Philosophy of Human Nature

Human nature refers to the characteristics that humans develop spontaneously and that distinguish one person from another (Kupperman, Joel J 4). In essence, such characteristics mirror how humans can think, feel, and act. Some experts believe that human nature is the source of all life. This notion is claimed to have originated in Greek philosophy and acts as a standard against which human judgments are made. According to the descriptions of older philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato, human nature is what drives people to become what they become in life. The barrier between human nature and divinity is razor thin. The focus of this paper will be to highlight the different philosophical views of human nature, its role as far as the survival of mankind is concerned, its relation to the mind and body. More importantly, the existing connection between mind and body will be discussed in detail as a means of giving a clear view of the metaphysical nature of humans.

Plato proposed the idea that the soul of mankind has three parts. The three parts are spirit, reason, and appetite. It later came to be widely known as the tripartite theory of the soul (Mazur, Piotr Stanislaw 33). He subscribed to the school of thought that all the three parts had some form of desire in them. Even so, he postulated further that the desire that in the spirit and appetite parts of the soul is one less concerned about belief but more about good and evil. Further, the desires in the three parts emanate independently without any considerations about what is good. This view elicited an initial way that was dubbed fruitful in every sense of the word because it elicited serious thoughts among people about the concept of human nature.

An important question arises from the tripartite theory about how it is possible for one person to feel thirsty yet not decide to drink. According to the natural order of things, this is not actually probable. It is expected that the feeling of thirstiness will elicit an action from the body which will be to drink. However, the tripartite theory explains this phenomenon in that during this event, there are two antagonistic desires that are in play. One desire stems from the appetite division of the soul and the other from the reason division of the soul (Mazur, Piotr Stanislaw 59). In the event that there is no desire for the reason part, the appetite desire takes over control and the result will be to induce the person to collect water and drink. The reason desire will be against the idea of drinking because the belief at that time is that drinking is not what really the body requires. It follows that if the overriding factor in the considerations is the reason, the existing relation between action and the appetite desire becomes disconnected and this way, reason overrules appetite.

A man like any other living organism must have a means of survival and that means must be inherent in his very nature. In order to stay alive, man requires several things which must be supplied to him constantly. Such things include but not limited to; food, medicine, shelter, clothing among others. In reality, all these things do not come to man just by virtue that they are needed by him or just by wishing or making a simple prayer. Man requires enough values that can help him to obtain his needs and for this to be possible, his action will be required (Schofield, Malcolm 22). An action is not only distinctive to man. All living things must act in order to survive. Unlike plants, however, man lacks the capacity to act automatically. This, therefore, means that good does not come naturally to man. They must be produced and created by man. To produce and create requires knowledge and experience. An action is highly dependent on reason and the only known distinctive means of knowledge for man is the reason. Reason guides his actions and it is the only means available to him of dealing with various realities of life. Man is rational in all his approaches as he always employs his faculty of reason.

The explanation for this kind of scenario by Socrates is also one that supports the principle of opposing motions. From Socrates understanding, the soul has two motions which are always acting in contrast to one another. The two motions are desire and aversion (Jordan, William R, and George M Lubick 98). The motion of desire is always acting towards something while the aversion motion is always acting against. A person with the feeling of thirstiness will be motivated to find water and drink naturally. However, if they feel for any reason that taking water in the circumstance is not the best course of action, they will decide against it. It follows from the reasoning of Socrates that since desire and aversion are contrasting motions, they will always exist in every individual for different things. It must be understood from the ideas of Socrates that since human beings are psychological beings who are always acting as a result of the different states and processes happening in their bodies. In his conclusion, Socrates states that the psychology of human falls into two categories. The appetitive part of the human psychology is comprised largely of desire while the reason part is made up of aversion.

Even though the arguments of Socrates on opposite motions provides complementary understanding on the nature of humans, the principle itself is questionable as it leaves more questions than answers. For one, it leaves people wondering whether desire and aversions are motions in the first place (Boxill, Bernard 29). Also, there is confusion as to whether the soul is comprised of parts with the innate ability to move and respond to movements.

Epistemology which is ideally the theory of knowledge explains how knowledge is acquired and transferred from one individual to another. It is an important area of philosophy insofar as understanding human nature is concerned because, through it, it is possible to tell how people are able to have so much knowledge of different subjects and how such knowledge is verified. Different philosophers offer different opinions about human knowledge sources (Boxill, Bernard 54). Plato, for instance, proposes the concept of rationalism. This concept holds the view that knowledge is derived from the act of reasoning among individuals. His thinking is that some ideas among people arise without human experience. Aristotle who is an empiricist differs with Plato’s reasoning. He subscribes to the idea that nothing that people know could be possible without the experience that comes from sensory actions. In the later years, René Descartes provided sentiments that agreed with the earlier reasoning of Plato.

René Descartes believed that people are just a product of their minds. To proof this, he used the deductive theory (Klubertanz, George P 79). He also believed in the dualism idea which states that the mind and the body exist as totally different entities. According to Descartes, the soul has different qualities distinguishing from the body in terms of form and capability. In his maiden reasoning, the mind is termed as the seat of intelligence. Accordingly, the mind can be identified with both consciousness and awareness. The dualism idea by Descartes is contrasted by monism idea which states that there exists only a single reality or subject for that matter.

Metaphysics which is explains several perspectives of human nature including but not limited to what “being” really means brings about the questions of determinism and free will (Hume, David 43). Determinism has a meaning that all events happening in the life of humans’ have causes that are physical in nature. The physical causes function in much the same way like the laws of physics. Deterministic aspect tends to operate in equal measure to the various tendencies of human behavior. Some philosophers offer alternative ideas to this sort of thinking. Those opposing the deterministic principle believe that all events happen according to the divine order of things in the universe (Hume, David 48).

