Category: Human Nature

Human Nature

There is no flawless entity in the world, especially among humans. Human nature has endless possibilities as it is able to facilitate both good and bad qualities. Although I believe that people are inherently innocent, the environment and experience ultimately result in the inclination towards a certain side of righteousness. The contemporary environment attempts to resolve the legacy of mistakes made in history, but there is still much room for progress as for some, the experience of life is tremendously painful or difficult. There are regions that are affected by war, famine, poverty, or corruption, leading to the proliferation of evil in humanity.

Therefore, I am inclined to believe in the existence of determinism in consideration of human actions and their predictability. However, it is difficult to conclude the existence of free will or determinism. Determinism argues that people are guided by a combination of internal and external factors without the ability to control them (Willoughby et al., 2019). At the same time, free will considers that people have causal control over each cation they undertake (Willoughby et al., 2019). My argument is that both are plausible accounts of the truth. Situationally for the consideration of moral responsibilities, free will is necessary, and determinism rejects the notion completely. Nevertheless, in my view, determinism is more plausible while discussing the likelihood of a person committing evil since their actions would be based on experience and surrounding circumstances. Furthermore, I believe that even without a change in circumstances, it is possible to expect a person to change from evil to good due to the existence of free will and imagination.

In the discussion of nature vs nurture, I concede with the modern understanding that both are indispensable in the formation of personality and behaviour. The responses towards the majority of actions are environmental as they come from the establishment of long-living habits in the person. However, intelligence and various other cognition determinants are genetic as such, come from nature. Peoples future actions and their planning are affected by the ability of the person to retain information and make critical decisions that are inherently natural. Therefore, I cannot separate the two completely.

In the discussion of past and present experiences and their effect on humans, it is impossible to disregard the importance of the past as a guide for the future. People learn from their past and try to develop themselves in a way that could surpass past experiences. The present allows one to reflect on the past and decide the goals to attain in the future. The relationship between the past, present, and future is that of continuous improvement and reflection.

The Big 5 personality qualities are the five basic aspects of personality, according to many modern personality psychologists. Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and neuroticism are the five main personality qualities. Despite these underlying commonalities, each person exhibits different attributes depending on the circumstances. Since uniqueness cannot be categorized into predefined categories, it is an incontrovertible reality.

Since each person is unique, the belief allows viewing equilibrium and growth as both desirable outcomes for an individual. One may struggle to keep up with the changing environment of the world and may prefer to maintain a physiological balance. Others could be in constant pursuit of personal development and search for ways to improve their mental health and behaviour. Nevertheless, I believe that counselling could guide people towards the desire for growth as change is the only constant in the world.

Humans are rational creatures as their intelligence and cognitive ability allow them to make reasonable choices. However, there is a problem with rationality when personal desires or emotional well-being is taken into the equation. Humans may start acting in perceived irrational behaviour such as substance abuse and drinking. These actions could be triggered by various issues but ultimately refer to the difficulty of living in a social world. Consequently, some behaviours could be perceived as irrational by some and rational by others. Some authors differentiate rationality into several categories that prioritize survival through cognitive perception and practical reasoning as rationality. Others elicit the process in which ones ideas and behaviors are consistent with their respective justifications. Both in my opinion convey the truth about rationality in human beings.

In the discussion of motivation, I consider the theory of behaviourism as the primary example of human motivation. The theory suggests that people are motivated by external stimuli such as punishments and rewards (Watson & Kimble, 2017). However, it is possible that a person may choose what constitutes punishment and reward. Therefore, one may be motivated to indulge in inappropriate behaviours because they have a perceived personal value for the individual.

Counseling Process

In general, counselling is the offering of support or direction that finally aids in resolving psychological, social, or personal issues. It is often administered by qualified personnel specialized in the specific course of counselling. Individual, group, and couples counselling are some of the typical approaches. The purpose of individual counselling is to assist clients in improving their decision-making abilities, interpersonal relationships, and overall self-understanding in order to facilitate positive transformation.

In contrast, group counselling enables a person to comprehend their emotions and alter behavioural issues with the assistance of others. Couple counselling is typically used by couples who seek to enhance their close connection in general. There are several reasons why counselling could be helpful. It can help one have a better grasp of things and develop new management techniques. With the aid of the counsellor, an individual can approach issues from many angles. Counselling is all about altering ones life and sharing internal thoughts, which helps in this process.

The problem in counselling is commonly presented via three main components such as the clients mental state, associated triggers and environment. The clients feelings could be physical or emotional, such as heaviness, discomfort, or restlessness, or they may be mental, such as confusion, overload, or loss (Corey, 2020). The client turns to a therapist for assistance mostly because of such abnormalities in their mental condition (Corey, 2020). The second element indicates that, regardless of the clients mental condition, it is often centred on someone or something. This might be a specific person, circumstance, activity, or result. The third element deals with the time frame during which the client experiences these changes. It could be triggered by anything they hear, perceive, or think, by the time of day, or something else entirely.

The clients difficulties are addressed in the session. As a result, each counselling may have different objectives. For some, it could involve enabling behaviour change and strengthening the clients efficacy and capacity to deal with and sustain relationships. For others, fostering client potential and encouraging the decision-making process. However, ultimately the goal of counselling is the positive development of the client.

Effective counsellor behaviours involve respectful and non-judgmental conduct. Counsellors should exhibit patience as it is possible to encounter clients who find it difficult to progress or who make poor decisions (Corey, 2020). In order to help clients find their way over their difficulties and toward a healthier lifestyle, a counsellor must demonstrate patience and compassion. The counsellor should be respectful and non-judgmental because, inevitably, one will come across clients whose decisions may not align with ones beliefs (Corey, 2020). However, the counselling sessions are not a place for debates but a place of shelter and help. The counselor must address the personal issues that the client sees as important and is prepared to investigate and alter (Corey, 2020). A scheduled, organized conversation between a counsellor and a client constitutes the counselling process (Corey, 2020). A qualified expert works collaboratively with a person known as the client to assist them in pinpointing the causes of any problems or worries they may be having. Together, they come up with solutions to these issues, giving the individual new abilities and a deeper self-awareness and others.

There are various barriers to counselling that could be internal or external. They are often referred to as blocks, an unrecognized or unacknowledged behaviour that inhibits someone from positive change. The internal blocks refer to the inability to recognize and express discomfort, stigmatizing attitudes, guilt, a preference for independence, and the expectation that help would be difficult to come by. Distractions, signs of mental health difficulties, and substance misuse are examples of external impediments. They have the power to divert someones focus from the fundamental problems that must be resolved in order to experience true healing. Until symptoms and drug abuse are adequately treated so that the attention may return to the underlying issues, it may be essential to change the focus of treatment temporarily.

The internal block could be worked with via a combination of counselling and emotional freedom techniques (EFT). Exposure, cognitive therapy, and somatic stimulation of acupressure sites on the body and face are all components of the short intervention known as EFT (Bach et al., 2019). Typically, participants choose a problem or issue they want to solve with the approach and assess how distressed they are on a scale of 1 to 10 (Bach et al., 2019). In a Setup Statement, participants express their worry and help convert it into their level of anguish (Bach et al., 2019). The setup statements second half frames the traumatic incident in terms of self-acceptance, while the first half stresses exposure. The participant then performs somatic tapping on bodily acupoints while continuously repeating a brief sentence to maintain attention (Bach et al., 2019). After the issues with the emotional state are resolved, it is possible to continue counselling with the client being in a more relaxed and appreciative state.

Brief, standardized questionnaires, checklists, and worksheets called mental health outcome measures are used to track client progress, make it easier for clients and clinicians to communicate, and raise the level of mental health care. Clinical results might be linked to shifts in symptoms for certain diagnoses such as depression using questionaries. For example, the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), anxiety using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7) or posttraumatic stress disorder using the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5). In addition, global mental health status is not tied to a specific diagnosis using scales. For instance, the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales, the Pediatric Symptom Checklist, and the Daily Living Activities Scale. They are standardized approaches to measuring counselling outcomes.

The goals are set as a collective effort of the clinician and the client. One of the primary duties of the counsellor is to assist clients in creating attainable and realistic objectives. In order to achieve these objectives, the client must first decide what they want to achieve and what particular ideas, behaviours, and circumstances would need to change or become apparent in order for these goals to be fulfilled. Furthermore, it is necessary to discuss what specific activities the client would need to carry out in order to start the change.

Professional counsellors work to increase self-esteem, encourage behaviour change, and maintain optimal mental health. They also assist clients in identifying objectives and potential solutions to issues that cause emotional distress. The counselling process is essentially dependent on the therapeutic connection. It can promote self-assurance, openness, honesty, and confidence, enabling clients to accept themselves as they are. The minute a therapist and a client first meet, a therapeutic relationship is established. Initial impressions of the other can be formed when both parties exhibit who and how they are at first encounter. Building a strong relationship with the counsellor might encourage clients to explore their problems more deeply and open up emotionally.

Effective counsellors could be identified via several key characteristics related to their work. The effective counsellor is an active listener and communicates with the client rather than providing pure guidance. They demonstrate empathy and have no personal agenda in relation to the client. Effective counsellors also set SMART goals for the clients to attain and clearly define the healing process.

