Chloe Ching - United Kingdom, Hong Kong SAR
In this paper I offer an analysis of human nature, outlining the historical development of the way Western Philosophy and Economics has viewed human nature and the common threads throughout. I argue the conclusions which may be taken away from the philosophical elements of agreement about human nature and the way that this can be reconciled with a reality of the past experiences, through the exploration of significant historical events. I evaluate under what circumstances and to what extent our future as humanity and the choices we make are limited within modern society. Finally, I summarised the importance of learning from our past and improving ourselves within the frameworks which we are limited to.
Introduction
Every person remembers some form of the past experiences throughout their lives, from which informs their future judgements. The study of the past, also known as history and its importance, despite universally experienced, is not something that is easily understood. To clarify, this paper focuses on the idea of ‘future’ as one of future human decision making, rather than prediction of future events, which are of course, caused by future human decision making itself, because the Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘guide’ as ‘something that helps you form an opinion or make a decision about something else.’ Though such study is difficult, it has certainly never deterred scholars and scientists alike from searching for those answers.
Understanding the past
‘Understanding the linkages between past and present is absolutely basic for a good understanding of the condition of being human’
-Penelope J Corfield
The past demonstrates changing ideas and qualities within human beings, allowing historians to reflect on the improvement of humanity, and study past patterns for us to guide the future. Although every event makes a difference, and works in such a domino effect, the Norman invasion as a result of the Battle of Hastings (1066) is undoubtedly, one of the most influential events in written history. The sudden shift from the authority of Harold Godwinson to the Normans led to an outburst in patriotism and violence, forcing reinforcements of authority through the use of religion and the construction of ecclesiastical buildings. In Yorkshire, for example, the Normans built Yorkminster - a missionary church. As England had once been ruled by the Normans, the fact that Yorkminster was built on old Roman fortress showed that the Normans were
natural leaders , proving their legitimacy to the English rule. These suppressions demonstrated past use of religion to suppress identity, but also allowed for the historical monuments to remain as part of our modern education and life in the present-day Britain. The links between the past and present were not confined to within Britain itself either. The migration of the Irish after the potato famine in 1852 skewed the votes surrounding issues of sterilization in America in the early 20th century, as the majority of Irish were Catholics who were against passing laws supporting eugenics. Thus, this contributed to the downfall of racism, evidently seen in modern society where equality has been put at the forefront of modern society, caused by the actions of the past. Later on, the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust raised great concern across the world about the treatment of individual rights and freedoms and caused the UN to publish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which protects our basic human rights today. If there is one thing to conclude from all such events, is that the past actions of man, no matter horror or peace, makes a mark on our present world, whether directly or as a result of chains of events happening over subsequent decades.
This study of history then, is important because it studies the past its legacies, making all people living histories in ourselves. In fact, modern society has been formed by centuries of cultural changes, and hence one concludes that understanding the links between our past and present is essential in understanding the nature of human actions, which is in turn required for us to predict the future.
Human Nature
‘There can be no true history written until a just estimate of human nature is held by the historian.’
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
The Ancient Greeks were interested in the formation of the soul. For Socrates, in Plato’s republic, he points out the same thing will never face opposite decisions if happening at the same time in relation to the same thing if there was only one part of the soul, it then follows that ‘so that if ever we find these contradictions in the functions of the mind we shall know that it was not the same thing functioning but a plurality’. One such example of the principle of non-contradiction is one can be tempted to commit a crime but also averse to it, which proves there must be at least two parts of the soul on the opposite sides of the spectrum in decision-making. Having named these as the logos ‘reason’ and the eros ‘desires’, Plato goes on to identify a third aspect of the soul, which he named ‘spirit’, a healthy psyche ought to be aligned with reason. As seen, human nature is determined by the activity of the soul, which according to the Ancient Greeks derives from the logistikon, as only that part of the soul acts rationally and a priori. Later, other views of human nature developed significantly throughout the enlightenment such as one proposed by Thomas Hobbes believed that mankind required a strong central government to govern because human nature was innately evil (suggested by tripartism) and would lead us into a life which was ‘nasty, brutish, and short’.
