Category: Human Nature

Introduction

In the observation of human behaviours examined in Machiavelli book, The Prince, he offers advice to the leaders especially politicians regarding how to gain and remain in power. People regard a prince as someone destined to inherit controlled leadership. The prince as illustrated in this text was someone with no secure measures to gain and retain the power.

If carefully considerations are made, some of the earlier tactics implemented in the Prince case are applicable for todays leadership as they were way before in the sixteenth century. In his illustrations, Machiavelli exemplifies ideas over leadership styles as harsh and brutal. These might be the presentation pointing to the science in the political world. This paper is forms an analytical perspective of the Machiavellis book with regards to Human Nature.

Relevant aspects of The Prince

Principalities

According to Machiavelli, presentation of the laws of rule occurred through Republics or Principalities. The basis of the rule of principality is hereditary or established through the family lines. How are the rules of principalities supposed to be preserved?

As opposed to the freelance style of leadership, one of the difficulties over the heredity or one family customized leadership style that reflects to a hierarchical prince is the ability to contravene the ancestral background to be in a position of prudently control the outcome of circumstances as they arise in the modern world. (16)

Accurate and clear presentation of relevant aspects of The Prince

Statesmanship

According to Machiavelli, good laws emerge from good governance probably by utilizing the military style; he wrote that the military forces are the indication for safe law enforcement. An illustrated war is as a necessity for leadership but not definitive element of development in various states. Logically all states may have been build through violence and The Prince indicates the possibilities of conducting a good and productive war.

Much productiveness provided on this text shows efficiency in diplomacy, domestic politics, tactical strategies, geographical mastery and historical analysis. War entails more than just physical encounter by military forces. From The Prince context, all armed prophets have succeeded and all unarmed ones have failed; in addition to what has already been said, people are by nature changeable. (Machiavelli, 27)

Goodwill

Love from followers is not a requirement for a prince to remain in power but it is crucial for him to avoid hate by all possible ways. Fear is much better as opposed to hatred since the latter can cause easy downfall from power. In his advocacy on utility of cruelty in leadership, Machiavelli did not compromise peoples special long-term goodwill. He illustrated goodwill as the best defensive mechanism over domestic rebellion and foreign hostility.

Freewill

According to Machiavelli (86), properly achieved power is through competence and affluence is termed as Fortune, which is just by chance while competence is, Prowess which is more connected to talent. Determined power is therefore by a persons freewill and the nature of the environment.

People have the power of shaping the destiny through confidence but this confidence is never absolute, therefore people can be able to shield against fortunes vicissitudes through foresight. According to Machiavelli, (86) earlier leadership style compared fortune to a woman who, in order to be mastered needed to be jogged and beaten.

Virtue

As Machiavelli puts it, virtue is the quality of a leadership praised by others. These may include but not limited to generosity, compassion, and piety. A good leader tries to appear confident and virtuous but this is not always supportive of principality. There are aspects pursued for the advantage of the state and not personal benefit. For instance, a prince should not employ cruelty or dishonesty if it benefits the state. It is important to conceive such measures with the measure of its impact to the state and not its intrinsic moral values.

Machiavellis guidelines over human nature

In line with Machiavellis writing, Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves as an advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present. (90)

This translates that human nature unsurprisingly builds some traits such as self-interest, and dynamic human affections. As long as someone is not subject to a bad act then happiness prevails. People feel obliged to response when they receive a favour or service. According to Machiavelli, achieving loyalty is possible but when friendliness is never complete, it is lost.

An average powered prince should well established along the authority commanded and should have little or no cause for offending. The relationship with people will be strong and such leaders experience love unless unexpected misdemeanours cause hatred. It also translates that the subjects of such a leader are naturally disposed towards him. One change creates memories or intentions marshalled towards such a leaders style or connected to her/his style of leadership and it recurs with commencing problems for another idea.

The reasons to investigate human nature business wise or professionally

Machiavelli does not portray how leadership would be like within a civil government setting. Winning and losing peoples affection is common and they remain happy if there is no suffering or oppression due to failure. During the dissimilar or stressful times the same characteristics of trustworthiness portrayed during prosperous times changes to selfishness, deceitfulness, and profit-driven traits.

Business wise people admire respect, liberality, courage and faithfulness but the virtue of trust among them is left bearing in mind their ambitious nature just as if leaders are over-ambitious.

With regard to the ways that a leader can come into power as indicated in The Prince (53), prowess means ability to have personal skills and aptitude. This is a much more demanding way of obtaining status than concentrating on mare good luck. Good luck means dependence on charity or goodwill from friends. Also referred to as fortune, luck is quite unpredictable and may lead to a deposition as it had brought the prosperity.

Compared to prowess it is advisable for one to use personal skills to maintain the rules. Use of crime is also common phenomenon in leadership but a good manager should maintain leadership rules. Crimes, coup, conspiracy or assassination poses a great risk to the leader, they may lead to cruelty over the main subject matter affecting the business due to hatred or bitterness among the general population in this case employees. (54).

A good leader does not work to gain power but respect, which is a combination of both power and glory. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. (Machiavelli, 60)

The mixed principalities over human nature

Any new principal in leadership encounters natural difficulties. People change rulers willingly as they seek better results and this makes them to become incoherent and against the ruler. Naturally, considering this as a deception, such reactions normally lead from bad to worse scenarios. The burden befalls those who stand submitted and in solidarity of new acquisitions. Such a leader must therefore have goodwill for the people to prosper. According to Machiavelli (5), the prince, with little reluctance, takes the opportunity of the rebellion to punish the delinquents, to clear out the suspects, and to

Success and failures of Machiavellis Theory of human nature

Some of the evident successes of the theories include the in-depth analysis of human nature in order to formulate recommendations for rulers. Some of the evident points included the personality, which portrays leaders as interested in themselves. They continuously have the mindset of Whats in it for me.

During their tenure, the focus is on honour or property as opposed to peoples needs. Evidently, to date, financial greed motivates leaders but forces them to stay put satisfied with the general states of affairs. Nevertheless, they still aim at achieving more powers by aspiring diligently unless compromised to react otherwise by external forces.