References

Bach, D., Groesbeck, G., Stapleton, P., Sims, R., Blickheuser, K., & Church, D. (2019). Clinical EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) improves multiple physiological markers of health.Journal of evidence-based integrative medicine, 24, 2515690X1882369. Web.

Corey, G. (2020). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy, enhanced (10^th ed) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole Publishing.

Watson, J. B., & Kimble, G. A. (2017). Behaviorism. Routledge.

Willoughby, E. A., Love, A. C., McGue, M., Iacono, W. G., Quigley, J., & Lee, J. J. (2019). Free will, determinism, and intuitive judgments about the heritability of behavior.Behavior genetics, 49(2), 136-153. Web.

The impact of Darwins theory of evolution on the modern understanding of nature is immeasurable. However, the magnitude of debate it sparked is equally impressive. Lasting to this day, it ranges from its scientific accuracy to its moral and ethical grounds. One of the debatable questions is whether the theory of evolution can explain human nature. This topic is addressed to in detail by Frans de Waal, the Professor of Psychology at Emory University. De Waal shares his experience of working at Yerkes National Primate Research Center and shares some theoretical insights. He begins his argument by pointing out one of the prominent difficulties with comprehending the theory of evolution  one that could be characterized as overestimating humanity. It appears that humans tend to distance themselves from animals while the theory of evolution states there is not much difference between the two. The amusing part is that the subsequent research shows more and more similarities between humans and animals (not just apes or monkeys, but most animals), which strengthens the rejection of the theory. De Waal then proceeds with providing examples in support of this notion. He starts with his personal findings and observations, outlining in broad strokes the psychological similarities between chimpanzees he interacts with in a laboratory and humans he deals with on a daily basis.

The second part of the article deals with the debate about the origin of the morality. De Waal outlines the main sides of the debate, illustrating the opponents with Francis Collins concept of moral law (Collins 22), but failing to provide the point of view of the supporting side, like Steven Pinkers scientific view of the evolutionary basis for human nature (Pinker 7). He then proceeds to drawing parallels between the philosophical concept known as The Golden Rule and phenomena known as empathy and reciprocity, which are observed in primates behavior. This assumption is then strengthened with extensive examples of primates demonstrating compassion, generosity, and social organization. However, no proper source citing is made.

The author concludes with the statement that perceiving human morality, as well as other traits of human nature, as a result of divine intervention is short-sighted given the overwhelming body of evidence that nature exhibits the same traits abundantly among animals. Commenting on both his earlier assumption of human tendency to overestimate oneself, and the aforementioned examples, De Waal remarks, We never seem to doubt that there is continuity between humans and other animals with respect to negative behavior  when humans maim and kill each other, we are quick to call them animals  but we prefer to claim noble traits exclusively for ourselves (6-7).

In all, the article Obviously, Says The Monkey is a good example of what is called the popular science. The author often fails to cite the source or support its claims with proper research, and part of his findings are of anecdotal nature, which is not within the scientific approach. However, it is a vivid and engaging text, with simple yet precise language, witty comments, and a humorous vibe. Besides, it outlines the general concepts of the debate on human nature and gives insights into promising findings which are worth further insight. The article is not sufficient to educate a reader but is more than capable of engaging one in subsequent research in the field of human nature.

Works Cited

Collins, Francis S. The Language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006. Print.

De Waal, Frans 2010, Obviously, says the monkey. PDF file. 2016. Web.

Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, New York: Penguin Books, 2003. Print.

Introduction

The history of debates about human nature can be seen in all existing philosophies and teachings. From the early days, philosophers and scientists discussed the behavior of people and their genetics. Various political ideologies also have their understanding of ones nature  whether people are good or bad, can they be changed or do their genetics create their personality and other similar themes. It is possible to compare these ideologies to show how differently they treat human nature and what people can do during their lives. In this essay, the debates of nature versus nurture, intellect versus instinct, and competition versus cooperation will be described by discussing such political ideologies as socialism, fascism, liberalism, and conservatism.

Nature versus Nurture

The introduced debate is one of the main topics mentioned in most political schools of thought. It explores the characteristics of people and the conditions in which they can develop them. For example, the nature side of this discussion states that people are born a certain way, and their genetics can influence the way they act (Heywood 2015). On the other hand, supporters of nurture believe that people can be changed during their lives and ones environment has an influence on behavior (Heywood 2015).

In politics, fascism was and is the main supporter of the first view. This ideology is famous for its desire to manipulate human genetics to create superior individuals (Gillette 2007, p. 79). Thus, fascists believe that some types of people are inherently better, based on their origins and family history. For example, some scientists claim that ones level of intelligence (IQ) can depend on their genetics (Paul 1998). This view created a basis for racial prejudice in fascism and resulted in many violent and intrusive practices such as eugenics and genetic manipulation (Paul 1998).

Other political ideologies do not follow the same train of thought. For instance, socialism firmly believes that all people can achieve the same level of intellectual ability or develop positive qualities with dedication and hard work (Fenwick 2014). According to this point of view, people are equal in their opportunities regardless of their genes and, thus, they can achieve great results only with enough effort and support from the environment. It is an example of a nurturing approach to peoples behavior. Socialism believes that people are not naturally good at something. Instead, the main argument is anyone can obtain the talent& if they practice enough (Fenwick 2014, para. 4). This shows the change one can go through because of external factors. Here, peoples genes are not important as they do not contribute to hard work.

Both liberal and conservative ideologies have varying beliefs about human nature. For example, classical liberalism saw people as creatures who were interested in themselves and not in others, meaning that they had an unchanging nature (Heywood 2015). However, some conservative beliefs also state that people are inherently competitive based on capitalism (Heywood 2015). This view of people as individualistic creatures states that nature is unchangeable and people cannot develop a different approach to society. However, both ideologies have had many different scientists and philosophers with other beliefs or a different understanding of nature. While fascism and socialism base their views on the debate of nature against nurture, these political ideologies focus on different problems. For example, the differences between people based on genes are not used in these approaches. Instead, all people are seen as unchangeable, and race or genetics do not matter as much.

Intellect versus Instinct

The second debate creates a divide between rational thinking, logic, and analysis and impulsive behavior guided by non-rational reasons. Socialist and liberal ideologies support the rational side of the argument. Liberalism highly values the autonomy of people and their individualistic nature (Heywood 2015). Therefore, people use their logical thinking and can live on their own, supporting their lives without the need to rely on others or an instinct to create groups. Socialists also use rationalism in their theories, but their approach is different. In this case, the logic of scientific analysis is used to support socialist views and argue against capitalism. The morality, and irrational aspect, of capitalism, is not important as the logical reasons behind its failures (Fenwick 2014). According to this view, rationalism also helps people understand that a socialist lifestyle is better because it produces results beneficial for peoples living conditions. These ideologies value intellect in different ways but conclude that rational thinking should be more important than instincts.

In a contrast, the conservative ideology preferred a different approach to human nature. For example, conservative views state that humans and the world are too complicated only to use thinking to understand everything. Instead, traditions and customs may bring order into peoples lives as it is impossible to explain every action and event rationally (Heywood 2015). To stop the world from becoming chaotic, peoples emotions and freedoms should be contained and managed as a society cannot think rationally on its own. Thus, external guidance is necessary to prevent disorder. In this case, chaos is seen as a state in which people can easily fall if they are not managed by someone else. It is an opposition to rational thinking and the use of intellect as the only source of control as well. Instead, conservatives believe that people are guided by emotions and fears  non-rational parts of ones personality (Heywood 2015). This divide between views is apparent in liberal and conservative political approaches.

Fascists approach to instincts also places them above intellect. Here, intellect is viewed as unreliable and uncertain. Instead, emotions and instincts such as impatience and impulse are infallible (Griffin 2013, p. 114). Fascism viewed individualism negatively, stating that it leads to free thinking which cannot help the government to have full control over people. Thus, emotions and instincts are more valuable, freeing a person from doubts (Griffin 2013). The importance of instinct is also a contrast to democracy that gives people many freedoms. The lack of strict rules relies on peoples ability to analyze their decisions, which does not support the fascist ideology and its need to have power over nations.

Competition versus Cooperation

The differences between competition and cooperation are visible in ideologies views on economics. The cooperation principle states that people are sociable and work together to reach results. On the other hand, competition assumes that all individuals are self-centered and interested in their success. The described views of both conservatives and classical liberals show that they both see people as competitive. This similarity can be explained by the fact that capitalist societies often use both ideologies. In capitalism, competitiveness is a foundation for the economy and it is believed to drive change and innovation forward (Heywood 2015). Peoples individualism is seen in private property laws, human rights, and market relations.

On the other hand, cooperation is the basis of socialism and fascism. First of all, socialisms ideas about communal living shared property, and obligations to society all show that cooperation is more valuable to this ideology than competition (Heywood 2015). As socialists propose collective action as the only way to move the nation forward, they oppose the importance of self-promotion and individualism. It is an opposition to capitalism and a clear example of the cooperation side of the debate. Fascism also values cooperation because it needs all social classes to work together against other regimes (Griffin 2013). The nationalist view of this ideology tries to unite all individuals who are seen as valuable to create a society of perfect people. Here, a uniting cause is used as an argument for cooperation.

