Human Nature and Society

Human Nature and Society









         Human nature is defined as the innate morality we are inherently given. Humans are formed over time into the being that society perceives each other. This is the effect of the naturally given code of morality, and the education of the unconscious we adapt in our everyday routines. The cause and effects we subconsciously take from our peers and society, is the very traits we use to define ourselves. Whether these traits are good or evil to the natural human nature has been a controversial topics by philosophers throughout history. Three major characters have played important roles in trying to decipher this question. Mencius, Zhuangzi, and Xungzi all purposed their unique beliefs on the human nature and their views on education and the effects of society. In attempting to decipher the greassroots of human nature, one must question whether human nature is a static definition, or can human nature change still unaffected by education, but instead by the individual himself. Also, is human nature always innately good, or innately bad? Finally, what factors contribute in defining the individual's destiny and whether he will be good or evil?

         Attempting to study human nature is an impossible task to accomplish, since one would have to exclude one's self from the act of society, it is also nearly impossible to monitor the differences between nature and nurture within an already built social structure. We can attempt to analyze the emotions of baby human beings, as they are the closest to being completely natural, but even the initial influences of the parents and doctors can greatly effect this study. Animals live through basic instincts, but are distinctly different in the mentality of humans. Being that it is impossible for a study of this sort to take place, how can philosophers study human nature at all? We look at our past, but even the most earliest notable evidence of humanity, show the presence of community and conflict. Therefore the only method we can use, is to look inward within ourselves and attempt to decode what our beliefs and ideas are an example of our own human nature, and those taken from society.

         Mencius was a Confucian philosopher who defined human nature as generally being good. He believed humans are born with the characteristic to strive for a state of self-actualization to better themselves and the peers around him. Mencius believes society interferes with innate human nature, creating the monsters and taboos we see today. The act of evil is the effect of our surroundings. The environment and atmosphere the individual strategically, but unconsciously places himself in, shapes and eventually defines the individual. The question then arises, who is the individual? He is no longer himself according to Mencius, but instead a sheep of society. The subject no longer possesses control over himself, he is caught up within the politics of the social normality, that he loses himself in the process, and society now has complete control over this being and directly acts in accordance to the ever changing norm of society. Mencius believes freedom of will is lost to all human beings who partake in the rituals of society.

         We see examples of Mencius's theories everyday in our modern communities. For example, those who are swept deep into the well of drug abuse provide the greatest understanding of the effects peers and society has on them. The drug user is constantly surrounded by peers who also use drugs on a regular basis. When cocaine and heroin are sometimes seen within the user's environment, other more common substances such as marijuana and LSD are viewed as a normality within his peers. The normality is very important to the individual, he no longer recognizes the severity when he encounters the common substances, and therefore believes it is only part of his rituals, and continues its use. This is the educational example Mencius sees as being the act of evil as a direct influence of society. We are lost in trying to be aware of our surroundings, we become locked within the barriers society forms around us. In attempting to expand the conscious of the human mind, we expand the unconscious which effects us just as greatly.

         The views of Mencius explicitly states the destruction of human naturalism by the effects society inflicts upon the individual. Does this mean all aspects of society should be excluded for each individual? James A. Ryan carefully interprets the works of Mencius to answer this question. “...we desire our natural sciences to tell us about the physical world as it exists independently of our thoughts and pre-scientific intuitions about it...” (Ryan 4). Mencius believes it is natural desire to seek answers to the origins of ourselves. Within these searches, we interpret information given by our peers and everyday situations. As we encounter new and unique tasks throughout one person's life, those situations and inspirations become the definition of ourselves and are the traits that make us alive and human. How we perceive ourselves and our peers around us are the direct influences of the encounters that occur in each individual's life. Ryan states that this is no longer human nature Mencius defines as being absolute, but human nature does provide the role or perceiving these events. As human beings, we are naturally curious. We strive for answers and knowledge to gain a better sense of who we are. Although it is our curiosity that directs the individual into divinity, or a life of bitter evil, our basic human nature follows us throughout our paths. Even those who have fallen into the darkness of evil, their actions are justified according to Ryan's interpretation of Mencius. “...it would be 'right for them' to cheat.” (Ryan 5). Although this is a very controversial subject as in 'What is right and wrong' in the basics of ethics and morality, Mencius believes otherwise. It is his philosophy that humans always try to better themselves and others, although the illusions of their actions may seem to state otherwise. It would indeed be the act of the unconscious mind when someone carries out an action that although is harmful to the progress of social structure, it is justified in the environment of the 'criminal's' mind that had been shaped strictly by the methods of society.