Machiavelli noted, When neither their property nor honour is touched, the majority of men live content lives. In this scenario, it is evidently true that they react in a trustworthy manner in good times or when they have different motives that will enable them to achieve some personal gain and at time of distress, they react dishonestly.

Today there is continuous buying of leadership but the leaders forget that bought friends are not true and are prone to radical changes. If the lack of accrued friendship by magnitude or through dignity of mind occurs, then it is not secure or reliable because it is prone to radical change within no time.

On the perspective of the same theories, Machiavelli acknowledges other virtues such as skills, wisdom, strength, high-quality decision-making ability, cunning, freewill and prowess. There are also fortune aspects such as luck/chance, probabilities, variations and external forces, which are basis for a leaders control.

In his argument, they play an important role in controlling human behaviour and proceedings and carry nearly similar significance and control as the outcomes. Therefore a prince will not actually need to have all the qualities previously mentioned, but he must surely seem to have them. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that having them all and always conforming to them would be harmful, while appearing to have them would be useful. (Machiavelli, 63)

The failure of these assumptions is time since freewill was not common then as it is today. Other writes based their theories and thought to be beyond human control. Today as opposed to earlier times, people do not base event procedures to religions and believes but reality and logic.

They believe exclusively on divine destiny. It is barely impossible to base leadership on imitation of others as suggested by Machiavelli. It is equally ridiculous to learn traits of leadership from observing animals behaviours as he relates some virtues of leaderships such as strength and ferocity to the loin and slyness, cunning, understanding, and ability to manoeuvre through enemies to the fox.

One major question is whether a leader should be loved, feared or hated. Most leaders would choose love and fear at the same time but they rarely rhyme. It is therefore safer fearing a leader than loving.

The aspect that men would love according to personal will and fear out of will my be a personal opinion based upon the theory that they react in a dishonest manner while this do not go well, while break even when it is advantageous to them. I conclude that since men love as they themselves determine but fear as their ruler determines a wise prince must rely upon what he and not others can control. (Machiavelli, 61) The anxiety for punishment preserves fear and this generally never fail.

Conclusion

Writing of The prince does not advocate for cruelty or other vices for leadership, but vices are for the reason that they safeguard prosperity of the state. Since a virtue should not take precedence over the states affairs, although admirable, avoiding generosity during leadership tenure is important because it may be a detrimental factor over future prosperity of the state. According to the cases portrayed by Machiavelli (57), a leader acts generously to produce the best consequences and that is the nature for utilitarianism

The Virtue of human nature in relation to The Prince

According to Machiavelli, the basis of the ruler who in the office has the capability vary the personal conduct from good to evil and vice versa as the fortune or circumstances dictates. (66) Incidentally, virtue has a close connection to Machiavelli notion regarding power. Through virtue, a ruler is bund to competence in situations concerning application of power in politics as a touchstone for political success.

Thru understanding of virtues such, as right or wrong both ancient and modern ideas propose a theory of human nature. From the classical sense of the term virtue, Machiavelli interpretation of human nature shows a completely different angle and assumption compared to the modern definition and classical interpretation of the same.

For instance, the modern definition of human nature indicates non-existence of a connection between politics and moral virtue. The classical view on the other hand indicates them as connected.

Kantian theory

The Kantian account of human nature indicates the biological nature of human beings with the complexity of the human mental abilities. Description of various predispositions is in terms of the purposes served. They provide the grounds for casual regulations, which determine human cognition, desires and feelings in relation to the environment. The argument taken by this study indicates existence of good empirical anthropology as the basis for an argument about moral claims of human beings.

The argument placed by Machiavelli indicates that free republics are pacifistic and certainly, the best for royal expansion and a guarantee for state survival. This is a classical and not democratic style of leadership .Machiavelli thought was that it would degenerate to tyranny founded on the modern style of liberal overview of elementary human rights. According to him, the powerful people threatened tyranny because they wanted to dominate while the mass reaction was against such dominance.

He believes in liberal imperialism, whereby people love glorifications and seeks to rule or avoid oppression. This is an indication that people want more for their personal and states gain as opposed to just the material interests. The historical records on post war periods of United States support Machiavelli argument but modern records conflicts since over liberty indicate questionable insights over control thus outweighing aggressiveness.

The pragmatic theory of human nature

The philosophical definition of truth is the opinion ultimately agreed upon by those concerns. It is an agreement with reality over decisions and it works towards the human satisfaction. The theory attempts to outlay the consequences of emotions in relation to nature of concept and methods involved in governance.

Machiavelli adopted the position of pragmatic and principals through the experience. His writing of the prince he references the greatly on France because of his vast experience as a diplomat and secretary in the government. His writing contains no overenthusiastic praise of the monarchy system of hereditary governance, which supposedly was to promote superiority of the republicans.

His aim was to praise the republican style of governance over the monarchy system. Even the most excellent monarchy system of governance lacks the salient quantities. His work however praise the France monarchy system because of their excellence in dedication to the law compared to other kingdoms. The kingdom of France is moderated more by laws than any other kingdom of which at our time we have knowledge, Machiavelli declares (314)

Works Cited

Machiavelli, Niccolao, 1469-1527. The prince. New York, NY: Penguin Classics Press 2003

Hobbes establishes a definite picture of what human beings represent. He believes that they do not have special rights, although one can be entitled to everything simultaneously, as any moral order is non-existent (Lawhead, 2014). Humans are egoists who lack sympathy for others, driven by the desire to survive (Lawhead, 2014). Thus, they either want peace or the means to defend themselves, as the natural state is that of fear (Lawhead, 2014). Consequently, humans are willing to restrict themselves to pursue their best interests (Lawhead, 2014). Overall, human nature is selfish, and following any rules would be for personal gain.

Hobbes is realistic in his views, which is reflected in how he treats nature and physical facts. The philosopher does not idolize the former, believing it to be rather hostile, as humans have to survive (Lawhead, 2014). Then, he emphasizes physical facts over a moral order, insisting that people create laws based on reality rather than spiritual ideas (Lawhead, 2014). Lastly, what does not make Hobbes cynical is his advocacy for social conventions, which are the means for survival and peace (Lawhead, 2014). Altogether, Hobbes is realistic, relying on facts and prioritizing a social explanation of the government over divine rights.

