The Natural Nature Of Human Beings

In Genesis one and two, it provides a full understanding of God’s creations and wisdom of human nature because it is free from evil. Human nature is revealed from Genesis one with God creating the Earth and the Heavens and creating the man of his likeness. The Bible explains how God created Adam, from dust and was placed in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:7). The Bible explains humanity was created to work and serve (Genesis 2:15). Subsequently, Eve was created; “God had created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Adam and Eve would help God because He wanted them to multiply the Earth by taking care of all of his creation (Hiles & Smith, 2014). God is the sovereign ruler, he created humanity as how he should have wanted. The Bible explains about human nature that God created everything to be distinct from animals and all of His creation. God created us in his own image, which is why we all look different; we are unique in His eyes. Also, God created us to be good because we are born innocent of all evil and loving of God. In addition, we were all born pure as Adam and Eve were. The Bible explains that God was pleased with his creations, “God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:10-21).

In Genesis the word of God leads humanity in the direction of self preservation, urging them to procreate, to ”Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:1), and to minimize hostility and violence among people. As Freud asserted, “Besides the instinct to preserve living substance and join it into ever larger units, there must exist another, contrary instinct seeking to dissolve those units and bring them back to their primeval, inorganic state” (Freud 77). Genesis exemplifies the struggle between the two opposing human instincts, with God acting as a moderator between them. Forms of justice are put into place in an attempt to control these drives, one example being the proclamation that “Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). The ethics and laws that develop throughout Genesis seek to “prevent the crudest excesses of brutal violence” but are unable to control “the more cautious and refined manifestations of human aggressiveness” (Freud 70). Since they cannot be completely eradicated, the scriptures instead play into the more negative aspects of human nature, especially narcissism, and manipulate them into a force for conservation rather than annihilation.

Human beings are part of the animal kingdom, and therefore part of nature. If that is true, then everything they create or destroy is by default "natural". I agree with the statement.

Human nature by essence has been the cause of many entrepreneurial paths, all follow to known the essence itself behind of what we conceive as life. Moreover it’s righteous description and abstract content, that many great man has humbly studied and that for centuries have made a path closely enough to the understanding of it, yet far from the light, it seems to be and unsolvable question that gives us a “Raison d'être” to our existence in this world.

There is no doubt that nature decides what our natural physical characteristics like eye color, hair color, height, and weight are. But when it comes to how we interact with one another and who we become, the nurture side comes into play and leads us. Human nature or our humanity means our behavioral traits. We develop these traits through the culture, social norms and social ethics in which we were born into. Through our interactions with others we learn how to behave, we learn what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in our society (What are the factors that affect human behavior, n.d.).

The natural state of man has been a reoccurring theme when reviewing the history of political philosophy and theory. This study has helped societies develop laws and common goals. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory is still strikingly relevant in today’s law and order. His main concern was how people lived: how to avoid war since people lived in defensive fear. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) challenged Hobbes’s philosophy. He says, “The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct.” In other words, he thought that men were good by nature and when exposed to society they are corrupted. Although both philosophers study the course of society, they have very divergent views. This paper will examine both theories of the social contract. Thus, I will later conclude why Hobbes has a more feasible hypothesis.

What quality does human nature follow? Since earlier times this broad and very controversial question has sparked many different discussions and debates in the world. Some people believe man inherently has a good nature and goes against this to perform evil acts. Others say a human automatically begins with a bad nature, but overcomes this to do wonderful deeds. Furthermore, different beliefs and religions have different views on this subject. Asian religions claim that a yin yang trait composes this nature, and Christians say man’s nature follows sin but one can overcome with God’s help. Different answers for this question have appeared, but no matter the differences in the beliefs, they all agree that no matter the traits of human nature,

Humans are a strange species in general because of the way they handle the conflict also the way life is presented and dealt with. Many things make humans out to be a certain way but the literature that many writers have used to describe humans is even stranger. Humans have a way of dealing with many traumas and issues that arise throughout their lives while also dealing with the excitement and happiness that comes along as humans wander through life. Though literature; from the time it started to the present, focuses on the human condition in so many ways because in every story the characters have a conflict that will be handle and that will show their outlook on life and what matters to them most. Human nature, society, and the way people live in a literary work can portray the human condition to the reader. Many writers use their feelings in the time period or their thoughts about people of the time to describe the human condition which is read about and carried through the years. The human condition really never changes and the cycle spins around and will always spin around until there are no humans left. There is a positive and negative, a good and bad, each person is made out to be one way or the other. Many writers use their works to make a point and give a purpose just like the characters in their stories. The human condition was portrayed by authors such as Moliere, Voltaire, Rossetti, Tagore, Kafka, and Lu Xun.

