Authors' Conceptions of Human Nature
Philosophers, politicians, and writers throughout all of the western world and
across all of our written history have discovered the importance of knowing human nature. Human nature is responsible for our definitions of abstract concepts that are surprisingly universal across the western world like justice, equity, and law. Human nature must also be carefully studied in an effort to understand, obtain, or maintain power within society. Finally, human nature must also be carefully understood so as to protect it from being manipulated and to understand its place in society.
In ancient Greece, Aeschylus sought to define for the people of Athens the part of
human nature that necessitates justice and power. At the end of his series of plays in the Oresteia, Aeschylus tells the story of Orestes and the progression of justice. The final play, The Eumenides, ends with a struggle between different definitions of justice. Orestes is a youth charged with matricide which is punishable by death according to the Furies and the traditional method of restoring equity. Athena, however, offers a form of justice that considers the context of a person’s actions when restoring equity. In the case of Orestes, the context of his case is the guidance given to him by Apollo and the wrongs that he had suffered as a result of his mother, Clytaemestra. Athena’s understanding of human nature is that the ideas of compassion and empathy coexist with the concept of justice in the minds of most people. As a result, Athena establishes a jury comprised of the peers of Orestes so that they may judge him with understanding for both the context of Orestes’s actions and the need for justice for the death of Cl...
... middle of paper ...
...ssful and that followers must be taught to fear their ruler in order to be judged good citizens. Even Aeschylus wrote that humans must fear a higher power and order for them to act righteously. Finally, Hannah Arendt writes that the ability for human nature to be manipulated in an effort to spread hypocrisy leads to destruction. Because all applications of justice begin with human nature and ideals that are supposed common to all people, human nature must be constantly studied in order to gain a better understanding of justice, law, and power.
Works Cited
Aeschylus. Oresteia. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1953.
Arendt, Hannah. The Portable Hannah Arendt. New York: Penguin, 2000.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1995.
Somerville, John and Ronald E. Santoni. Social and Political Philosophy. New York: Anchor Books, 1963.
At first glance, the picture of justice found in the Oresteia appears very different from that found in Heraclitus. And indeed, at the surface level there are a number of things which are distinctly un-Heraclitean. However, I believe that a close reading reveals more similarities than differences; and that there is a deep undercurrent of the Heraclitean world view running throughout the trilogy. In order to demonstrate this, I will first describe those ways in which the views of justice in Aeschylus' Oresteia and in Heraclitus appear dissimilar. Then I will examine how these dissimilarities are problematized by other information in the Oresteia; information which expresses views of justice very akin to Heraclitus. Of course, how similar or dissimilar they are will depend not only on one's reading of the Oresteia, but also on how one interprets Heraclitus. Therefore, when I identify a way in which justice in the Oresteia seems different from that in Heraclitus, I will also identify the interpretation of Heraclitus with which I am contrasting it. Defending my interpretation of Heraclitean justice as such is beyond the scope of this essay. However I will always refer to the particular fragments on which I am basing my interpretation, and I think that the views I will attribute to him are fairly non-controversial. It will be my contention that, after a thorough examination of both the apparent discrepancies and the similarities, the nature of justice portrayed in the Oresteia will appear more deeply Heraclitean than otherwise. I will not argue, however, that there are therefore no differences at all between Aeschylus and Heraclitus on the issue of justice. Clearly there are some real ones and I will point out any differences which I feel remain despite the many deep similarities.
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual. However, Plato examines the justice system from the perfect society and Aeschylus starts at the curse on the House of Atreus and the blood spilled within the family of Agamemnon.
What is human nature? In almost every century someone has asked this question to try and find the answer. Each individual had a specific way of debating the matter. One specific author, Robert Louis Stevenson, described the duality of human nature in his book, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Human Nature has been debated since the beginning of modern human existence, and everybody appears to have a different opinion on what it consists of. Humans, on one hand, are usually very predictable and easy to figure out, but on the other hand, sometimes they stray from the common conception, and therefore make everybody begin the debate over again. People have to deal with other people almost everyday, and many professions actively attempt to figure out why people do what they do and how people would act and react in specific situations. Humans as a whole have come along way in figuring others out, and yet there is so much that is not known about humans. People act differently based on many different factors, and since the start of societies, people have
In the last portion of 'The Orestia';, titled 'The Euminides';, Aeschlyus describes the trial of Orestes, who is brought in front of a jury on the charge of matricide. The jury hands in a tied verdict and the goddess Athena casts the deciding vote in favor of Orestes. This of course begs the question: Was Athena's decision fair? I believe that this decision was in the best interest of fairness because Orestes was motivated by Apollo, enraged by the murder of his father, and aggrieved by the vicious cycle of antisocial behavior that was running rampant in his family.