According to Hobbes, human beings create a government to survive. They abandon their rights to live peacefully, allowing a sovereign or an assembly to preside over them to make everyone abide by the agreement (Lawhead, 2014). The government alone decides what is lawful to prevent anarchy, which appears antagonistic to the state of peace (Lawhead, 2014). Having a division of power is a sign of weakness, and Hobbes contemporary events informed him of its dangers. Generally, peace is achieved by creating a government and forsaking individual rights in favor of one entity to ensure humans chaos-less existence.

Reference

Lawhead, W. F. (2014). The voyage of discovery: A historical introduction to philosophy (4^th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Introduction

Although human beings are not all the same, they are sometimes expected to feel the same and do similar things. In general, the motivation and context of theories can vary as much as the theories themselves. For almost all its history, philosophy has overlapped with many other areas of thought. One mark of philosophy, however, has been its preoccupation with comprehensive understanding of basic concepts and realities. This paper examines various theories of human nature.

Theories of Human Nature

One of Confucius central concerns, in life and in his philosophy, was the possible transition from being an agreeable person who usually behaved fairly well to a more advanced and refined state of being a reliably good person.

The goal was to be someone who had internalized, and also enjoyed, a life of virtuous action and harmonious human interaction. This is an underlying ethical concern which lends itself to an emphasis on the things in us that would make possible such a transition.

Confucius follower, Mengzi, specifically identified the crucial element in us which is a tendency toward benevolent impulses. The benevolent impulse typically comes and goes, and is often overridden by strong impulses of a selfish nature.

Nevertheless, Mengzi argued that these occasional benevolent impulses showed that each of us has psychological tendencies that could be built upon in becoming consistently benevolent people. Although his later rival Xunzi had a somewhat bleaker view of what most of us are like, he too thought that there were normal human tendencies which showed that a transition to a genuine virtue was possible.

The ancient Upanishads focused on an impersonal spiritual core known as atman. This hardly implies that we are perfect or spiritual in our daily lives. It is, however, taken as pointing toward the possibility that we could transform our daily lives and liberate ourselves from the concerns of the world. This would require focusing on our atman and its ultimate identity with the divine nature of the universe.

Buddhas philosophy starts out by denying the existence of an atman which yields a more complicated view than that of the Upanishads of what human beings are essentially like. Unfortunately, it also leads to a basic human problem. Because we have the illusion of having a self, and because we also have desires, we inevitably will suffer. Buddhas career was devoted first to finding, and then disseminating, a solution to this problem.

Part of the cure was to find his picture of what human beings are like. This facilitates clearing ones thought of the elements that lead to suffering.

It also, to the extent to which reincarnation is meaningful, makes it possible for us to liberate ourselves from further reincarnation and instead, to enter a blissful state known as nirvana. A specific motivation for the theory of human nature is the desire for effective therapy and also liberation. Something like this is true of the Christian doctrine of original sin, as different as it is from Buddhas view.

If a tendency to have occasional bad impulses is inherent in human nature, then every one of us must guard against it and also learn to be self-critical. Salvation remains a possibility, but moving toward it will be facilitated by an understanding of what the problem is. In general, a sense of our own limitations and needs really matters. In a way, original sin is one side of the picture while the other side of it is grace.

The picture we get at the dawn of Western philosophy in Athens is different and more mixed. Plato and Aristotle had multiple sources for their theories of human nature. They both believed that good education can make possible a transition from being a somewhat good person to being a thoroughly and reliably good person. In this they are a little like Confucius, although their ideas of what the right sorts of education differ greatly.

In addition, both Plato and Aristotle had what we nowadays would term extremely analytical minds. The general assumption was that to be a certain kind of thing was to have a certain kind of nature, shared with everything else that fits the same general description. Human beings, as Aristotle said, are rational animals.

Platos analysis of the human soul had been that it had three parts, among which reason should dominate. This is not entirely the same as what Aristotle then said, but does point in the same general direction. We can appreciate this better if we contrast the preoccupations of ancient Greek culture with those of recent Western thought. The ancient Greeks seemed to focus on the differences between human beings and animals, whereas in recent Western thought more attention is paid to similarities.

The eighteenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant shared the view that reason is a central feature of human nature. The concerns that led him to this were not, however, entirely the same as those of Plato and Aristotle. They had more to do with the idea that reason is the element in human nature that grounds morality.

Views of human nature very different from Kants had developed before him among the British philosophers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries including those of Thomas Hobbes, Bishop Joseph Butler, and David Hume. These philosophers were concerned with the real world roots of social relations such as our restraint in interacting with other people and our respect for legal and political authority.

Thomas Hobbes was a great pioneer in this, although both Butler and Hume then saw him as an extremist of sorts, who had developed a one-sided view of human nature. Hobbes lived through the English civil war, in which the Puritans finally defeated and executed King Charles I, and setup a parliamentary government led by Oliver Cromwell.

To some extent, Hobbes experienced a society that had fallen apart. It was natural for him to attempt to analyze how societies, in more normal times, remain cohesive and functional. However, Hobbes concern now seems oddly topical. There certainly are areas of the world in which once viable societies have fallen apart, leaving little effective law and order. One might think of the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Iraq as notable examples.

This, however, is not true of countries like Britain, Australia, and America. Much as someone who is quite healthy must consider the possibility of becoming sick, we should keep our minds open to the idea that we may not be entirely immune to what has happened elsewhere. As Hobbes saw it, the key to a viable society is a social contract. This is thought of as an agreement that has at least two components.

One is a general commitment to a structure of laws and moral obligations while the other is a commitment to recognize the authority of a government, and of the person or persons in charge. Hobbes tried to be realistic about these commitments. He knew that they did not represent 100 per cent compliance and that we still had to lock up our valuables and watch our purses and wallets. All the same, a viable society requires its members, by and large, to be inclined to comply.