Conclusion

Political ideologies have different views on the main debates about human nature. The interpretations of these debates also play an important role in politics. All four worldviews discussed in this essay share some arguments between each other. However, they view the aspects of people in various ways creating unique philosophies. Fascism believes that people cannot be changed with nurture and their instincts are stronger than minds. Socialists, on the other hand, argue that everyone can be influenced to become a better version of him or herself and view rational thinking as the best way to approach problems. However, both ideologies value cooperation, although for different reasons. Liberal and conservative views are also similar in many aspects but different in others.

Reference List

Fenwick, A 2014, Talent and intelligence: nature or nurture?, Socialist Appeal, Web.

Gillette, A 2007, Eugenics and the nature-nurture debate in the twentieth century, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.

Griffin, R 2013, The nature of fascism, Routledge, London.

Heywood, A 2015, Political theory: an introduction, 4th edn, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.

Paul, DB 1998, The politics of heredity: essays on eugenics, biomedicine, and the nature-nurture debate, SUNY Press, Albany, NY.

In this paper, two projects from different epochs will be analyzed to comprehend if there are some changes in the socialistic understanding of human nature. The work by Robert Owen, Lectures on the Rational System of Society, is written in the middle of the 19^th century. Socialism and Human Nature is created by Arnold Peterson in the middle of the 20^th century. Both authors succeed in presenting their own arguments about how they see socialism and what its impact on human nature is. The creation of a practical system in society helps to provide every human being with happiness through all succeeding generations (Owen 1841).

Owen (1841) underlines the necessity of change and the establishment of a new era and argues that human nature is a compound of animal propensities, intellectual faculties, and moral qualities, or the germs of them (p. 48). He tries to explain that one day a person can see how mistakenly the idea to respect human nature can be. At the same time, he offers to clarify what can make a person blind at the moment and introduces religion as one of those evils that confuse people and increase their miseries.

If Owen saw socialism as a kind of salvation for human nature and the possibility to promote a change that could make people happy, Peterson argues that socialism is incompatible with human nature (2005), it is against human nature, and people should realize that this beautiful dream cannot be taken for granted. Human despair is the reason why socialism has already gained so much power over people. People want to believe that they may control socialism as the ideology they have already established. Collective and governmental production can be used to meet the needs of people. However, people cannot be sure if they use the sources properly without hurting human nature.

Both authors create their works to demonstrate their attitudes to socialism and the importance of changes. Though the authors introduce different opinions, both of them help to realize that people cannot stop living in a mess they create day by day. Owen says that socialism is the answer to the question of how people can improve their lives, and Peterson wants to believe that socialism is the kind of hope people should be provided with. These two projects help to realize that socialist understanding of human nature has been changed considerably between the 19^th century and the present times because people start doubting the quality of socialism and its possible positive impact on human nature.

Devoted socialists believed that classless society could be happy and successful. The social vision of the chosen texts is the governmental control of all activities and decisions made. The government should help to eliminate the competitions that could take place between people and provide all people with the same opportunities. However, the works of Owen and Peterson show that different epochs have different understandings of human nature and its importance.

At the end of the 20^th century and even today, people continue living in an industrial society that requires the required forms of government and administration. At the same time, Peterson (2005) follows the idea that people should try to maintain freedom and order. People should never lose their hope to become better and satisfied with the conditions they have to live and work under while a spark of the light of reason and of the flames of liberty still remain  while hearts still pulsate, and hands remain capable of grasping and holding aloft the torch of truth and freedom (Peterson 2005). Nowadays, many socialists view human nature as an economically dependent body that is in need of changes and improvements.

Still, Peterson, as well as many current representatives of socialism, believes that it is possible to provide every person with a national living wage, free higher education, and strong environmental and racial-justice policies (Purdy 2015). Peterson considers the opinions of different socialists and their opinions on how it is possible to keep human nature safe. He does not want to support either some radical changes or even gentle reforms.

His position seems like it is ok to continue keeping the status quo and discussing how the past and the present can be interrelated and influence the future. This project seems to be a logical interpretation of the ideas with the help of which the reader can understand that human nature serves as the best explanation of the majority of actions. If people make mistakes, they say that it is human nature to make mistakes. If a woman cannot achieve the required goal and protect her rights, she can say that it is her human nature.

Though Owens ideas do not actually contradict the opinion that is introduced by Peterson, it is possible to say the Owen is more confident in his words and suggestions. His intentions may be explained by the fact that he was a kind of socialist pioneer in Britain, and his experiments had to be confident and certain to attract the attention of other people (Simeon 2012). His idea that human nature is the combination of animal propensities seems to be a powerful contribution that makes people believe that it is not enough to keep the status quo or promotes some gentle reforms. Radical changes and the creation of a new society is the solution offered by Owen because humans nature is not fixed yet but malleable (Roberts & Sutch 2012).

People should not despair and continue changing something in their lives. As well as Peterson, Owen stays logic in his interpretations and underlines the power of thought and explanation in all ideas and suggestions.

Nowadays, many opinions about the role of socialist and the understandings of human nature are developed by the representatives of socialism. Sometimes, the association of socialism with social justice confuses people and makes them come to not always appropriate conclusions (Kabbany 2016). Peterson seems to be a more successful analyzer of socialism and its understandings of human nature. He considers the historical examples like slavery can prove that socialism is usually against human nature.

As for Owen, the Industrial Revolution can be used as the historical evidence of his ideas because it caused the development of divisions between people and the inabilities to comprehend what changes were really important. Owen tries to provide employees with equal rights and opportunities. His focus on human nature as something that can be changed in particular is powerful indeed. It is easy to find the successful implications of this argument, even in the work of Peterson.

Peterson is more convincing than Owen because he relies on his personal experience and finds support in the theories of Marx and Owen. He spreads a kind of new light on the socialist understanding of human nature, offers to combine hope and rationale to introduce human nature as the cooperation people can develop in order to survive, and proves that socialist understanding of human nature in the 20^th century differs considerably from the one given in the 19^th century because of the power of society on a person.

Reference List

Kabbany, J 2016, Socialism-loving professors and their ignorance, National Review. Web.

Owen, R 1841, Lectures on the rational system of society, derived solely from nature and experience, The Home Colonization Society, London.

Peterson, A 2005, Socialism and human nature. Web.

Purdy, J 2015, Bernie Sanderss new deal socialism, The New Yorker. Web.

Roberts, P & Sutch, P 2012, An introduction to political thought: a conceptual toolkit, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Simeon, O 2012, Robert Owen: the father of British socialism?, Books and Ideas. Web.

Abstract

In this paper, I elaborate on what can be considered the main strengths and weaknesses of Descartes view of human nature. Among this views foremost weaknesses is named the fact that it is based upon the philosophers belief in the existence of God. The views main strength, on the other hand, is identified its overall progressive sounding.

Introduction

One of the reasons why Rene Descartes is being commonly referred to as one of the great Western philosophers, is that his works contain a number of valuable insights into how ones individuality comes into being. Partially, this can be explained by the fact that Descartes view of human nature is indeed logically sound. At the same time, however, many of the philosophers suggestions, as to why people can hardly be considered perfect beings, no longer present much of a philosophical value. The reason for this is that, in light of recent scientific discoveries, many of these suggestions appear outdated. In my paper, I will explore the validity of this suggestion at length, while elaborating on what should be considered the strengths and weaknesses of Descartes assessment of what human nature is all about.

Body of the paper

In essence, the philosophers view of human nature can be outlined as follows:

The main indication of peoples existence being thoroughly objective, is that they are capable of reflecting upon it consciously. Because ones consciousness is non-material, this necessarily means that it can be best described in terms of a Gods gift. Consequently, this can also be seen as the main proof that God does in fact exist, I so manifestly conclude that God also exists, and that all my existence, from one moment to the next, depends on him [Meditations (39)].

This, however, creates a certain inconsistency  if God is perfect (omnipresent), than all his creations (deeds) must be perfect, as well. Yet, as we are all well aware of, this is far from being the actual case  every particular individual simply cannot help remaining imperfect in one way or another. Descartes, however, refers to this as yet another proof of Gods existence, because peoples tendency to make mistakes implies their endowment with the unlimited freedom to make free choices. In this respect, humans are being not much different from the God himself, It is only the will, or freedom of choice, that I experience in myself as so great that I can form the idea of none greater& I understand that I bear a certain image and likeness of God [Meditations (41)].

According to the philosopher, peoples imperfection derives out of the fact that, despite being endowed with the unlimited willpower, their understanding of how the universe actually works is severely limited. Therefore, while addressing life-challenges, people are bound to make mistakes, Since the range of the will is greater than that of the intellect& it easily falls away from the true and the good, and this is both how I come to be deceived and how I come to sin [Meditations (42)]. This, of course, implies that, while striving to attain a greater degree of perfection, one may never cease being aware of what account for his or her intellectual limitations.

In my opinion, the main weakness of the philosophers view of human nature, is that it is based upon his assumption that God does in fact exist. However, upon being subjected to a closer examination, such his assumption will appear utterly erroneous. For example, the philosopher deduces the existence of God, in regards to the fact that he is being capable of understanding of what the notion of divinity stands for, in the first place. As he pointed out, When I consider that I doubt, or that I am an incomplete and dependent thing, so clear and distinct an idea of an independent and complete being (that is, God) comes to my mind [Meditations (39)].