Free will, on the other hand, is the idea that is common to every individual that anyone can make their choices freely without undue influence from any forces operating in nature. This idea over the years has attracted interest from both philosophers and theologians. Many believe that people have an innate ability to choose between that which is good and evil (Hume, David 42). However, this is largely dependent on the one’s understanding and the ability to differentiate between good and evil. Whenever a person makes a choice that does not involve compulsion, meaning that the choice, in this case, is merely based on that person’s individual preference coming about by virtue of their own character, there is no reason whatsoever to deny the fact that it is an action of free will. Choice in this scenario which arises as a result of the individual’s character is conditioned by earlier causes. A section of philosophers and psychologists embrace a mechanistic determinism principle which states that the behavior of people and in some cases animals, function in accordance with the laws of physics. Albert Bandura, the social-cognitive learning theorist offers that to understand human behavior, people need to be examined through the lens of them being agents in their own lives who are active (Kupperman, Joel J 102).

There are also exists philosophical ideas about morality and ethics. Plato believed that ”the good life” was something that is non-relative. His thinking was that goodness was given and was also independent of prior exposure. However, those who are deficient in goodness can still learn it through reasoning (a concept of the idealism theory). The shortcoming of this is that only those people with high mental ability were capable of comprehending such goodness (Kupperman, Joel J 76). Aristotle, on the other hand, was of the opinion that the primary goal of life was nothing but happiness. However, to achieve this happiness, it was necessary that people practice moderation in all things. Further, Aristotle believes that courage is a characteristic that is desirable but appears to fall between two extreme ends of audacity and spiritlessness. Aristotle, unlike Plato, examined life in relative terms. For Aristotle, what happiness means to one person may be different to another person. In essence, he was a moral relativist.

In his reasoning, Aristotle did not always believe that having happiness meant having pleasure. On the contrary, this was the main idea in the philosophical thinking of Epicurus who subscribed to the philosophy of hedonism. Epicurus in much the same way as Aristotle believed that everything should be done in moderation (Jordan, William R, and George M Lubick 76). To put this into perspective, one should not have too much of something that is good. Overeating or consuming too much wine was not good because they were less likely to bring pleasure to an individual in the long run. Whereas Epicurean ideas were in a way similar to those of Aristotle, those of the Stoics were more closely related to those of Plato. The Stoics believed that in order to escape from the evils that exist on the world stage, living a life that was simple and inexpensive was necessary. This reasoning was similar to that of the earlier Christians.

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill who were typically believers in utilitarian philosophy believed that morality was a product of the ramifications of the acts of humans as opposed to the intentions held by perpetrators (Schofield, Malcolm 66). It is thought that for something to be treated as a right, it ought to produce beneficial effects more and harmful ones less. This philosophy even though has some truth in it is impossible to be applied practically because it is always difficult if not possible to anticipate in advance the consequences of any given act. Even so, utilitarianism is still an important concept especially in politics and economics as it makes it possible to understand such unintended as collateral damage.

The relationship between mind and body is one other issue that is closely related to the nature of man. Mind in this respect implies the aspect of being conscious. The body, on the other hand, implies matter. Man is thus an integration of both matter and consciousness (Schofield, Malcolm 78). The two have well-defined functions. Acquisition of knowledge and value is the function of the mind while enacting and executing deductions and valued judgments of the mind of man are the function of the body. Each one of these attributes is functionally important to mankind and one cannot function optimally without the other. Without the mind, it is impossible for man to direct his actions since he lacks the means through which he can acquire knowledge. A body, on the other hand, cannot move without the direction of consciousness. In the event that man loses consciousness, his body will become unresponsive. Also, without the physical body, man cannot have consciousness. Thus, the two entities are indivisible and are necessary for the existence of an integrated element in perfect harmony.

In summation, human nature implies the traits that mankind acquires naturally and which distinguishes one individual from another. This paper has dealt with the various theories explaining the nature of humans. Plato proposed the idea that the soul of mankind has three parts. The three parts are spirit, reason, and appetite. A man like any other living organism must have a means of survival and that means must be inherent in his very nature. In reality, all these things do not come to man just by virtue that they are needed by him or just by wishing or making a simple prayer. Man requires enough values that can help him to obtain his needs and for this to be possible, his action will be required. An action is not only distinctive to man. All living things must act in order to survive. This, therefore, means that good does not come naturally to man. They must be produced and created by man. To produce and create requires knowledge and experience. The action is highly dependent on reason and the only known distinctive means of knowledge for man is the reason. Mind and body are also inseparable entities which work together for the good of every individual.

Work Cited

Boxill, Bernard. ”Nature, Human Nature, And Human Difference: Race in Early Modern Philosophy by Justin E. H. Smith.“ Journal of The History of Philosophy, vol 55, no. 2, 2017, pp. 350-351. Johns Hopkins University Press, doi:10.1353/hph.2017.0038.

Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Dinslaken, Anboco, 2016.

Jordan, William R, and George M Lubick. Making Nature Whole. Washington, DC, Island Press, 2011.

Klubertanz, George P. The Philosophy of Human Nature. [Heusenstamm], Ed. Scholasticae, 2014.

Kupperman, Joel J. Theories of Human Nature. Indianapolis, Ind., Hackett Pub. Co., 2010.

Mazur, Piotr Stanislaw. ”Aristotle and Aquinas: Two Teleological Conceptions of Equality.“ The Heythrop Journal, 2017, Wiley-Blackwell, doi:10.1111/heyj.12820.

Schofield, Malcolm. Aristotle, Plato, and Pythagoreanism in The First Century BC. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013.