It is always tempting to regard competing philosophies as starkly and diametrically opposed to one another. This makes for a dramatic and simple picture when in fact, no major philosopher ever denied that there are selfish and appetitive elements in what we are like. Butler and Hume did differ from Hobbes in claiming that we needed a fuller and more complete picture of human nature.

Butlers position was that, just in terms of the construction of personal satisfaction, relations of caring for other people generally contribute to our lives. Ordinarily, altruism and self interest often run in the same direction. This becomes especially clear if we factor in the satisfactions of harmonious relations with people we care for, who may well care for us. Fortunately, people tend to care for others and to have some inclination toward harmonious relations with others. Although this was left out of Hobbes account, it is real.

Like Kant, Hume also held that we can best understand morality if we see it as something rooted in human nature. Hobbes had portrayed morality as one of the products of selfishness represented by the social contract. Hume argued against this, asserting that morality rests on organized normal human sentiments of sympathy or benevolence. One notion that Hobbes, Butler, Hume, and Kant all shared was that basically they regarded the construction of the human society as a success.

Sartre and Arendt were much more concerned with the development of an individual nature than some of their predecessors had been. Sartre argued that human beings are radically different, in being inherently incomplete in their natures, from ordinary physical objects.

The incompleteness of an individuals nature is linked to the freedom inherent in human life. Although Arendt denied that she had a theory of human nature, studies indicate that she actually had one. She claimed that the revealing of a distinct nature is characteristic of human life.

Conclusion

Comprehensive theories of personality should aspire to include both a specification of human nature and an account of the major ways in which individuals differ.

Evolutionary psychology provides a powerful heuristic for the discovery of both. Since the evolutionary process is the only creative process capable, in principle, of producing complex organic mechanisms, all theories of human nature must, be anchored in the basic principles of evolution by selection. Theories of personality that are inconsistent with these evolutionary principles stand little or no chance of being correct.

All of these theories of human nature are guided largely by a sense of human potential. This is less true of many accounts in Western philosophies that place correspondingly more emphasis on what people are like even in an unfulfilled state. In general, theories of individual differences, however, cannot be separated from theories of human nature.

The essence of the avocado vs. artichoke debate lies in the dynamic of opposing ideas of essentialism and proteanism in philosophy. According to the avocado view of philosophy, humans have a core that defines them, similar to the fruit. Even when the outer layer of skin and insides are removed from it, the seed can be planted again, giving life to the same fruit. On the contrary, artichoke has layers with nothing inside. If it is pealed, nothing will be left. Resembling artichoke, nothing in human nature remains constant in this view. While essentialism reinforces the idea of unchanging human nature, proteanism supports the view that external influences can transform a person.

Western vs. Eastern philosophy

Moreover, these views reflect the contrasting essence of Western and Eastern philosophical traditions. While Western philosophy is relatively consistent and rooted in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, its Eastern counterpart distinguishes itself by its diversity. Ames (2022) writes, the fundamental distinctions between a Greek substance ontology grounded in the self-sufficiency of being (ousia) and a classical Chinese cosmology& becoming & (p. 61). In other words, Chinese culture and philosophy focus on extrinsic circumstances and how they affect humans; meanwhile, Western tradition gravitates toward inward individualistic exploration of the human condition.

Feminist view of the debate

Furthermore, the concept and the interpretation of Plato and Aristotle bear some problematic implications for the modern-day feminist movement. This perspective aligns with the outdated theories that portray men as inherently rational and women  as emotional, incapable of reasoning, and in need of domination. Combined with the concept of avocado, these thoughts dismiss any possibility of change and influence of external factors, including upbringing and socialization. Therefore, feminist thinkers emphasize this aspect of the debate more, demanding the scrutiny of the essentialism foundations.

Conclusion

The avocado vs. artichoke debate addresses the age-old question of whether people can change and the implications of this fact. Both views present quite polarizing extremes and have outdated pre-conceived notions, as in the case of essentialism. As psychology and neurology develop more in recent years, it becomes clearer that the answer to the debate can lie somewhere in the middle, combining both ideas and averaging out their more controversial sides.

References

Ames, R. T. (2022). Unloading the Essentialism Charge: Some Methodological Reflections in Doing Philosophy of Culture. Comparative Philosophy and Method: Contemporary Practices and Future Possibilities, 55.

Hobbes asserts that human beings cannot understand the nature and power of God due to their limited thoughts. However, they can learn about Gods desires for them through dreams and visions. Hobbes gives an example of Marcus Brutus who communicated with God through a vision. Hobbes asserts that human beings can also learn about God through miracles, and he refers to miracles as Gods work (Watkins 27-35). On the same issue, he concludes that not all miracles are true because some of them are just tricks. Therefore, human beings must discern true miracles from false ones in order to understand how God is all-powerful.

Furthermore, Hobbes urges human beings to apply reason as opposed to religion, as a means of understanding Gods abilities and desires. He rejects the idea of an immaterial soul that is popular in many religions globally. In fact, he is more concerned with the profane nature of God and human beings, as opposed to the sacred nature. He rejects the Roman Catholic doctrines and the teachings of the Presbyterian Church. It is instructive to note with keen interest, that Hobbess philosophy focuses on the material things of the world and he rejects notions of things termed as sacred. He argues that human beings cannot understand what God does for them because God is just a spirit (Watkins 45).

This affects the desires of human beings because they look at things from the sacred point of view. Hobbes insists that God is material yet human beings have an inherent concern about sacred things.

Hobbes concludes that, in a state of nature, all people are free to do their own will. Therefore, one can exert power and control over others at any time. One can pick any property and use it at will because it is a society governed by liberty and not by law. Consumerism is a situation whereby people are free to buy and sell goods. This causes some people to buy more than they need, which leads to wastage (Gini 89). Hobbes would have supported such a society due to his view of the free nature of human beings.

His society is one of war of all against all or rather a competing society whereby people can murder, rob, and engage in servitude. Hobbes may not support buying of goods and services, although they are material things. He foreshadowed a society whereby people would get goods and services freely out of acquiring them fairly or through unjust means. In consumerism, the government comes in to set laws in the form of policies, to control trade. In Hobbess society, there must be a sovereign person or institution to put checks and balances on how citizens exercise their natural rights. Therefore, Hobbes would have suggested that this sovereign or absolute institution makes laws that regulate the number of goods bought by people. This happens in some countries when there is a shortage of commodities like sugar, and institutions limit people on the number of packets to pick at a time.