unable to define a simple term like human nature? Over the course of history, many important philosophers and scholars, while trying to define human nature, have come up with theories that have helped shape the way countries are governed and led. Psychologists and philosophers have taken different sides when it comes to determining what kind of intentions humans are naturally born with. Are humans inherently born evil or good? People have used philosophy, religion, and even science to find the answer to this question. There are valuable arguments that have been made from people who think humans are born inherently good, and from people who think humans are born inherently bad. Another belief is that humans are born inherently good, and then due to civilization, humans turn bad. Human nature is a debate that could go on without end, however, is worth researching about.

Human nature, the essence of what makes a human person what they are, is something that everybody has. Every person is innately a person, but how they put their personhood into action is the biggest indicator of their character, or the projection of a person’s human nature. At their core there is human nature, but their actions are what direct this source of humanity. The quality of someone’s actions is shaped by their environment and sometimes their biological makeup as well. Human nature does not have good or evil characteristics. It is how a person thinks and acts that is the true factor in the shaping of their character.

The brain is believed to involve two different views of human nature, the first states that it is a flexible organ that adapts in order to gain new information. The second view indicates that the it is formed by evolution in order to learn to perform different functions (Splleke, 2007) This essay will aim to understand these views by discussing and comparing Spllekes (2007) ‘core knowledge’ theory, and Gopniks (2004) ‘The scientist in the crib’ theory, the two main modern approaches to developmental cognitive psychology.

The true nature of humanity has been a debated topic by scholars for centuries. The topic has influenced many of the great works created during the 18th century. The writers of these works either had an optimistic or pessimistic view of mans true nature. This view determined how they perceived the creation of the state and its consequences on human nature. One of these influential thinkers was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a Genevan philosopher. Rousseau had an optimistic view of human nature and believed man was good until introduced to society. In his work On the Social Contract, Rousseau creates a guidebook that provided the necessities for a legitimate government. In this work he stated that there needed to be an imported lawgiver to provide the state with just laws. In this text it is apparent that there are paradoxes between the law giver and the public that he is creating laws for because the lawgiver is creating laws for a society he isn 't even a part of thus mandating rules he sees fit.

The Oxford Dictionary defines human nature as, “The general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans” (Human Nature). Throughout various great literary works, human nature is portrayed in many positive and negative ways. As humans, we have evolved to rely on one another; no man is an island, and one’s actions affect society around him/her in one way or another. Human nature is seen today as either altruistic or egotistical, depending on the individual’s perspective. However, there is no way of determining whether the natural tendency of humans is to do good or to do bad. Even with all of the progress made throughout the evolution of humankind, our understanding of human nature as a whole has remained unchanged in its definition. Each individual has his or her own morals and beliefs, which together make up his or her own human nature. Each human has his or her own, unique natural tendencies and morals. Though this makes us all different from one another, it also makes us more alike because of this uniqueness. Through their unique traits and ideals, the characters from Gilgamesh, The Aeneid, Hamlet, and Freedom Writers all exemplify the best and the worst in human nature, and manage to meet somewhere in the middle of this modern understanding of human nature.

Thousands of years ago, in the dry African savannah, the human’s earliest descendents hunted for food and scoured the land for water. The main priority at that point was simply to survive. Humans have come a long way since the stone age, and continue their advancements and innovations in the age of technology. The dictionary definition of human is “sympathetic; humane” or “to be a human being.” (Human) However, to be human is a deeper and more elaborate definition. To be human cannot be boiled down to a straightforward elucidation; it is a complex answer to a simple question. Humans are defined by their undefinability, and by the collective learning that allowed for the expansion of human knowledge.

There are many characteristics that make humankind special and unique; some of these traits can be easily identified while others are difficult to notice. These unique traits are mostly backed by different theories from many fields such as; theology, biology, psychology, anthropology among others.