However, it never occurred to the author that the very notion of completeness (omnipotence), which he discusses in close conjunction with the idea of God, presupposes the impossibility for the universe to function in the way to which we are accustomed. The reason for this is simple  if God did in fact create the universe, it would have been reflective of his miraculous (unpredictable) ways. That is, it would be possible for the material objects in this world to be simultaneously both: existent and non-existent.

It would also be possible to reverse the effects of the laws of nature on the surrounding reality. For example, one would be able to bring the glass of water to a boiling point by the mean of keeping it in the deep freezer for some time. Yet, as we are well aware of, the mentioned possibilities simply do not exist, which in turn implies that there is in fact no omnipresent God  at least in the Cartesian (associated with Descartes) sense of this word. The reason why many people consider their belief in God thoroughly natural, is that it empowers them psychologically, which in turn increases the chance of their physical survival within the hostile social/natural environment  pure and simple.

Another important shortcoming of Descartes line of argumentation, in regards to what he believed contributes to the making of human nature, as we know it, is that according to the philosopher, ones ability to operate with abstract categories, is best discussed in terms of a thing in itself. That is, ones consciousness exists independently of the concerned individuals body and that, in order for just about anyone to be able to make valid judgements about the surrounding reality, he or she would have to remain thoroughly unaffected by it.

As the philosopher pointed out, I have grown so accustomed to withdrawing my mind from the senses& that I can now direct my thought without any difficulty away from things that can be imagined and towards those that are purely intelligible, and detached from all matter [Meditations (39)].

However, such philosophers stance can hardly be deemed fully justified. The reason for this is that, as todays neurologists are being well aware of, a persons consciousness (soul) is the property of his or her body and not the other way around. The validity of this statement can be shown, in relation to the fact that, contrary to how Descartes refers to it in his Fourth meditation, the quality of ones conscious mind (soul) can be irreversibly altered by the external intrusions into this persons brain.

The practice of lobotomy exemplifies the soundness of this idea perfectly well. After all, it does not represent any secret to surgeons that it is indeed thoroughly possible to make just about anyone instantly oblivious of happened to be his or her self-identity, for example. In order to achieve this effect, one would simply have to remove the part of the concerned individuals cerebral cortex (brain). What it means, is that it is not only that ones soul cannot exist outside of his or her body, but also that, contrary to what Descartes used to believe, there is nothing undividable about it. In other words, our consciousness is just another instrument, deployed by our bodies on their way of trying to survive, and that there are no innate qualities to it. The main implication of this is clear  there are no good reasons to believe that the conscious (rational) way of thinking is necessarily virtuous. It is understood, of course, that this suggestion stands in a striking contradiction with the main idea of the Fourth meditation.

Nevertheless, even though that, as it was shown earlier, Descartes view of human nature does not quite correlate with what todays scientists know about what causes people to act in one way or another, it cannot be considered completely misleading. After all, throughout the Chapters entirety, the philosopher does come up with many legitimate observations, as to what prevents people from being able to achieve the state of perfection. For example, according to Descartes, I am so constituted as a medium term between God and nothingness, or between the supreme being and non-being [Meditations (40)].

Even though that the quoted idea does contain a reference to God, it nevertheless can be best described as being fully consistent with what contemporary scientists know about the phenomena of organic life. The reason for this is that, as of today, it became a commonplace practice among many of them to adopt an instrumental outlook on what happened to be the actual significance of peoples existence. As Dawkins pointed out, We are survival machines  robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes (1976, p. 2).

In other words, in the eyes of evolution, the actual worth of just about anyone is not being reflective of what happened to be the concerned individuals educational attainment, or his/her contribution to the communitys well-being, but solely of how effective this person happened to be in making babies. After having succeeded in preserving its bloodline, a person naturally begins to be deemed useless by nature, which in turn sets him or her on the path of aging and consequently dying. Thus, just as Descartes noted, people can indeed be referred to as being partially non-existent. After all, when assessed in conjunction with the term eternity, ones average lifespan of 60-80 years appears extremely short-lived.

The Chapters yet another strength is concerned with the fact that in it, Descartes proved himself insightful enough to present readers with the scientifically sound explanation, as to why imperfection remains the essential part of human nature. According to the philosopher, We should not look at any one single creature in isolation, but at the whole universe of things, whenever we are inquiring whether Gods works are perfect [Meditations (41)].

In order for us to be able to able to understand the actual significance of this Descartes statement, we would need to assess it from the evolutionary perspective, which in turn will require the replacement of the word God with the word nature. The main reason why neither of the organic forms of life (including people) can be considered perfect, is that just about every living creature on this planet is mortal. Nevertheless, when we adopt a broader view on the issue, it will become apparent that the mortality of organic life is fully justified, as the main condition for it to continue becoming ever more complex. The logic behind this suggestion is that, without being mortal, living creatures would not be affected by genetic mutations.

The latter, however, is the main driving force of evolution. It is because the organic forms of life never cease being subjected to these mutations, that they are able to adjust to the continually changing conditions of the surrounding natural environment. In other words, if it was not up to death, there would be no life. What it means is that, in full accordance with how Descartes perceived it, ones limitations, as a human, cannot be thought of as the indication of the overall poor design of humans. Thus, even though there are many strongly defined religious overtones to the above-quoted suggestion, on the part of Descartes, it nevertheless cannot be referred to as anything else, but being utterly enlightening.

The philosopher should also be given a credit for having implicitly pointed out that, contrary to what many people continue to believe, it is not his or her endowment with the faith-based morality, which makes one a human. Rather, it is the concerned individuals ability to apply a continual effort into acquiring more knowledge about the universe, on one hand, and using this knowledge to its own advantage, on the other. As Descartes noted, I realize that& (my humanness) depend on two simultaneously operative causes, namely, the faculty I possess of acquiring knowledge and the faculty of choosing, or free will [Meditations (40)].

It is understood, of course, that as for the first half of the 17^th century, this idea sounded rather revolutionary. Thus, even though that throughout the Chapter, Descartes never stops praising God, as the ultimate cause behind all effects, he does it in such a manner that, in the aftermath of having been exposed to the Fourth meditation, one will naturally be tempted to conclude that it is namely nature, which should be referred to as God.

Therefore, it will not be too much of an exaggeration to suggest that, despite the fact that it is indeed somewhat outdated; the intellectual legacy of Descartes will continue being appreciated well into the future. The reason for this is that it contributed rather substantially towards triggering the process of intellectual liberation in Europe, which in turn made possible the continuation of the social, cultural, and scientific progress in the West.

Conclusion

I believe that the earlier provided line of argumentation, in regards to what should be defined as the main strengths and weaknesses of Descartes view of human nature, is fully consistent with the papers initial thesis. Apparently, this view is indeed somewhat controversial, because while revolving around the notion of God, it is in fact concerned with addressing the issue of human imperfection, as something that is being prearranged by the impersonal laws of nature.

At the same time, however, it radiates the strong spirit of humanism and tolerance  while promoting the idea that it is thoroughly natural for people to make mistakes, Descartes naturally prompts readers to reconsider the appropriateness of judging others, on the account of their sinful ways. This once again implies that there is nothing incidental about the fact that even today; the philosophy of Descartes continues to be considered intellectually enlightening.

References

Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Descartes, R. (1993). Meditations on first philosophy. 3^rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

The Age of Enlightenment is primarily an intellectual movement associated with developing scientific, philosophical, and social thought based on rationalism and free-thinking. The idea of the free individual, which was intensively developed during the Renaissance, gained recognition during the Enlightenment. Everyone should think not only about himself but also about others, about his place in society. The Enlighteners sought to understand the specificity of inter-human relations. At the center of their attention were the problems of the best social order. They developed programs of social transformation, as much as possible, corresponding to human nature. According to many Enlighteners, man is part of nature, an entirely human material being, and is not qualitatively distinguished from it.

Man is not evil by nature, and society makes a person that way through imperfect relationships and faulty upbringing. To change man, it is necessary to change the culture, in which a properly educated person will act on the principle of rational selfishness. In proposing a transformation of society on the principles of reason and justice, the French Enlighteners advocated, in general, ways of reforming society peacefully, coming from above from enlightened rulers. According to this approach, the justice system should work to defeat the imperfection of human behavior. The punishment is imposed according to a committed crime, notwithstanding individual circumstances. The sentence should be based only on the precedent of proclaiming the same one in analogic cases. According to this philosophy, the judicial system works to eliminate crimes, not criminals. The personality, rational by nature, cannot be changed individually. Delinquency can be defeated only when the societys system is reorganized according to the principles of equality, consciousness, and rationalism.

References

Slovi, S. (2020). From modernism towards post-modernism: Rationalism and the enlightnment era. Bastina, 50, 121131.