Hobbes would have concluded that people have a right to stay informed about the commodities they buy and a right to choose what, when and how much to buy. This should come before the sovereign states impose laws on consumers regarding what to buy and the quantity. Even though consumerism seems to be a form of greed, Hobbes would be contented with it because he sees his society as a society of chaos, one marred by social evils such as murder and theft.

Works Cited

Gini, Al. My Job, My Self: Work and the Creation of the Modern Individual. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, 2001. Print.

Watkins, John. Hobbess System of Ideas. London: Hutchison University Library, 1973. Print.

Xunzi also known as Xun Kuang was a Chinese philosopher during the Chinas classical period. He was one of the Confucian philosophers who were under the reign Emperor Xuan in China. Xunzi made significant contribution to modern philosophy because he contributed to the development of the Hundred Schools of Thought. Among many of his philosophical works is his view of human nature.

According to Xunzi, people are evil in nature while their goodness is acquired through training. He states that the nature of human beings is evil from birth and possesses qualities like selfishness, anarchic, and antisocial traits. However, the society shapes and trains an individual to attain moral standards of the society.

Furthermore, Xunzi argues that the society achieves this by influencing a person in a positive way. Therefore, the paper analyses the arguments presented by Augustine, Pelagius, and Zhu Xi concerning Xunzis view of human nature.

According to Augustine, since human beings are not perfect, they are bound to make mistakes and errors. In his philosophical work titled The City of God, which explains how the first human beings transgressed in the Garden of Eden. Augustine elaborates the infallible human nature.

He asserts that, even after God gave men the freedom to eat any other fruit in the garden and leave the one that was in the center of the garden, they still went ahead to eat the forbidden fruit; hence, making the mistake of disobedience. The Yahist Legend, further explains the mistake by presenting an occasion where God tells humans to eat of all the trees, which were pleasing to consume except the tree of life.

According to Augustine, human beings have an imperfect nature and are bound to making mistakes. The concept is evident from what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden as they committed the mistake of disobedience, and regretted their actions latter when God questioned them.

In addition, Augustine notes that human beings are remorseful. After disobeying God, they became repentant as they hid and covered themselves with stitched leaves from figs. Humans remained subject to God, and thus, they received another chance of redemption through Jesus who is the son of God.

However, since actions have repercussions, man and the woman received punishment from God after disobedience. In the Garden of Eden, the Adam and Eve had the freedom to eat of any tree except the tree in the center of the garden. The consequence of disobedience was death.

Therefore, the man received a sentence of hard work and death as a punishment for the wrongdoing. Since God is just and merciful, he gave Adam and Eve another chance. Thus, Augustine displays human beings as infallible, remorseful, and ready for corrections.

In his letters to Demetrius, Pelagius notes that the reference to the creator is paramount when determining the good human nature. According to Pelagius, people love and admire authority.

He further explains this phenomenon by asserting that men marvel at the strong and big animals that are subject to their authority and control. Additionally, human beings love freedom, which was the initial desire of God. In his letters, Pelagius notes that God wanted human to feel free and do what pleased them.

However, the level of freedom reduced when humans sinned and disobeyed God. Moreover, in his letters to Demetrius he quotes the book of Deuteronomy where God gave human beings the freedom to choose between life and death. Pelagius also highlights that human beings love appreciation and praise. This is the nature of humankind as presented by Pelagius.

Pelagius explains that individuals do not like policies and conventions. He says that people love working in a free environment without rules and regulations.

According to Pelagius, humans love engaging in activities voluntarily without undue coercion. In the letters of Demetrius, he gives an account of some people who had a good human nature like Enoch and men who demonstrated bad morals such as Adam and Simeon to discuss the human character and nature.

Therefore, Pelagius highlights that the ultimate determinant of good human nature is the creator. He also asserts that humans who have a good nature portray good morals that accrue from the good nature. He further asserts that individuals with good manners sometimes make mistakes because no human being is perfect.

Zhu Xi approaches the discussion of human nature using the mind and a river. The scholar asserts that when the river is still or calm, it denotes a composed nature of the individuals mind. Subsequently, Zhu Xi relates human desires and feelings with waves and flow of water in a river or a lake.

According, to Zhu Xi, some waves are bad and torrential whereas others are less likely to cause any harm, as they are mild. These waves reflect the good and bad desires that people express. In the writings, Zhu Xi notes that nature precedes an activity and feelings then succeed. Hence, the mind helps in uniting nature, feelings, and activity when humans undergo through pre-active and post-active states.

Moreover, Zhu Xi says that, in many cases bad moral values overrule the good values. In explaining how bad morals destroy good moral values, Zhu Xi used a dam to demonstrate that when the dam bursts it causes extensive destruction.

Furthermore, Zhu Xi explains that the mind controls all the operations of an individual whether good or bad. According to Zhu Xi, the mind is a ruler and has the presence of understanding, respect, love, and morality. However, stirred the mind produces feelings like fury, contentment, happiness, and sadness.

Therefore, the mind is like the supreme controller of the whole body, and thus, controls the activity of the person. According to Zhu Xi, human nature is subject to the reflexes in the mind, which is the controller of all the activities that an individual performs.

Hence, according to Zhu Xi human nature greatly attributes its outcomes to the mind. Thus, Zhu Xi clearly elucidates the nature of human beings and presents the existing diversities.

According to Xunzi, human nature is evil and it is only through training that a person can acquire good attributes. In addition, Xunzi notes that from birth, humans display bad qualities like self-centeredness, lawlessness, and antisocial traits. However, through continuous training and molding by the society, a person then acquires moral values and learns to behave in a disciplined manner.

Furthermore, Xunzi believes that an individual can acquire and employ moral values and personality traits from the society. The prime objective of acquiring moral values and traits is to override the innate antisocial and evil traits.

