When people talk about the nature of man, it can go back for many centuries and is still a popular topic today. What is the nature of man, or what is human nature? This is an exceptionally discussed point with various conclusions. Psychologically, it is a group of attributes, likewise including ways you think, feel, or act, and every one of these things comes to people naturally. They are a part of you and you learn these things as you grow older.
Many philosophers have argued different sides, whether if the nature of man is good or bad. They all have brought many creative ideas, but the question still stands.
One philosopher, John Locke, created a theory that the nature of man is a “blank slate”, and compared it to a “blank piece of paper” (John Locke). He states that a man is born with no knowledge of how they should act or do things. This all depends on how they are raised and taught things.
He fundamentally expresses that a man is impartial until the point that he is instructed in an unexpected way. He says that on the off chance that the assembly does not keep on ensuring their qualities, the general population has the privilege to make a change in their life. This shows that individuals require a government and that they need a “social contract”, which they must surrender a portion of their freedom. This is in return for “the protections and opportunities of civil society” (Hobbes 119/Studymoose).
That way, they satisfy their side of the agreement. I do believe in Locke”s theory because I feel as if he is saying that this grants more power to the people, whether if they believe in how they want to learn things or the things they are taught. It applies more knowledge to the people themselves. I believe their nature is learned, depending on how they were raised and their surroundings. When you are born, you technically know “nothing”, and it is up to you to acquire knowledge and how you do it.
The philosopher Thomas Hobbes also believes in the government and having a social contract, but he doesn’t think the people should have as much freedom as they should if the government doesn’t hold their side of the contract.he says that all men are brought into this world the same, however on the off chance that one man ends up being more superior or more grounded or more brilliant, at some point, another man can become the same things. “Nature hath made men so equal in the facilities of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in the body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable that one man can thereupon claim himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he” (Hobbes 120/Studymoose). Like Locke, he also states that a man”s nature is shaped by their environment and experiences.
Another philosopher, known as Edward O. Wilson, creates another debate. He explains that human nature is “the epigenetic rules, the hereditary regularities of mental development that bias cultural evolution in one direction as opposed to another” (Wilson 145/Studymoose). Epigenetics is “the study of changes in organisms caused by modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code itself (Dictionary). He believes that human nature has a lot to do with the human brain, “brains that choose wisely possess superior Darwinian fitness, meaning that statistically they survive longer and leave more offspring” (Wilson 145/Studymoose). He believes that individuals who are wiser than others indicate characteristics from past ancestors and are bound to be shown in the brain. This isn’t really an advantage, yet it is a typical characteristic in every human mind. So, if most people share attributes with their ancestors, it demonstrates that specific characteristics that we accept to be a human instinct have fallen into a place of the fact that our ancestors used to outlive others longer. “A large part of the environment shaping it has been cultural” (Wilson 146/Studymoose). This basically means that the traits we are born with could also be the same traits that our ancestors felt that they needed to learn in order to survive in those times. This ties into John Locke”s “blank state” theory because, however, these qualities are present in our tendency, they were once something that must be composed upon the vacant pages of the human personality.
I find that all men are conceived inside an impartial condition of being. In reality, there are great men and evil men, and there are also those who are simply striving to succeed in whatever they are doing in both the good and the evil. I think that it is difficult to understand that all men are conceived to one side or the other between the two. Philosophers have talked on the idea of man for quite a long time. Researchers have now joined the discussion investigating why individuals do what they do, with incredible outcomes toward educated attributes versus what we would call human instincts. Sociobiology, which is the study of biological aspects of social conduct in animal’s and humans, is a field that did not exist 50 years ago, and I feel it could be effortlessly be depicted, in less difficult times, as the investigation of human and animal nature. Maybe this is an inquiry, in the same way as others, that will just go unanswered, paying little mind to most individuals examining this subject. In finding the response to the topic of human instinct, we might have the capacity to disengage the distinction between what is discovered and what a human is brought into the world to do. That could be the way to facilitating the way we learn or the way in which we show the ages to come. Maybe our posterity will be fit in learning college-level material when we are young, making the potential outcomes of human advancement endless!