The Importance Of Ruth Benedict's Contribution To Human Nature Research

Humanity: What is human nature? What is human purpose? What is the root cause of human problems?

A variety of hypotheses of social evolution and cultural evolution were not uncommon in Europe. The Enlightenment thinkers who preceded Darwin, often argued that societies progressed through stages of increasing development. Other enlightenment thinkers also emphasized that conflict was an inherent feature of social life. In Thomas Hobbes's 17th century portrayal of the state of nature, it seems to parallel the competition for natural resources described in Darwin’s book. The theory of social Darwinism was very notable at the time because unlike other theories of social change it drew from Darwin's distinctive ideas from the field of biology into social studies.

The questions, “What does it mean to be human, and how might we transcend human nature?” have been a subject of debate for philosophical and theological thinkers for centuries. In recent history, scientific discoveries have led to a resurgence of these ancient debates that break down into three primary schools of thought. There are those who believe that we, like the rest of the animal kingdom, have certain basic “programming” that determines our fundamental nature, and those who believe that human beings are born “tabula rasa” and that nurture determines who we are. The issue becomes increasingly complex for those with the theological belief that human beings are spiritual creatures and that our spirituality is what defines us. However, a

Michael Parenti, author and political scientist, describes human nature as a topic deeply intertwined with politics. The reason for this is because arguments for and against human nature being unalterable and the cause of everything destructive are both ideologically motivated and have a political implication. According to him, to say that human nature is accountable for our current social relations is no different than what renowned thinkers of the past have asserted for their own social circumstances. For instance, philosophers of the Classical Era such as Plato and Socrates believed everyone belonged to their place in the hierarchy. That

* The Origin of Man * The Nature of Man * The Dominion of Man * The Environment of Man

The understanding of human nature is the concept that there is a set of inherent distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that all humans tend to possess (Winkler, 1996). My basic view of human nature correlates with

Human nature can be analyzed through feelings, characteristics, and behavior. Humans are capable of expressing different emotions such as hate, frustration, remorse, happiness and other emotions depending on the situation they are encountering.Various aspects of human nature can be observed through many forms of media. Often times humans are portrayed in a negative way, however there are certain cases where they are portrayed positively, like in the memoir Night by Elie Wiesel. Evil acts, discrimination towards others, and perseverance for survival, are all apart of human nature.

Philosophers are often concerned with “what is” questions: what is the mind? What is moral goodness? What is truth? What is beauty? What is knowledge? For the purpose of this paper the focus is what it means to be human. According to the dictionary a plain definition is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. Philosophers presented a more advanced view on the definition for that reason I will be focusing on modern philosophers Kant and Hobbes. Hobbes defined human beings as physical objects whose activities and functions can

During the early 19th century, scientists, archeologist and other scholars, speculated, studied and disagreed about the development of humans and our origins. Some experts theorized that humans are monogenism and developed into various varieties of species. Others argue that we

In attempting to reveal insight upon the first part of this two-fold question, one must first discern the meaning of human nature. According to the authoritative opinion of The Random House College Dictionary human nature is defined as; "the psychological and social qualities that characterize mankind." In assessing the psychological and social qualities of mankind, it was easy to find oneself consumed within the vastness of characteristical qualities for which humanity has been endowed. These qualities range from ignorance to knowledge; grief to joy; from incontinence to self-restraint; lust to perseverance; injustice to

Human nature is what tells us apart from each other and makes us distinctly human. Our nature and understanding is what makes us different from animals and other creations due to our ability to think and reason. No other creature on this earth has that given ability. Our reason gives us the upper hand and allows us to reflect on our nature and behaviors that allows us to make changes and transform. For example, when facing adversity, we have the choice to continue with our struggles or terminate the situation; if we witness someone else’s misfortune, we have the option to follow in their footsteps or avoid making the same mistake. Human nature, gives us the capability to express our emotions, love and connect. It also allows us to display emotions and actions that are not always appropriate like hate, rape, murder and war. Despite our positive sides, as humans we are capable of destruction, competiveness and greed. Although, I strongly feel that a person’s environment and upbringing will shape their life choices, it does not automatically define who they are or

When considering the theory of anthropology and how it developed, a person would think about anthropologists during the early 20th-century such as Franz Boas and Margret Mead, who during their times contributed to the development into what we know as modern anthropology. However, the foundation of anthropological theory—natural human curiosity— was laid prior to the contributions. These foundations can be traced back to the times of ancient Greek philosophy with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Even though these philosophers were not anthropologists, they had laid the foundation of what would become the field of anthropology by recording their natural curiosity of what it means to be human and how does our world operate. This natural curiosity

Whichcote and Shaftesbury were proposing a different, more optimistic vision of the human nature which conflicted with the strict Calvinist doctrine of original sin. Whichcote was using such ideas to make a theological point that God had created humans with the capacity for goodness. Shaftesbury in his preface was taking a decisive step of translating these ideas from a theological context into a philosophical one. He was setting down a social and benevolent view of human nature that he was to develop in Characteristics. In his preface to the Select Sermons of Dr. Whichcote he begins his attack on Thomas Hobbes and John Locke which he continued in the Characteristics. They have proposed and propagated that the moral ideas originates from the

As well as being a devoted biologist, botanist, moral philosopher, psychologist, zoologist and many more things besides Aristotle held a view about human nature that he interwove into his concept of virtue theory, this is described at some length in the text Nicomachean Ethics. It is this view on human nature that I intend to explain and discuss throughout this essay with reference to some more recent philosophers to show that Aristotle’s view was not only linked directly to Athenian society but has managed to stand the test of time. A point I will return to later in a yet to posted article ‘Can we Consider Modern Ethics to be Aristotelian or Nietzschean?’, this article is much better written and argues the points in greater detail. I must admit this was in fact a very early work of mine and although some editing has been made it still lacks the strength some of my later pieces possess.