Xunzi also perceives that a state or a country requires rules and regulations so that it can shape and mold the behavior of an individual, which is evil. In his assertion, Xunzi perceives that since human nature is ugly, absence of state and regulations can render a man uncivilized and wild.

Pelagius thought that when determining good human nature it is vital to refer to the supreme creator who is God. He presents that some of the human requirements include love for authority, freedom, and control. In the words of Augustine, human beings are not free from mistakes as they are not perfect.

According to Augustine, humans require companionship and authority. He also states that men are erroneous and employs the case of the first humans who disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit. On the other hand, Zhu Xi uses a river or a water body to bring to the fore the discussion of human nature. According to Zhu Xi, the mind acts like the controller of human activities and dictates what an individual performs.

Thus, Pelagius, Augustine, and Zhu Xi have different thoughts concerning human nature as opposed to Xunzis view. While Xunzi states that human nature is bad and evil, Pelagius, Augustine, and Zhu Xi explain that human beings have innate traits that are good, but are not acquired in training as asserted by Xunzi.

The research paper focuses on the characteristics that human beings demonstrate. It discusses perceptions of Zhu Xi, Augustine, and Pelagius concerning human nature according to the argument of Xunzi. According to the three individuals, human beings are not perfect, and therefore, they are bound to making mistakes and errors.

Pelagius and Augustine use biblical excerpts like that of Adam and Eve to explain the imperfect and remorseful nature of human beings. On the other hand, Zhu Xi relates the human mind to a body of water and discusses human nature using the relationships of human mind and river.

Contrarily Xunzi believes that human nature is evil from birth and requires training and control in the evil state so that an individual behaves in a morally upright manner.

The human race has a diversity of characteristics some picked from there way of life and some gotten through life circumstances (events in ones life). This can only be brought forth by comparing different persons. This paper compares two ancient characters at a time highlighting their differences and similarities.

Similarities between Medea and Dido

Medea and Dido are human. This is portrayed by their characteristics, one of them being in love. The love relationships of the two characters are full of incidents. Dido is too emotional falls in love for Aeneas. This comes out clearly when Aeneas abandons her to complete a mission. In this occasion, she commits suicide. She loses taste in life without Aeneas close to her. Medeas husband abandons her for another woman.

Both Medea and Dido are ancient characters; they appear in the 13^th century that is around 813 BC. All their stories are told as plays  then popular genres. Both Medea and Dido come from royal families. Dido is the queen of Carthage and Didos father was a king of the Phoenicians. Medea is a princess of the Black Sea and a daughter to king Aeetes of Colchis.

The other similarity comes in their marriages. Dido is married to Sychaeus. From the plays, it is not clear whether Dido had kids. Medea is also married to Jason.

She has two kids from this marriage. Medea is later abandoned by Jason for another woman. After the incidences following their low love moments, the two characters act in revenge. Anger leads Dido to commit suicide. On the other hand, Medea plans for a revenge on the person who has inflicted her. This is a revenge of betrayal by her husband. These two occasions portray the spirit of revenge.

Multiple love relationships is another similarity found with both the characters. Dido gets into a relationship with Aeneas after her husband is killed. After Medeas husband abandons Medea for another woman, Medea is married to another man (Aegus) in the land she fled to.

Differences between Medea and Dido

The deaths surrounding the two characters are different. Didos husband (Sychaeus) is killed by Didos brother while Medea kills her own brother (Aegeus) and later kills her own kids. After the incidents, both characters relocate. Dido relocates from his brother after the death of her husband unlike Medea who relocates to hide after the murders she has committed. Medea returns to her home later. On the contrary, Dido does not return to her home, she dies in her new land.

Unlike Dido, Medea is described as a witch. Medea goes to the extent of giving Jason a portion of wild herbs that would protect him from fire.

Similarities between Jason and Aeneas

Both Jason and Aeneas are portrayed as irresponsible men; they make their loved ones suffer. For instance, Jason abandons her wife for another woman. He leaves his wife with two kids. On the other hand, Aeneas doesnt care about the feelings of her lover- he focuses on how to finish his mission. The love that Dido has leads her to commit suicide. Aeneas doesnt notice how deeply Dido loves her.

Differences between Aeneas and Jason

Jason is determined. This is portrayed when he leaves his family in order to accomplish his missions. Aeneas on the other hand leaves for reasons that could be avoided. His main concern is his family. Its so sad on how Jason could leave his own wife- the mother to his own children for another woman.

Introduction

People have been trying to cognize themselves as a phenomenon since the dawn of time. Indeed, there are many eminent philosophers trying to find answers to the main questions about humanitys purposes and motivators. It is generally agreed that John Locke and Thomas Hobbes succeeded in creating a keen understanding of human identity. However, their theories seem to differ in some key points. Hobbes judgment appears to be more reasonable than Lockes inferences because of his realistic approach to mankind.

Hobbes Characterization of Man in the State of Nature

Admittedly, there were thousands of wars in the past because of the lack of different resources, from gold to cheap labor force. Therefore, some nations would constantly win and become wealthy by conquering property that was not their by rights. In this case, the opposite side would lose and lose before fading into oblivion or rising from ashes and redeeming position. Such an everlasting state of war could seem natural for humanity, because being equal they could hardly achieve similar conditions that would satisfy them all.

In fact, many wars were commenced in the name of noble things like faith or honor. Nevertheless, the true reasons can hardly be advocated as they represent the most disgraceful human traits like greed, vanity, and thirst for blood. According to Hobbes, such behavior corresponds to human nature because people are likely to yield to their temptations (Darat, 2017). Their equality is considered a negative thing because they deserve the same, but they strive for privileges often taking something away from one another. Thus, human nature is viewed pessimistically, yet true to life. Nowadays there are still many conflicts in the world. People have proclaimed human rights paramount importance after Hobbes, Locke, and other philosophers, yet presumably never approached poetical justice.