         Given this, it is seen that we are not immune to the creations of society's effect, nor is it possible to exclude society from the innocence of the naturalistic mind. This could be a large issue when philosophers talk about destiny and fate vs. freedom of will. Xunzi is an advocate of Mencius, in which he believes in the human nature as being evil, and society's influence as being good to the development of the individual. For instance, he states humans are barbaric in nature, in which he would kill another human being for the better chance of survival, and one who has formed to the ideals of society is educated in he will find alternative ways for survival. Although Xunzi believes human nature as being evil, he also states human destiny as being a divine aspect of life. Humans are born with the objective to profit according to Xunzi. We are driven to achieve, to be the best of the best in a dog eat dog world. Humans are greedy to the point he wouldn't deplete his oxygen for the guy turning blue. Man takes from others, and continues to take no matter if he has an absurd surplus. How does this trait justify man's destiny? Xunzi explains that during man's journey for profit, he subconsciously teaches himself. The knowledge he gains on his destructive path actually morphs his destiny into a better being. For instance, Xunzi believe a thief who has stolen many goods from his community, may find himself in a state where he has many enemies, and the lack of trust in his surroundings. This man then, still driven by profit, sets out to better the condition of his life. He is greedy in which he wants to become socially accepted in his environment. He may even self correct his lifestyle into becoming a honest conditioned person. The effects of society to Xunzi has developed greater self-awareness and actuality so the individual becomes conscious of the consequences of human nature.

         Doctor Xinzhong Yao analyzes Xunzi. “...he (Xunzi) insists that human nature can be transformed and that peace, harmony and goodness can prevail in the world.” (Yao 79). Human nature is innately born evil, but education and experience we learn makes us pure. Yao goes on by stating humans may not be born naturally good, but  they are born with the ability to become a virtuous being. They are guided by a proper teacher and every piece of information changes the individual's perception of the entire world, and his views on society. Unlike other philosophers, Xunzi objects to the idea that human beings follow a heart-mind. Instead humans are driven by knowledge and curiosity to find one self's place in life. Xunzi sends the message to obtain and posses the value of knowledge and adapt it to one's self in order to achieve a state of peace and well-being. Xunzi provides the reader with the assumption that the influences of society on the individual, along with the influence of the individual on society is vital for progression of mankind. Without the individual, society is shapeless, and without society, the individual is cruel and heartless.

         Zhuangzi has another unique view on human nature. Although his most notable work is the metaphor of The Butterfly Dream, Zhuangzi is also known to be one of the first anarchist of his time. His political view of government, in which he purposes the evil government has on the individual. This is similar to Mencius. Zhuangzi states that the authority government inflicts on the general public, limits the freedom and self awareness of the community. “Zhuangzi attempts to free us from boundedness through his metaphors. It would be interesting to consider whether, and to what extent, we can free ourselves from certain ways of perceiving the world. Certainly, Zhuangzi himself was not free: he could not help but grieve when his wife died. If a man follows the [heart-mind] given him and makes it his teacher, then who can be without a teacher?” (Kim-chong Chong 12). Kim-chong Chong tries to interpret Zhuangzi's meanings in his metaphors. Chong believes Zhuangzi's beliefs are not directly against the strict system of government, but rather is a call to the population to be aware and conscious of the effects a government has on the heart-mind. Zhuangzi believes in the same principles as Mencius, society forms the individual to live in according to society itself, but states the ideals of government has direct responsibility in shaping society.