Introduction

Thomas Hobbes is a philosopher who believes he has accomplished his purpose of ensuring that human kind live in peace. He has made a lot of contributions on modern philosophical thought on politics. His writings are aimed at giving ideas to individuals and especially those that are in political positions. This will enable them solve some of the problems in the society. Hobbes ideas are basically a reflection of the life that he has gone through and the influences that have been around him. Hobbes did not actually grow under the care of his biological parents; they abandoned him at a very tender age but he was lucky enough to have a wealthy uncle who ensured that he obtained the best education. He took a keen interest in studies and became mostly interested in sciences. He found more reality with the experiments that proved the existence of nature and hence developed his philosophical thoughts through them. Due to the influences of his uncle, he had a lot of acquaintances in the government that put him in a position of power and status. He used such opportunities through his writing to advocate to what he thought was right. In his contributions to civic peace, Hobbes avoided being a one sided individual and advocated for practical ways of dealing with leadership. He emphasized on the importance of every mankind understanding their roles in society and working towards their fulfillment rather than fighting for a single position. He cautioned leaders in his time against seeking self ambitions as they can barely achieve anything without the help of others.

Hobbes views

The foundation of Hobbes thoughts comes from his belief that every human being is either self-centered, irrational and self-seeking. According to him, these are the natural aspects of human beings that need to be dealt with in order to achieve national cohesion (Matthews, p. 153). Contrary to the general belief that it is only those that are in political positions that have authority over the citizens, Hobbes believes that every mature citizen has authority and power of their own. It is only a mother that has absolute authority over their baby considering their delicate and wanting nature. He hence believes that every human being irrespective of their political standing and status in society has the ability to harm the other. It, therefore, requires the concerted effort of both individuals to ensure that everything is working out well. For instance, there is no leader that can claim to have the ability to protect a country unless they are assisted by other supreme authorities like the police. Even as different people come together for the sake of protecting a state, they all do it with centeredness that is inclined to the self. This basically means that they are only diligent in performing their responsibilities because of a promised benefit.

Hobbes insists on the necessity of employing scientific environmental factors in governance so as to strike a balance between the needs of the society and the individual needs of all people. The self-nature in an individual will always seek for its own satisfaction which may not necessarily be of benefit to society. However, when environmental factors are considered, it will be possible to fulfill the needs of the moment. In his approach to the self, Hobbes is cautioning leaders against believing in their self abilities. There is a high possibility that they will not be able to serve the citizens appropriately if they focus on their ambitions. His thoughts gained much popularity during the civil wars in England. He emphasized the need for citizens, irrespective of their spiritual standing to develop confidence in the leadership which ought to be more practical in its approach to situations. Hobbes wrote materials that signified that religion and politics cannot be intermixed. This caused a lot of discomfort among religious gurus who insisted on the importance of politicians being connected to spiritual authority. It was basically a time when it was believed that a leader cannot be effective unless they are attached to a spiritual deity.

His teachings were making a lot of sense especially to the leaders who felt they needed something unique that they can practice. The level of his influence was a threat to Christian believers who were now looking at him as an atheist. Even though his teachings were gaining much ground, he had to destroy some of them as they became a threat to his life. He also had to migrate to ensure that he was safe from the allegations that had risen against him (Morgan, p. 89). Some leaders mistook him for claiming that they were selfish and cared less about the needs of other people. However, what he was trying to bring across was basically the importance of people realizing how important they were to each other and hence endeavoring to work together. There is basically no individual that can independently achieve a lot; they all have influences of the self that may not work for the good of all citizens. However when such characters are combined and appropriately analyzed, then the needs of the majority will be taken care of. The moment leaders realize how weak and powerless they are on their own despite their positions, the more they will learn to appreciate the insignificant people that are serving them.

It has been rather difficult for people to understand the message that is being brought forth by Hobbes and consider him controversial. Hobbes was not in any way trying to criticize the religious aspect of leadership or undermine God in his writings. He in fact used a verse in the bible that signifies that all authority comes from God. He is instead insisting on the importance of being realistic about the issues happening around and looking for practical ways of dealing with them. Hobbess statements are mainly in reference to how most political leaders come to power basically to fulfill their political ambitions (Matthews, p. 132). Even though most leaders come up with desires to fulfill certain dreams, they may end up abandoning them along the way simply because they care much about what people will say about them. This means that they know, doing what is right and appropriate may make them be disliked by others and hence abandon it. This is basically because as they rise to a new status, they encounter different people that influence them and basically act to please them. As they tirelessly work to please certain individuals, the end results in many being more disastrous to them.

They will come to realize in the long run that they did not fulfill what they wanted to accomplish and that they have also not succeeded in pleasing all individuals. These are some of the natures that Hobbes identified which human beings are always fighting. Comparing this to his scientific philosophical approaches, Hobbes thinks that when the leaders are more concerned about the environmental factors that are affecting their people and doing all they can to ensure that such needs are met, they will be less concerned about pleasing their own interests and the interests of others. Another controversial statement that has been raised by Hobbes concerns justice. He points out that justice may not necessarily be what the law may think is right. Justice differs from an individual perspective. What may be justifiable to one is totally different from what may be justifiable to another. If justice has to be as per its definition, then it is obvious that one person will have to suffer at the expense of the other as long as they have valid reasons to defend their actions as just.

In his book titled leviathan, which was written during the English civil wars, he insists on the importance of a nation having a central authority that can instill unity. When people are made to obey and do what their leader says, it becomes easier for them to get rid of their naturally selfish nature. It will not be a situation whereby different people that are in authority come up with contradicting ideas that can not be implemented at ago. The main cause of civil wars is usually the different desires among people which cannot be implemented at ago. The result here will always be for the conflicting parties to force their way through which may be forceful. This, they do fail to realize that they are not only wasting resources but also making a certain category of innocent people suffer. It will also lead to other serious consequences that may affect both current and future generations. There are a number of distractions that are done on both public and private property which affects the economic standing of a nation. The leaders that may have been responsible for such wars may not be there to suffer the consequences they caused (Morgan, p. 57). It is left to the generations to come, who may not have been party to such wars. This is basically the clarity that he was trying to bring about in consideration of the selfish nature of individuals.

Conclusion

Hobbes believes that he had accomplished his purpose of advocating for peace through his writings. Although he received a lot of criticism and accusations especially from Christians, he did not miss out on his message of restoring harmony among leaders. He had a strong belief in God and believed that he had sovereign authority overall. He however did not want people to be so much ignorant of the very issues that are affecting them when they had the ability to solve them. Human nature is always self-seeking and in want at all times. An individual that feels that they can adequately satisfy their inner being is wrong as it is almost impossible. People should hence instead identify a person that has the ability to guide them and allow them to make and implement policies that they should be ready to follow. They may not agree in different aspects but it will save them the situation of wasting more resources and not being able to accomplish anything. If people feel dissatisfied with a central leadership in place, they have the power to overthrow them and bring in one that will serve them effectively.

Works cited

1. Matthews, Michael. The Scientific background to modern philosophy: selected readings. New York: Hackett Publishing, 1989.
2. Morgan, Michael. Classics of moral and political theory. New York: Hackett Publishing, 2005

Introduction

According to Immanuel Kant, man is a type of animal requiring a master in a bid to stay in peace and harmony with others. Kant also asserts that it is customary for man to abuse his freedom by infringing on the rights of others. Because of this, Kant explains that man must always have a master to watch and guide his actions.

However, Kant also acknowledges that the most difficult problem to mankind is to find the highest master who is just by himself (Kant 1). This is because such a high position with no supervision is bound to lead to the abuse of freedom by the master. Kant presents this argument in his Sixth Thesis. Shakespeare fully agrees with the sentiments put forward by Kant. This essay will indicate how Shakespeare stands in agreement with Kant by citing examples from Shakespeares The Tragedy of King Richard the Second.

Shakespeare concurs with Kant in each and every leadership issue argued upon. While Shakespeare presents the case of a kingdom which is under the rule of egocentric leaders, Kant overtly states the minimal probability of ever finding an overall leader who is just and one who performs his duties in a desirable manner without necessarily being supervised.

Shakespeares view of human nature and political reality goes hand in hand with Kants sentiments. First, this is shown through Shakespeares presentation of King Richard who is driven by his own ulterior motives instead of putting the interests of his subjects at heart. King Richard goes beyond the norms to fulfill his own selfish desires.

Bolingbroke And Mowbrays Banishment

The first selfish action of King Richard is observed when he banishes Henry Bolingbroke and Thomas Mowbray from England. Even though he justifies his action in the name of administering judgment to the two Dukes, it is obvious that the king does this to cover up his political interests. King Richard II is afraid of being overthrown by the Bolingbroke and Mowbray. Banishing them from his kingdom therefore becomes a good method of getting rid of them.

The action by the king therefore upholds the rule that man is guided by his selfish impulses and is bound to fall into temptations that lead to his abuse of power. According to Immanuel Kant, it is difficult to find an overall leader who does not abuse his freedom to get at his own ambitions. Shakespeare shows his approval of the above statement by presenting this case. It is therefore important for man to be supervised in order to limit his quest to abuse his freedom.

Unjust Acquirement Of Land

Shakespeare shows another case of abuse of freedom by King Richard II when he illegally acquires the land and property of John of Gaunt after his death (Shakespeare 143). The king takes advantage of the fact that no one would question him for such an injustice because he is the senior most in authority.