Lockes Perception of the State of Nature

There is a more optimistic view of the natural condition of mankind or the so-called state of nature. Locke also supports the idea that everybody deserves freedom and equality but sees no correlation between natural rights and constant fight. In fact, Men living together according to reason, without a common Superior on Earth, with Authority to judge between them, is properly the State of Nature. But force, or a declared designed of force upon the Person of another, where there is no common Superior on Earth to appeal to for relief, is the State of War (as cited in Locke, 1823, p. 113). It means if people fail to listen to the voice of morality, they undergo the transitional period from natural state of peace to war.

Conclusion

All things considered, humanity purposes seems to be a very controversial topic. Judging by the everlasting character of military conflicts in the world and the absence of verified periods of time when no wars took place, war is the state of nature. It would be too optimistic to believe in Gods will in compliance with Locke. To consider wars as many of cases when people failed to listen to Reason is possibly old-fashioned and naive.

References

Darat, N. (2017). Ghobbes as a sociobiologist:. Rethinking the state of (human) nature.Kriterion: Revista de Filosofia, 58(136), 163-183. Web.

Fuller, G., Stecker, R., & Wright, J. P. (Eds.). (2000). John Locke: An essay concerning human understanding in focus. Routledge.

What qualities are important for a successful monarch in order to contribute to the prosperity of the state as the powerful monarchy and gain the support of the citizens? The answer to this question was proposed by many thinkers and philosophers, but the most provocative vision of the issue was presented in the work The Prince which was written by Niccolo Machiavelli and firstly published in 1532.

In spite of the fact the problem of the autocratic regimes was actively discussed by a lot of historians with accentuating their advantages and disadvantages for the public and with basing on the question of the human nature, Machiavellis opinion on the issue is still considered as controversial because of the historians focus on peoples vices rather than their virtues as the ruling forces of their characters and behaviors.

The work can be discussed as the collection of thoughts on the problem of governing the state and the phenomenon of monarchy with references to the question of power and military success. It is also a collection of practical pieces of advice on the principles of the effective rule for the monarch Lorenzo de Medici in Italy.

Although Machiavellis view of human nature depends on his general vision of the balance between the peoples virtues and vices, the historian emphasizes the difference between the monarch and the citizens and pays attention to the fact that the monarchs behavior is based only on the necessity of gaining the power which should be preserved by any means.

In his work, Niccolo Machiavelli states that the balance of virtues and vices in the peoples behavior according to the aspects of their human nature depends on the peculiarities of their social and personal life.

From this point, people are virtuous until the life round them can satisfy their expectations, and their vices become obvious when challengeable events happen. Accentuating the imperfectness of the ordinary peoples actions and behavior, Machiavelli indicates that the Prince, or a monarch, can be as immoral as it is necessary for his successful achieving the goal and preserving the power.

However, it is significant not to provoke the publics hatred which can be destructive for the monarchs power. According to Machiavelli, the human moral ambiguity is also emphasized by his vision of the persons changeability. Thus, the nature of the people is variable (Machiavelli 27). That is why it is not effective to rely on the persons virtues or vices.

Nevertheless, the concept of virtue is important for Machiavellis understanding of the powerful monarchs nature. It is significant to note that the historians vision of the Princes vices and virtues predominantly depends on the results of his actions for the state. If the Prince acts wrongly from the moral point, but this action provides benefits for the state, such behavior cannot be perceived and assessed as immoral, especially in the situation when this action looks like virtue (Machiavelli 81).

Citizens traditionally need the peace and protection that is why if the Princes actions are even immoral and injustice, but result in the publics feeling of security and satisfaction, it is possible to speak about the monarchs virtues. Thus, Machiavellis work is not evil, but it represents a rather provocative vision of the human nature in connection with the problem of virtues and vices. In the state, virtues are meaningful till they help the monarch to address his own interests and meet the citizens expectations.

Nevertheless, it is the monarchs right to choose his own way to build the powerful state even with references to the immoral actions because his main goal is to maintain himself in his state (Machiavelli 2). Moreover, the action can be considered as good when it is perceived as a good one and contributes to the publics believing in their monarchs power.

To be the powerful and successful ruler who can follow the right balance between the necessary virtues and vices, good and bad actions, gain the goodwill of the citizens, and provide the effective military campaigns, it is important to have the strong will. Moreover, the will should be free.

Machiavelli discusses the notion of free will in its relation to the other significant aspect which is the fortune. Thus, the free will is the human choice when the fortune as a chance is given by God. Focusing on the personal characteristics of the Prince as a real monarch, Machiavelli discusses the peculiarities of his behavior which can influence his prosperity as a ruler. These considerations are associated with the aspect of the free will. However, it is also necessary to concentrate on the fortune.

According to Machiavelli, not to extinguish our free will, I hold it to be true that Fortune is the arbiter of one-half of our actions, but that she still leaves us to direct the other half, or perhaps a little less (Machiavelli 132). That is why there is the balance between the individual control over the events and the impact of circumstances as the power of the fortune.

Machiavelli accentuates the idea that the monarchs main task is to provide the prosperity of the state in general, and with basing on the military factor in particular. Arms and the force are the best ways to control the territories.

Nevertheless, can such intentions and actions be considered as advantageous for the citizens and their welfare? In his previous works, Machiavelli discussed the role of the governor and the politics with references to promoting the good for the public. In The Prince, the historian concentrates on the good for the state as the political phenomenon.

Thus, it is important to provide the effective control and regulation within the principality, guarantee the military impact on enemies, and impose the force on the citizens in order to be powerful. The monarchs ambitions are in the field of the military successes and the strong control. However, when the monarch is too self-interested and evokes the publics hatred he is at risk to experience the citizens disobedience which effects can be dangerous for him and for the state.

Machiavelli tries to find the golden mean between the publics possible hatred and the monarchs significant impact. From this point, Machiavellis ideas on the citizens hatred and love are rather controversial because he states that it is much safer to be feared than loved (Machiavelli 87). To control the affairs within the state, the Prince should possess not only the power but also the respect of the citizens.

However, when it is impossible for the monarch to gain the publics respect he can stimulate the citizens fear of his power. In this case, the author also pays attention to the aspect of hatred and indicates that a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated (Machiavelli 88). The monarch cannot promote any good for the public when he feels the citizens hatred.