Human nature is like water, there is no water that does not flow downward just as there are no humans that are not good (122). Human nature does not show any bias towards good or bad, just like water human nature can be guided to a certain endpoint (122). As a result man can be made to do bad (122). Humans have an instinct to do good, but sometimes they stray from that instinct and do bad (129). All humans are capable of doing good (125). Some humans become good by nature and others become bad by nature, an example would be the good King Wen and the cruel King Wu (125). Human’s are sensitive to the suffering of other humans (38). In human nature the morally strong look after those who are not morally strong (89). Human’s love those that love them (94). Humans will follow benevolent rulers and will be willing to die for them (26).
Democracy, emerging in the city-state of Athens, allowed unprecedented power to her citizens. Among these new powers was the ability to legislate. Yet, legislation was not without its problems. First the citizens must agree upon what is just and unjust, and then enforce the law by bringing the unjust to reconcile their guilt with the public through trial, and finally dispense the appropriate penalty. This evolution was not without concern. The Greeks were attempting to establish a governmental system which would span the middle ground between anarchy and despotism. By the crimes played out in Aeschylus' tragic trilogy The Oresteia, Aeschylus demonstrates the contrast between anarchy and despotism, and judges them both guilty. Indeed he shows, by the end of the play, that the only way man can be absolved of guilt is by joining leagues with the gods in a united effort to promote justice. His premise is supported by sequentially following the criminal legacy of the house of Atreus, and showing that the curse of continued injustice can only be ended by the cooperative effort of man and god.
The Furies focus on justice in a simple manner, as illustrated by their statement: “Matricides: we drive them from their houses” (208). Orestes killed his mother, which elevates the crime and “break(s) the god’s first law” (170). Justice, to the Furies, means that punishment must prevail for an evil deed, saying, “you’ll give me blood for blood, you must” (262). Apollo, however claims that Orestes’ actions occurred because he was both avenging his father’s death and following the will of a god, since Apollo himself “commanded him to avenge his father” (201). The Furies’ definition of justice primarily is built on the action itself, whereas Apollo’s definition is more closely related to piety: justice is obeying the god’s will. Orestes situation can be measured through either lens: it is just because he avenges his father’s death and observes the gods orders, or unjust because he commits murder, specifically the murder of his own blood. Justice and piety become difficult to achieve simultaneously for humans in a world where gods are wrathful, and following the will of the gods and being pious often means killing another human unjustly. Athena simply frames the situation saying, “Two sides are here” meaning the different definitions of justice are oppose each other (440). The Oresteia in its entirety is fueled by the conflict of the earliest form of justice, the form similar to piety, beginning to
While Machiavelli may not agree with Marx and Locke regarding human nature, their ideas evolved from their surrounding environments and economies. Marx and Locke advocated that human nature is enveloped in a thriving society. This provided us with valuable insight on the rights of man in pre-Capitalist societies, because equality is the main pillar supporting weight of human reason. Machiavelli argued that men are selfish and do not seek to help those in need, and would rather collect the propriety from a deceased father than mourn his passing. His satire suggests that human nature is not possible.
When a person is accused of a crime they are either found innocent or guilty. This is the basic idea of justice and it is what many feel needs to happen if someone has done something controversial. In the play The Oresteia by Aeschylus, the story of Clytemnestra guilt or innocents is questioned. She does many things that people are not too happy with and those controversial actions throughout the story, mainly in the first part Agamemnon get her into the trouble. As we explore the case that builds against her innocents by exploring the killings of Agamemnon and Cassandra and the boastful expression about the killings.
The play, Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, shows human nature to be greedy, self-involved and vengeful. Claudius is driven by his greed to commit murder. Polonius is always looking out for himself, currying favor at the expense of anyone in his way. Hamlet thinks only of vengeance from the moment he finds out about Claudius murdering his father. Human nature has been all of these things, but it has also evolved through the ages. We can be base and cruel, but we can also show great compassion and kindness.
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 Charles Darwin’s nature vs. nurture theory. Human nature is influenced by both nature and nurture. Nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world, and nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth. An individual’s morals, values, and beliefs are developed from the nurturing aspect of their life. The environment that an individual is raised in creates their human nature. Then they go through life developing more upon their own morals, values, and beliefs. The nature vs. nurture theory is an every changing concept, and I believe that human nature changes for each individual based on their life experiences.
Jones, W. T. Masters of Political Thought. Ed. Edward, McChesner, and Sait. Vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947.
Therefore, desire and reason are not the good and evil itself, but the source of the possible germination of good and evil. So, it looks like that. The nurturing of society and the edification of the social atmosphere are important for the creation of human nature, but attention is to shape human nature and not to shape human nature.
By definition, human nature is the psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humanity. Even with this definitive meaning it is complex and intricate. This meaning raises questions such as “ what is a part of the human nature? What is innate and what have we, as a human species, cultivated into our lifestyle and nature? It also raises the question, what is our human nature?” There have been much said about human nature. Many scientists, philosophers, and authors have spoken on the nature on humans being evil or good. Two authors who have offered up these two opinions were Mencius and Hsun Tzu. Mencius focused on the good of the human race while Tzu focused on the evil. Tzu point of view seems more in line with my rational. However,