He therefore exploits the freedom and power bestowed unto him by the people for his own good. This is the same case that Immanuel Kant discusses in his thesis. Therefore, Shakespeare consents with Kant as far as the human nature and political reality are concerned. They both uphold the rule that a law should be put in place to limit the freedom of powers conferred to man as he is bound to misuse them in order to satisfy his political quest.

Other Offences By King Richard II

Apart from the above cases highlighting the abuse of power and freedom by King Richard, the king also commits a series of offences against his own people. First and foremost, he is guilty of using Englands money on unnecessary expenditures such as funding the war against Ireland. Such funds should have been geared towards the development of the kingdom. The king also taxes commoners who are not in a position to pay tax.

This is also a case of abuse of power and freedom. Lastly, King Richard II imposes huge fines on the nobles whose ancestors had committed crimes against the kingdom. This is a grave injustice because the nobles are made to pay for the crimes that they did not commit. These cases of abuse of power by King Richard II also indicate that Shakespeare agrees with Kants view of human nature and political reality.

Misuse Of Power And Freedom By King Henry IV

King Henry IV also misuses his power and freedom after he successfully overthrows King Richard II. His first case of abuse of power is when he kills all the people who had been loyal to King Richard II. These people include Bushy, Green and the Earl of Wiltshire. It is thought that after seeing all the injustices committed by King Richard II, King Henry IV would replace him as a virtuous leader.

However, this is not the case. King Henry merely carries on with the same abuse of power and freedom perpetrated by his predecessor. The similarity between King Henry IVs leadership and King Richard IIs leadership also points out to the fact that it is difficult to find a leader who will not abuse his freedom and authority in absence of any supervision. Thus, Shakespeare fully agrees with Kant on this issue.

Conclusion

It can be inferred from the above discussion that Shakespeare concurs with Immanuel Kants view of human nature and political reality. They both agree that finding a leader who is able to perform his or her duties in a proper way and without the abuse of authority is impossible. The cases of abuse of power by King Richard II and King Henry IV lend credence to the point that Shakespeares views on this matter are similar to Kants views.

Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel. Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View. Trans. Lewis White Beck. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1963. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Richard II, ed. by Andrew Gurr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Print.

To succeed at answering the first question, it is necessary to clearly understand the difference between the two types of taking the information from various sources, i. e. paraphrasing and quoting. Thus, paraphrasing is the process of taking an idea from a certain source but putting it in the writers own words. In respect of quoting, the latter must be properly acknowledged, put in quotation marks with the further indication of the author, publishing date, and the specific page number from which the information quoted was retrieved. The issue here is that if a person quotes something from a source but uses the rules of paraphrasing to acknowledge the source, the quoted information becomes plagiarism because it was taken directly from the source and not marked as quoting. The following examples from the work by Stevenson and Haberman (2004) demonstrate the unacceptable and acceptable instances of paraphrasing and explain the reasons for their (un)acceptability:

We have here two systems of belief that are total in their scope. Traditionally, Christians and Marxists claim to have the essential truth about the whole of human life; they assert something about the nature of all human beings, at any time and in any place. And these worldviews claim not just intellectual assent but practical action; if one really believes in either theory, one should accept its implications for ones way of life and act accordingly (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004, p. 7).

As a last point of comparison, note that for each belief system, there has been a human organization that claims the allegiance of believers and asserts a certain authority of both doctrines and practice. For Christianity there is the Church, and for Marxism the Communist Party. Or, to be more accurate, there have long been rival Christian churches and a variety of Marxist or communist parties. Each makes competing claims to follow the true doctrine of its founder, defining rival versions of the basic theory as orthodox and following different practical policies (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004, p. 7  8).

Unacceptable paraphrasing

There are two systems of belief that are total in their scope. Christianity and Marxism claim to know everything about the whole of human life, the nature of all human beings, at any time and in any place. Not only intellectual assent, but practical action is involved in this worldview. The supporters of each theory should accept its implications for ones way of life and act accordingly.

To complete the comparison, a human organization that claims the allegiance of believers and asserts a certain authority of both doctrines and practice stands behind each belief. There is the Church for Christianity, while Marxists have the Communist Party. To be more accurate, there are rival Christian churches and communist parties that make competing claims to follow the true doctrine of its founder, defining rival versions of the basic theory as orthodox and following different practical policies.

This way of paraphrasing is unacceptable because the bulk of words from the original are simply copied. There is also no indication of quoting, i. e. no quotation marks for the copied words to make the paraphrasing a quotation and no acknowledgement of the author of the words paraphrased. To correctly cite paraphrasing, it is necessary to place the name of the author of the source paraphrased and the date of the source publishing. Paraphrasing does not demand quotation marks and the indication of the specific page the information was taken from.

Acceptable paraphrasing

The two belief systems discussed, Christianity and Marxism, are similar in the claims of knowing the truth about life and human nature. The supporters of each belief have to adopt theoretical and practical policies of either Christianity or Marxism (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004).

Also, each belief system is supported by the human organization. Thus, Christianity is promoted by Church, while Marxism is the ideology of the Communist party. In history, there were always several competing churches or communist parties that claimed loyalty to the founder and accused their competitors of violating the initial principles of either Christianity or Marxism (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004).

The above examples are acceptable instances of paraphrasing as far as they preserve the information from the original but put it in writers own words. The idea and the main notions of the messages are preserved, but the way of their presentation is changed. Moreover, no quotation marks are needed as the paragraphs are correctly paraphrased and modified. Finally, there are indications of the authors of the sources the information was taken from and the date of publishing of the sources. Therefore, the above examples of paraphrasing are acceptable and free of plagiarism.

The book by Stevenson and Haberman (2004) is a rather professional and detailed account on the ten dominant, according to the authors, theories of human nature that the mankind has ever produced. And the two initially addressed theories are Christianity or Marxism, which have a lot in common as Stevenson and Haberman (2004) argue. The first, and the most important, point of comparison is the consideration of both views on human nature as the closed systems. The meaning of this term is concentrated in the assumption, which is further proven in the book by Stevenson and Haberman (2004), that both Christianity and Marxism have complete worldview systems with their own values, ideas, and views of the creation of the human being, its role in the world, and opportunities for free choice and making changes in its life.

Although, the nature of the Christian and Marxist view on basic questions is completely different, Stevenson and Haberman (2004) find similarities in the presence of answers to basic human questions in each of the theories: Both Christianity and Marxism have beliefs about history&For the Christian, the meaning of history is given by its relation to the eternal&Marx claimed to find a pattern of progress in human history that is entirely internal to it (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004, p. 6). Thus, Christianity finds explanations to its basic questions in the spiritual sphere, while Marxism addresses rationale and science as the tool to explain purely materialistic, according to Marx, process of creation of the human being. As well, Christianity and Marxism consider the reasons for differences individual human beings display, the causes of human misfortunes and the ways to avoid the latter. Although differing in explanations of the above phenomena, Christianity and Marxism are similar in their focus on the same questions and, being complete systems of worldviews, they can be called closed systems.

Considering the theories of human nature, Stevenson and Haberman (2004) describe how religious people, according to them, confront philosophical challenges. The correctness of this account is disputable because religious people as such can be divided into two main types. The first type includes the people that worship a religion, Christianity in this case, and keep to all its principles. The second type includes people that hold beliefs of Christianity but do not feel obliged to follow its dogmas and have the religion-based worldview. Drawing from this, the generalizations made by Stevenson and Haberman (2004) that, for example, the Christian believes that only the power of God Himself can save us from our state of sin (p. 7), are true in relation to some Christians, but false for others.

Therefore, the views held by Stevenson and Haberman (2004) are not deprived of the rational core but what they need to become more adequate and applicable for the wider range of people is to avoid sweeping generalizations like in the example above. The degrees to which people are committed to the religions they worship are different, and therefore the account presented by Stevenson and Haberman (2004) lacks only the consideration of the practices of handling philosophical challenges adopted by those people, who are not very religious and admit scientific and materialistic explanations to some phenomena of the reality.

One of the mostly widespread theories of human nature is the so-called theory of determinism. Being initially a purely philosophical theory explaining the motivations and moving forces of the events, actions, etc. in the objective reality, determinism was introduced into the study of human nature as the belief that all human actions are conditioned exclusively by the preceding actions and their results, but not by the free will (Abel, 1991). In other words, determinism in the study of human nature is the idea of all actions being predetermined prior to their being actually committed by human beings (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004). For example, if a person thinks that he/she freely chooses the unskilled job, this decision is, according to determinism, actually the result of the persons failure to get education in the past.

Moreover, the theory of determinism is used in the human nature by the two rather influential movements. They are the movements of behaviorism and psychoanalysis, whose founders B. F. Skinner and Sigmund Freud respectively, attributed the prominent role to determinism in their ideas (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004; Abel, 1991). Thus, B. F. Skinner is a worldwide famous scholar and the father of natural determinism and behaviorism in the sphere of human nature studies. His ideas can be formulated in the statement that all human behaviors are internally and externally conditioned and the choices that human beings make allegedly on the basis of free will are actually predetermined.