However, he also can be hated by his people because of his cruel actions and not promoting the good. That is why it is more effective to be feared because, according to Machiavelli, the publics fear can be considered as a kind of respect, and it is necessary to impose the power and authority on the citizens before they can have the opportunity to oppose to the monarch.

Thus, the publics goodwill which is based on the feeling of love or fear can contribute to strengthening the position of the state and its stability. If the principles of morality cannot be considered as significant factors for the governments development, the concepts of the states power and stability are the main qualities according to which it is possible to discuss the states progress.

That is why the Prince should act to preserve the stability and strengthen the power. It is a long process during which the monarch can act according to his interests and the interests of the state, but not according to the principles of morality. The strong military base is important for the states power and stability as well as strict laws and rules for the citizens.

Machiavelli states that it is impossible to rely on the fortune, but only on the strength and power. The author indicates that nothing can be so uncertain or unstable as fame or power not founded on its own strength. And ones own forces are those which are composed either of subjects, citizens, or dependants; all others are mercenaries or auxiliaries (Machiavelli 74).

Machiavelli makes accents on the fact that the military successes of the monarch in securing the state contribute to increasing his prestige among the public and the leaders of the other principalities and make the citizens support their monarch. Thus, stability which is won by any means is important for emphasizing the monarchs power, and the power provides the definite level of stability in the principality. That is why these notions are interdependent.

The stability of the state can be challenged by the development of the class conflicts between the ordinary people, aristocracy, and the monarch as the main authority. Thus, the monarch should be able to decrease these conflicts in order to guarantee the peaceful progress of the state.

Nevertheless, Machiavelli does not concentrate on the class conflict as the real threat for the Prince, but only refers to the possible development of these conflicts as the reasons for the further citizens dissatisfaction and hatred directed to the aristocracy and the monarch of the principality. To overcome the class conflicts, the Prince should treat his people in a specific way in order to be loved or feared by them.

The monarch can not act virtuously, but only appear to perform virtuously in relation to the citizens interests in order to address his own interests and intentions and preserve the power. According to Machiavelli, military conflicts are more influential for breaking the successful development of the state than class conflicts which can be easily diminished with the help of the monarchs cunning (Machiavelli).

Machiavelli accentuates the fact that it is possible for the Italian monarchs to overcome the challenges of the class conflicts, to preserve the stability and power of the state with references to the history of the territories and to the experience of the previous monarchs.

Moreover, providing the definite pieces of advice for Lorenzo de Medici, the author emphasizes the way which should be followed by the Prince in order to gain the eminence and success. Describing the peculiarities of the effective rule, the historian pays attention to the actions of the prominent monarchs of the Italian principalities and provides the certain historical context for his considerations.

Analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the previous rulers, Machiavelli concludes that today Italy can rely only on the effective authority of Lorenzo de Medici who should follow only his interests as a ruler of the state in order to stay powerful and influential in the context of the constant military conflicts with the neighboring principalities.

Thus, in the 16^th century the territory of Italy was divided into several principalities which struggled with each other. That is why the historical context influenced the idea of Machiavellis work in which he tries to teach the Prince how to become powerful and successful in this situation with the help of weakening the strong opponents and submitting the weak ones.

Machiavellis The Prince is presented as the discussion of the effective rules on how to maintain the power. The book is developed as the collection of the pieces of advice for Lorenzo de Medici as the Prince which are given in a rather conversational tone with using the first and second person, and this tone is especially accentuated in the dedication of the work.

However, the audience of the book can be quite broad, including the politicians and nobles. To make his argument more persuasive, Machiavelli uses the examples from the history of Italy and the other countries with paying much attention to the figures of the ancient rulers in order to support his ideas and visions the monarchs power which can be based on immoral principles.

Moreover, Machiavelli organizes his work in sections in which the peculiarities of principalities and the monarchs behavior are discussed. They are divided with the help of informative headings which reflect the topic of the chapters. From this point, in spite of its controversial character, the work can be discussed as rather persuasive with references to a lot of historical illustrations and discussions.

Niccolo Machiavellis The Prince became the real sensation of his time, and this work still remains one of the most discussed visions of the human nature and the character of the authority. Today, monarchies change its meaning as the primary form of government. However, those principles which are described by Machiavelli as effective in order to gain and maintain the power by the leader can be considered as relevant to the peculiarities of the contemporary society.

The modern society is not ideal even with depending on the democratic principles, and those virtues which are proclaimed by the leaders are often only the part of the appearance, but not the reflection of the real situation. In spite of the fact the contemporary society is inclined to struggle against the violence of the authority, the examples of the behavior depicted in The Prince can be observed today with references to some regimes.

Works Cited

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. USA: Simon & Brown, 2011. Print.

The Prince, written by Nicholas Machiavelli, is an important contribution to the modern concept of politics. In a sense, this work contradicts the philosophical tradition of ancient political thought in which political practice is overshadowed by the idealization of governments and utopian cities. On the contrary, in Prince, Machiavelli (2014) establishes that the real implementation of politics implies real situations with real people whose behavior, decisions and actions usually are not necessarily moral. The main theme of The Prince by Machiavelli is monarchical rule and survival. This work was regarded as a guide for politicians on the use of ruthless, self-serving cunning and inspired the term Machiavellian. Machiavelli (2014) discusses in detail how a ruler should act in various situations or circumstances and establishes that the main goal of politics is the successful retention of power. The book had a lasting effect on political thought since in it, Machiavelli opposed the traditional attitude to politics that serves the people to a benign self-interest, where the ruler is self-centered and focused on his goals. The book justifies any means as long as they help the governor to achieve his aims.

According to Hobbes, people are egoistic, greedy, and seek personal gain. Egoism is declared to be the main incentive of human activity. But Hobbes does not condemn people for their selfish inclinations, does not believe that they are evil by nature. Many people find Hobbes view cynical as it is too simplified and not all actions can be explained by egoism. For example, there are a lot of people and charity organizations that donate their money and time for free without any personal gain. As for me, I find human nature infinitely more complex than power-seeking individuals described in Hobbess work.

Reference

Machiavelli, N. (2014). The prince and other writings. Simon and Schuster.