Yet despite whichever theory of human nature one takes, it always seems to consequently lead to the requirement of a system of political function, in order to allow for security and to guard our freedoms. Hobbes’ system proposes social contract theory, but in particular, in Plato’s The Republic, he describes an ideal state that uses the division of roles, because society, he argues, models after individuals and reflects human characteristics and behaviours, saying ‘that there exist in each of us the same generic parts and characteristics as are found in the state.’ Hence, societal arrangements arise, by logic, from human nature of tripartism.
From the Greeks and Hobbes we recognize the idea of a required government to govern society because it reflects individuals, of whom contain both reason (good) and desires (evil) within them. But Adam Smith goes further in suggesting self-interest as a condition that exists within every human being (human nature), claiming ‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.’ The baker here chooses to bake in order to earn money for his family and himself and the most effective way to do so is to bake. While serving his own self-interest, he produces a good which is valuable to others, essentially leading to an ‘invisible hand’ to guide the market actions without regulation. Hence, the actions of men can be understood to proceed from their selfish needs, but furthers societal arrangements such as free-market capitalism due to such needs.
As a result, this leads us to the argument as follows:
P1: The actions of men are controlled primarily by Eros.
P2: Logos is the only that part of the soul acts rationally and a priori.
C1: The actions of men cannot be rational and a priori, but in fact limited to our experience of the physical world.
However, as problems of a posteriori decision making is that perhaps we are blinded by Descartes’ Evil Demon or the ‘brain in the vat’, the proof of the flaw of human thinking suggests that the limit to human action and self-improvement is ultimately, driven by but limited to the nature of men themselves, so that ‘we learn from history that we learn nothing from history’.
How far can we anticipate the future
As explored in the above work our future is limited by the ‘eros’ within human nature, and because this is within our minds so a priori, there is no way to remove such flaws within us. However, we are limited by not just such. For three centuries people used sugar knowing it had been produced as a result of the sugar cane plantations in Barbados picked up by slaves. Early tribes ate meat as a way of life, but today thousands are critical of animal cruelty out of concern for animal welfare. If we dare to criticize history with our fleeting ideas of morality, then we risk damnation from future generations for our current actions for being wicked and immoral. It might not come as a surprise then, that one concludes that we are limited also by changing ideas of morality, as it is impossible for us to predict the correct moral actions simply by looking at the past, because the past and future moral framework itself is constantly changing.
Conclusion
Yet looking at both the past and the present, all human beings seem to share character traits fundamental to our own human nature, as well as the shared fragility of the human condition, most famously demonstrated through the second world war. It can then be concluded that although human action is limited by human nature itself as well as changing ideas of morality, so that our past can never allow for us to learn to make a perfect future with perfect actions, in other words guide us in those ways, it can nevertheless allow us a greater appreciation of our common ‘existences’ as human beings, which will in turn, allow for a more harmonious future society and one in constant improvement in the centuries to come.
Bibliography
All people are living histories – which is why history matters Why History matters - Articles - Making History. Available at: https://archives.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/why_history_matters.html
Banham, D. (2019) Germany, 1890-1945: Democracy and dictatorship period study. London: Hodder Education.
Clarke, H. (2016) Norman England, 1066-1100. London, UK: Hodder Education.
Guide Cambridge Dictionary. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/guide (Accessed: 31 October 2023). Kevles, D.J. (1999) Eugenics and human rights, BMJ (Clinical research ed.).
Knox, T.M. (1957) in Plato’s Republic. London, UK: Murby, pp. 436–436.
Smith, A. (2014) ‘Book 1 Chapter 2’, in The Wealth of Nations. Middletown, DE: Shine Classics.
Understanding history, the past and the present - to anticipate the future? Understanding History - Past and the Present, study history to anticipate the Future. Available at: https://www.age-of-the-sage.org
University, S. (2020) World War II’s contradictory lessons, Stanford News.
Mavrodes, G.I. (1965) ‘Aristotle and Non-Contradiction’, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 3(3), pp. 111–114.
Plato’s theory of Soul (2023) Wikipedia.
Shakespeare, W., Mowat, B.A. and Werstine, P. (2021) Henry VI. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
(1615 words, excluding references, titles and footnotes)
Comments