkers and intellectuals. Hegel alludes to the gallant deeds displayed by the soldiers while saving the boundaries of their country. (Austin, 624-25) Since they are also humans, they have profound care of their life in routine activities; consequently, they would not tolerate any hurt or attack on their life or belongings. However, their attitude and mental approach is quite different at the hour of war as well as while combating with any challenging task, where they prefer to sacrifice their life in order to rescue the people of their nation from the imminent risk to their personal life. Thus, human nature determines the activities of people according to the situation people undergo during the course of life. Since the nature-nurture debate seeks its roots in ancient times, it is still in vogue, and the researchers, theorists and psychologists appear to be curious to discover the human motifs behind performing one action or the other. Begley (2001) has strived to explore the social and psychological phenomena in more concrete way in his famous Roots of Evil, where he suggests innate traits as the most influential ones for making an angel as well as a fiend. Being an active member of my social establishment, I have also experienced various pleasant and perturbed situations during the course of life. Although I frequently observe the significance of education, training and brought up procedures, yet personally, I am supporter of nature theory too, and believe in the innate human characteristics, which grow along with the growth of man’s life. I have developed the views regarding the qualities of head and heart man possesses since the day of his arrival in the world. It is therefore, I strongly admire Lombroso’s theory of crimes and perversion, where renowned Italian biologist-theorist Cesare Lombroso (1835- 1909) argues that the delinquents and offenders are born with some particular physical traits and characteristics, which distinguish them from the fellow individuals. Lombroso, in the light of his deep examination of the prisoners and offenders, discovers similarity in the shape of their skull, eyes, jaws and bones. (Vedder et al., 1976) Consequently, socialization process cannot negate the presence of the negative, destructive and criminal tendencies existing in the human breast. Moreover, I have also witnessed that the criminals and monsters that make powerful arguments in order to justify their malicious acts and actions, and do not feel any shame in disclosing the same before others. I have studied the statements issued by the leaders of the condemnable and notorious terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and Taliban, where the terrorists justify the genocides they have committed on the innocent and hapless individuals just to convey the message of revenge to their powerful rivals. Similarly, I found no shame or slightest words of repentance and remorse from the mouth of the tyrant George Bush and his administration on committing horrible crimes against humanity in Abu Ghuraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons. Hence, no cultural traits and civilizations could affect the criminal, tyrannical and revengeful activities Al Qaeda and George Bush inflicted on humanity in order to let down and defeat each other in the name of peace, order and religion. The USA also forced her Allies including the UK, Australia, Canada and Pakistan to participate the war as standing outside the battle means you are against the course of war. (Orwell, 283) I have also experience of the same attitude in my personal life. I have keenly observed the activities of the people in my acquaintance, who obtained proper education, training and look after by the family and relations. Even then, they always look busy in devising plans of playing tricks to deceive and harm others for obtaining pecuniary gains and social statuses at the cost of the comforts and joys of the fellow beings. Literature is also replete with thousands of such examples, which ratify the very notion, that goodness and evil are by birth, and neither training nor socialization can play any role in making alterations in their natural tendencies. Famous Shakespearean tragedy Hamlet demonstrates the ill nature of King Claudius, who does not have any repentance on killing his brother just for capturing the throne and his queen. It is therefore he sticks to his nefarious plan of killing his nephew i.e. hamlet too in cold blood, so that the imminent fear to his throne could be eliminated altogether. On the other hand, Hamlet’s good nature and sublime character does not allow any undue harm to King Claudius, even his father’s ghost has already narrated to him the entire story of his murder at the hands of Claudius. To conclude, it becomes evident that both Mencius and Hsun Tzu are partly justified in claiming human nature as good or evil by birth respectively. There are some people, who are born with good nature. Though they can also get involved into some criminal activities, yet they do not inflict harms on the innocent people, and hence are not evil at heart. Similarly, some individuals are obnoxious by nature, and their abiding of law does not stop them from devising intrigues and creating troubles in society. Thus, I do not agree with Kao’s philosophy, where he compares human nature with clean slate and willow tree. I personally do not negate the valuable and precious words of this great thinker that society shapes the personality; somehow, my personal experiences do not allow me to support the very philosophy presented by Kao. Consequently, I vehemently hold up the nature theory, and declare humans either good or bad by birth. Works Cited Austin, Michael. “Reading the World: Ideas that Matter” Second Edition W. W. Norton and Company 2010 Begley, Sharon. “The Roots of Evil” The Beast Digest The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC 2011:1-5 Hegel, Georg “The Philosophy of Nature” Blackmask Online 2011 Web http://higherintellect.info/texts/thought_and_writing/philosophy/Hegel,%20G.%20W.%20F/Hegel,_G.W.F._-_Philosophy_Of_Nature.pdf Vedder, Clyde B., Koenig, Samuel & Clark, Robert E. “Criminology” Holt, Rinehart & Winston New York 1976 311-409 Read More