In more detail, the ideas by Skinner are focused on genetic and environmental causes of every single action committed by every particular person (Abel, 1991). Skinner believes that human behavior is transferred at the genetic level and is also influenced by the environmental factors that include the circle of friends and acquaintances the person communicates within, the influences of the society, the system of punishments and rewards adopted in this society or in the particular family, etc (Abel, 1991). Based on this, B. F. Skinner does not reject the possibility of the human choice but says that even this allegedly free choice is predetermined by the above mentioned internal and external factors (Abel, 1991). Drawing from this, it is obvious that determinism was the part of Skinners theory of human nature called behaviorism.

Further on, Freuds theory of psychoanalysis can also be considered through the prism of determinism. Sigmund Freud searched for the reasons of human psychological issues in the unconscious and determinism was the most fitting theory to explain the relations between the unconsciousness and human actions. The very determinant of human actions, neurotic disorders, etc. was this or that process taking place in the human unconscious (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004; Abel, 1991). Thus, Freud considered the human psychology to be the determinant factor, which he used as one of the main tool of the psychoanalysis procedure. The latter was used by Sigmund Freud as the instrument of explaining human actions and behavior that cannot be explained in any other way but through determinism (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004; Abel, 1991). For instance, is a person has no obvious reasons to commit a crime and free will cannot be considered the reason for the latter, Freud would explain this crime by the unconsciously determined choice of this person.

Needless to say, Skinners theory of behaviorism based on determinist ideas caused a lot of controversy and various objections from different scholars. The three main areas that resulted in the widest dispute include the views of B. F. Skinner concerning language acquisition principles, higher cognitive skills, and human freedom on the whole (Weston, 2008). The bulk of the objections were delivered by either the supporters of biological determinism, like Chomsky, or the proponents of the free will theory in human nature study, like Staddon or Burgess (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004). The main objectives to Skinners behaviorist ideas include the following points made by Chomsky, Staddon, and Burgess:

1. Skinners purely scientific approach to explaining behaviors does not consider the probability of free will in making choices;
2. This theory cannot be applied to all occurrences of human behavior;
3. Based on Skinners views, criminals should be helped but not punished;
4. Skinners theory rejects the possibility of intention as the motivation for an activity;
5. Skinners theory undermines the importance of moral choice for peoples actions;
6. Skinners theory does not recognize innate abilities of human beings explaining any cognitive activity through punishment, rewards, and reinforcements from the environment;
7. Skinners views on language and higher cognitive skills acquisition reject the possibility of free choice or innate abilities;
8. Skinners theory undermines the very principles of valuing human freedom and is dangerous to the society.

To critically evaluate the reasonability of the above arguments, it is necessary to notice that the major opponent of Skinners views was Noam Chomsky, the supporter of the biological determinism and the fierce rival of the ultimate determinism by Skinner (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004). This stated, the arguments presented can be considered dually, i. e. from Chomskys viewpoint and from the point of view of an ordinary persons rationale. Considering the former perspective, Skinners views are too exclusive, i. e they exclude the possibility of any other scenario but determinism. Although Chomsky was not a supporter of free will theory either, his biological determinism and the possibility of innate abilities of people were ignored by Skinner, and it is natural that Chomsky criticized behaviorism.

Considering the latter perspective, it is actually hard to imagine that every action is predetermined and people are deprived of free will and freedom of choices at all. For example, when a person plans to draw a picture it is his/her intention to do it and it seems not to be determined by any circumstances. A human being can have intentions and put them into practice.

Moreover, the rejection of the intention and free will as peoples motivations would involve therapy for criminals but not their punishment as they cannot be hold responsible for their actions. If every deed is determined, than a person cannot control his/her criminal activities and cannot be punished for them. This approach is rather dangerous as it might help numerous criminals avoid responsibility for their actions.

Finally, scholarly research and experience of daily life proves that innate abilities have significance for cognitive skills acquisition. Thus, Skinners theory undermines this principle by rejecting innateness and basics of human freedom. Although it cannot be labeled as an inadequate theory for human nature study, behaviorism by Skinner needs to be more inclusive and less hostile to other theories. In its current approach to the human person, behaviorism cannot be used to explain the activities and behaviors of people.

Sigmund Freud was another scholar that resorted to the help of determinism in his theory of psychoanalysis through which he could get at the unconscious (Abel, 1991). There were six major techniques used by Freud that are still in use nowadays. They include dream analysis, para praxes, word associations, projective tests, free associations technique, and hypnosis. Based on the assumption that the unconscious is formed by hidden symbols that people learn from fairy tales, jokes, and communication acts, Freud asked patients to recall their dreams and analyzed the symbols observed (Abel, 1991).

This technique was called the royal road to the unconscious by Freud (Abel, 1991). Para praxes involved the analysis of slips of the tongue and pen of the patient, which, according to Freud, revealed the actual thoughts of the latter. The essence of word association technique was in asking the patient to pronounce the first word that comes to his her mind on hearing a word pronounced by Freud (Loptson, 2006). Projective tests involved analyzing the associations of a patient with the images, mainly abstract ones, shown to him/her by the analyst. Free associations technique was the analysis of the free topic chosen by the patient for conversation and his/her ideas expressed while talking on this topic. Finally, hypnosis was the most complicated procedure when the patient was placed in the state of trance and his/her unconscious was uncovered and easily analyzed by Freud.

Needless to say, the opponents of Freuds views claimed psychoanalysis was everything but a science. For instance, Wittgenstein called psychoanalysis a myth rather than a science as it was based on the ancient belief in the symbolic power of dreams and on myth-based interpretation of those symbols (Loptson, 2006). Moreover, Karl Popper challenged the scientific basis of the psychoanalysis because the latter operated with ideas and considerations that could not be tested in either empirical or theoretical way (Abel, 1991). Comparing psychoanalysis to Einsteins theory of relativity, Popper claimed that the latter could be challenged, tested, and disproved in case of proper experimental procedures undertaken, while psychoanalysis could not. Finally, McGinn calls psychoanalysis an intoxicating mixture of truth, half-truth, and sheer invention (Loptson, 2006, p. 24) and seems to complete its defeat as pseudo-science.

However, such an attitude towards the status of psychoanalysis as a science is not uniform. For example, my knowledge of human nature and of the peculiarities of the human personality has been considerably influenced by the theory of psychoanalysis by Freud. Through this theory I have widened my scope in human personality studies and found out such interesting facts about the human psychology as the interpretative nature of symbols from dreams, the possibility of uncovering the unconscious through associative techniques, and the usefulness of hypnosis for diagnostics and treatment of psychological disorders.

The views on human nature that are absolutely opposite to the views discussed above can be observed in the ideas by the French writer and philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, whose most famous expression is referred to by Stevenson and Haberman (2004) as the embodiment of belief in free will: Man is condemned to be free (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004, p. 4). Being a committed atheist, Sartre was however different from Marx in his idea that human life is not conditioned or determined by anything; human life, according to Sartre, is the process of making decision based on the free will of any particular human being. Moreover, the existentialist values of Sartre are reflected in his idea that there are no objective values for human living, only subjective individual choices (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004, p. 5). Thus, speaking about human nature, Sartre stands for the assumption that every human being fights for his/her interests and the choices he/she makes in this fighting are based on their free will only.

Thus, Sartres view of human nature and freedom is the absolute opposite to, for instance, the determinist theory of Skinner. The latter, as discussed above in this paper, held the view that determinism, either internal or external, rules the decisions and actions of people and rejected the very existence of such a phenomenon as free will (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004). Sartre was the fierce proponent of the free will and tended to explain every single human action through this phenomenon. The idea of the human being condemned to freedom can be directly opposed to the view by Skinner who argues that all activities are dictated by the genetic peculiarities of the person, his/her family environment and social influence upon this person (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004; Abel, 1991). Moreover, Skinner sees the great significance in reinforcement and encouragement in the process of skills acquisition, while Sartre sticks to the point that only subjective values of a person might make him/her take up a science or any other field of professional activity.

Drawing from this, supporters of each of the views have their reasons to consider their favorite theory to be superior. For instance, Skinners supporters might argue that determinism is the most scientific and rational explanation of human activities, especially the ones that do not fall into the category of rationally decided and freely chosen. Moreover, determinism explains the role of education and enforcement in it, while the theory of free will is made into a myth by determinists. The supporters of the free will theory and Sartres views, on the other hand, do not even assume that a person can act based on a certain external factor other than his or her own will and rational grounding. The free will theory stands on the position that all people obviously pursue their subjective interests and goals, and are not limited in their actions by any factors from the environment. Whichever theory is correct, the study of human nature still demands more research to be carried out and more theories to be formulated to present the only adequate theory of the human personality.

Works Cited

1. Abel, Donald (Ed.). Theories of Human Nature. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 1 edition, 1991.
2. Loptson, Peter. Theories of Human Nature. Broadview Press; 3 edition, 2006.
3. Stevenson, Leslie and David Haberman. Ten Theories of Human Nature. Oxford University Press, USA; 4 edition, 2004.
4. Weston, Anthony. A Rulebook for Arguments. Hackett Pub Co; 4 Revised edition, 2008.

Human beings were created in a very special way because they are the only species that can question their own character. Now that we understand how we came into being, it is also important to understand why we behave in a certain manner. The knowledge of both good and bad enables man to control his environment. Some people feel that the good and bad exist by default, and they are used for our own advantage. For instance, when attacked by another person one has to fight back in self-defense.