         Zhuangzi once dreamt he was a butterfly. In the dream he was joyfully floating across a field contained in a beautiful being of nature. When Zhuangzi awoke, he found himself confused. He questioned whether he was Zhuangzi who dreamt of being a beautiful butterfly, or if he was a butterfly dreaming of being Zhuangzi. This metaphor has created many different interpretations by scholars and other philosophers. A common interpretation is Zhuangzi is dreaming about the butterfly, because he desires to be free from the torments a human being faces. Freedom prevails in animals as they aren't affected by the normality of social situations as humans are. Such a simple being as the butterfly has very little worries except obtaining food through very little competition. The butterfly dream can have a very important meaning in understanding human nature. If someone were to take this interpretation of Zhuangzi's dream literal, it can have have great support in defending Mencius's theory of human nature being innately good. Zhuangzi dreams of being a creature so free and so simple. A creature that cannot wage war, but only spread joy to its onlookers. A creature who desires nothing more in life, than to live. Zhuangzi is indeed a divine thinker. Zuangzi's dream is an example of the desires of other human beings. When we think about the character of the butterfly, flying freely around in a setting as peaceful as a field of flowers. Perhaps this is the true example of human nature. We are happy when we think peaceful, simple, and good thoughts of any kind daily stress is relieved and our minds free. This is the human nature, we enjoy being happy, and hate being sad. We are driven to achieve the state which makes us happy, and we will strive to change our environment when the time calls that we do so in order to recreate this feeling of euphoria.

         The question arises, who is to blame for evil? Mencius believes society is the culprit in creating the criminals and murders. Zhuangzi believes it is government, and Xunzi as human nature itself. My own interpretation, could be that each of these beliefs are contributing factors in deciding one's destiny. Human nature in my own opinion is generally good. We are born with a clean conscious and we deliberately strive to achieve the best for ourselves and our surrounding society. It is our individuality which defines our destiny, but our knowledge and experience that decides what class of society we fall into. I also feel society itself creates strong influence on the subject's desires. Education is generally helpful for those who understand how to utilize their knowledge in obtaining the best possible conditions for themselves. Although no matter how much knowledge the individual has acquired, the influences of society on that person is greatly affected. Government defines society, and society defines the individual. However, the basic human nature of each and every person, is the absolute factor in defining one's own destiny. A single person holds the ability to rise above the torments of society, and the authority of government, based on one's personal ability to interpret information in according to his/her own nature. Just as a heroin junkie can cure himself from his own disease.

         I have pointed out the differences between the individual, society, and government, and I have stated the influence of each in the views of the three philosophers. How then, is human nature defined as being good or bad, and if it is defined, is there free will, and is there a right and wrong? Many religions believe in the idea of fate. Where one's life has been decided for the individual, and the person has no control in the direction he can face to achieve his destiny. I personally disbelieve this idea. It is true human beings are born with a limitation of free will, as you can't kill another man without facing the consequences set by society. However, how could anyone believe in fate considering the vast differences between people. We are faced daily with decisions and are constantly bombarded with information contributed by the wonders of the world we live in. To believe we are nothing but a chess player's pawn would be to deny that these decisions exist. Through our own motivations and personal desires, we strive and act according to what we have set for ourselves. We are consciously aware of the cause and effects of each of our actions, yet at the same time are unaware of full consequences contributed by our actions. This is the thrill and wonder of life, we are aware, but unaware consistently throughout eternity. Therefore, destiny cannot be defined. Else there would be no progress in our communities, and struggles would seem endless. We are gifted with choices throughout our lives, and we are gifted with knowledge to make those decisions. Human nature cannot be good, as it cannot be bad. Although we all have a nature, the nature changes to adapt with the presence of time and our interpretations of knowledge. Government and society plays key role as it affects the way we interpret information, but in the end, destiny is defined only by the individual. Becoming virtuously good, or completely evil is a question that needs to asked by the individual. Through his knowledge and experience, and his traits characterized by social aspects, and his own basic human nature, he decides for himself how to live his life, and his moral alignment.

         

         

Works Cited







Ryan, James A. “A defense of Mencius.” Asian Philosophy. 7.nl (March 1997): 23(14)





Chong, Kim-chong. “Zhuangzi and the nature of metaphor.” Philosophy East and West. 56.3 (July          2006): 370(22).





Yao, Xinzhong. An Introduction to Confucianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 2000.