On the other hand, when other people do good things to us we respond by appreciating their good gesture through the good things that we do to them or offer them, such as presents and hugs. This paper seeks to assert that we are neither born bad nor good by the human nature, but rather we have power to make choices.

In this regard, man is induced to do bad or good things by the people around him. However, this argument is not true because there are many people who offend others without a good reason. For instance, why would someone who is hardly known to you break into your house and take away your personal belongings?

This suggests that people do good or bad things when it suits them because in the above scenario the bugler engages in crime as a way of earning his daily bread. This can only be acceptable when that person may have tried other means and failed to achieve the desired results. It is then expected that if the person who is bad to people finds an alternative way of earning his daily bread he would switch to being good.

Behavior Starts Before Birth

When a child is born, it cannot tell the difference between the good and the wrong things and it only depends on the guidance provided by the parents and guardians. It then follows that if the parents do not correct the child early enough he/she will grow to be a bad person and the parents should then bear all the blame.

Besides that, the people that one associates with play a major role in building ones character. This is because if the friends one interacts with are of bad character they may influence that person negatively. This is very common among adolescents because they hardly recognize themselves. Because they long for recognition, they do whatever their friends do, just to be accepted. It only dawns on them later in life that they have independent lives.

Human behavior commences before the baby is born. This is evidenced by the fact that unborn babies engage in numerous activities while still in the womb of their mothers such as sucking their own fingers. Ekman asserts that this argument can be proved true by observing a pregnant woman by using a scanner.

When the baby is finally born, it does not care whether what it does is good or bad because it only cares about itself. When this attitude is allowed to grow that child grows to be a bad person because he/she wants to things in his/her favor and does not consider the people affected by his/her actions. This attitude is expressed as selfishness because it causes people to focus on themselves and ignore other people.

Bad Things Are Easy To Do

Another argument that explains why some people are bad is that bad things are easily done than good things. Doing good things is perceived to be tiring and takes longer to accomplish the intended purpose.

For instance, if one needs to buy a car he/she needs to work harder including working extra hours and avoiding some luxuries to enable him/her to save enough money and it may take several years to achieve this goal. On the other hand, stealing somebody elses car makes it easy to achieve this goal because it takes a few minutes to do so.

Most people are initially good, but then there are circumstances in their lives that cause their behavior to be transformed. This is because in as much as one wants to do good things to others, there are many people who respond to their noble behavior by doing bad things. This causes the people who are good to be discouraged because their conduct does not attract the expected behavior from others.

Consider a famous person like Osama Bin Laden, who was viewed by his educators as a very humble person, but his late transformation into a seasoned terrorist sent tremor across the globe until he was recently captured. This argument implies that if one does not beget what he/she gives then that person ceases to be good. For instance, if one is honest, but keeps on being lied to he/she will also be tempted to lie.

Buller argues that our environment plays a major role in transforming our character. This is because if a child is raised up in a warring country, the first thing he/she will learn is to defend him/herself by learning how to use the various weapons at his/her disposal. Some people are bad or good because they inherited some personality traits from their parents lineage.

For instance, a child may grow to be a bank robber or a priest while none of his parents were interested in these careers (being a robber is also a career) but a close evaluation of the parents family tree could reveal that one of the ancestors was a robber or a religious leader. This means that a couple of good personality can sire children who are social misfits.

Human behavior is also influenced by gender, which is, being male or female. Men tend to be more physically aggressive owing to their masculinity while women are gentler because they are not physically strong.

Additionally womens gentleness is important when it comes to mothering because if children were to be nursed by men, human population would be at risk of being gradually eliminated from the surface of the earth.

Women are neater than men are, because they are sensitive to fowl smells unlike their male counterparts who can go for days without taking a bath. The society expects men to be vigilant because they are the ones responsible of defending the community.

Biological or Theoretical Perception

A theory of human nature must have a reflection right from the beginning whether it sees human beings in essentially biological terms, as animals like other animals, or else in essentially supernatural terms, as creatures who are like God in some unique way, and therefore outstandingly unlike other animals. Most of the perennial philosophical arguments have proved so obstinate in one way or another because their supporters divide along these lines.

Those who perceive that human beings as just a particular complex materials found everywhere on Earth, suppose that we are ultimately formed out of the same material structure from which animals are made. If that could be the case that human beings were constituted of the same material form like animals, then according to the friends of dualism, such a scenario could hardly do any justice to what is considered special about the human nature.

Equally, according to the Libertarians, strongly non-deterministic conceptions of free will see something special out of human naturalness and moral responsibility. To their rivals, human beings do operate on the same standards, although more complex, as do squid and plankton.

Such perceptions and others should not bring a division along the religious cut lines. One many oppose naturalism without even reflecting on supernatural theistic outlook. For instant, one might view it that human beings are essentially unlike other biological creatures, but yet not to suppose that we have been made to be that way by a higher power.

Equally, the theist may perceive it as part of the divine plan in having human beings as nothing much than being the most complete and complex of the biological organisms, composed of the same form and guarded by the same laws.

Therefore, even though I have described between two perceptions, biological and naturalistic against theological and supernatural- detains an important fault that runs through the intense debate over the human nature, it by no other means determines all of ones successive philosophical choices. According to the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, it exemplifies on the sort of tensions that do arise out of this two perceptions.

For while, the entire orientation of Aquinass work is merely theistic, not at all does he harbor any sympathy for a naturalistic, biological appreciation of the human nature. In some of the cases, for instance, in his account of the human intellect, the supernaturalism perception clearly wins out.

In some instances, as in the conception of the human beings as a make-up of the soul- body union, it is likewise clear that biological considerations are paramount. In still other incidences, for instance, on his opinion on free will, it becomes very difficult to state the thoughts that hold way, and the preference of the interpreters of his works is largely presided over by their individual predictions.

The conventional ways of making this point clear, of whether we have a human nature, is by describing Aquinas as mediating between the theological teachings of the church and Aristotle philosophical writings. On historical perspective, this is an apt place to begin thinking about the Aquinas philosophy, because it is very certain that the challenges that Aquinas encountered in his career work was find a common place for Aristotles newly recorded works within the prevailing framework of Christian belief.

Finding a place for Aristotle meant going deep into finding a place for a conception of human nature, which is biological in its general course. Though one may try to reconcile Aristotle and Christianity, however, essential as it may seem to be to understanding Aquinas historical situation, does not fit the natural  supernatural peculiarity as precisely as one might expect. This is because even the Aristotles notion of soul is essentially biological.

On the other hand, there are propensities in the Christian thoughts towards treating the body in a spiritual fashion, as a temporary prison of the soul. Moreover, there is also the doctrine of resurrection, whereby the separation of the body is an impermanent state of affairs, which will be remedied by the bodys eventual reinstatement, for all the eternity, at the final judgment.

Aquinas therefore, understands the resurrection as pointing towards the essential biological character of the human nature, in the sense that human beings are not only souls, but also incarnate souls. Although it is very certain that Aquinas regards intellectual and volitional powers as the greatest attributes of humankind, which arises from the side of the soul rather than the body, he is yet obstinate that an entire understanding of the human nature requires one to understand the body nature as well.

Human beings are not created as pure spiritual beings as angels who are nothing more than the incorporeal minds, that is not who the human beings are. Human beings are essentially mind-body complexes. So for one to understand if really we have a human nature, the study of the mental capacities, intellectual and will is not be enough, but the entire human body.

According to Hobbess conception on human nature, he considers the principles of human action as being progressive, which accounts for human motivation. He also views human nature as a being able to organize the society. A fundamental feature of his claim on the human nature is that, Hobbes has an atomistic conception of the human society, and this is based on his study on physics. Hobbes rejects organisms, by asserting that human beings were prompted into motion by the mechanical effects triggered from the senses.

They were not only supposed to be used for reflex actions, but rather use them also in guiding their actions away from those, which might be harmful, and towards those that might be termed as beneficial. He also argues that a human person is also embodied into having power to compete with others, for instance in a case where there is auctioneering. He therefore considers competing power as a necessity feature of human nature (Hobbes 23).

Conclusion

Currently, there is no common agreement on the connection and knowledge of natural sciences in the advancement of human nature concerning philosophical or religious ideologies. Such conformity or perception cannot be feasible when there is no common concept explaining the human nature.

Conclusively and putting into consideration the diverse theories from theologians and philosophers as discussed, we can say that we have a human nature that is not only composed of the soul and mind but rather by the entire body. We are neither born bad nor good by the human nature, but rather we have power to make choices. The society or the environment we are living in may influence the choices we make.

Works Cited

Buller, David. Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2005. Print.

Ekman, Paul. Darwins Compassionate View of Human Nature. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 303.6 (2010): 557-558. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.101.

Haidt, Jonathan. The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. New York: Basic Books, 2006. Print.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. London: Penguin, 1985. Print.

Rutherford, James. An Ecological Organic Paradigm: A Framework of Analysis for Moral and Political Philosophy. Journal of Consciousness Studies., 6.10 (1999): 81103. Electronic.

Savage, Joanne, and Satoshi Kanazawa. Social Capital, Crime, and Human Nature. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 18.2 (2002): 188-211. doi: 10.1177/1043986202018002005.