To succeed at answering the first question, it is necessary to clearly understand the difference between the two types of taking the information from various sources, i. e. paraphrasing and quoting. Thus, paraphrasing is the process of taking an idea from a certain source but putting it in the writer’s own words. In respect of quoting, the latter must be properly acknowledged, put in quotation marks with the further indication of the author, publishing date, and the specific page number from which the information quoted was retrieved. The issue here is that if a person quotes something from a source but uses the rules of paraphrasing to acknowledge the source, the quoted information becomes plagiarism because it was taken directly from the source and not marked as quoting. The following examples from the work by Stevenson and Haberman (2004) demonstrate the unacceptable and acceptable instances of paraphrasing and explain the reasons for their (un)acceptability:
“We have here two systems of belief that are total in their scope. Traditionally, Christians and Marxists claim to have the essential truth about the whole of human life; they assert something about the nature of all human beings, at any time and in any place. And these worldviews claim not just intellectual assent but practical action; if one really believes in either theory, one should accept its implications for one’s way of life and act accordingly” (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004, p. 7).
“As a last point of comparison, note that for each belief system, there has been a human organization that claims the allegiance of believers and asserts a certain authority of both doctrines and practice. For Christianity there is the Church, and for Marxism the Communist Party. Or, to be more accurate, there have long been rival Christian churches and a variety of Marxist or communist parties. Each makes competing claims to follow the true doctrine of its founder, defining rival versions of the basic theory as orthodox and following different practical policies” (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004, p. 7 – 8).
Unacceptable paraphrasing
There are two systems of belief that are total in their scope. Christianity and Marxism claim to know everything about the whole of human life, the nature of all human beings, at any time and in any place. Not only intellectual assent, but practical action is involved in this worldview. The supporters of each theory should accept its implications for one’s way of life and act accordingly.
To complete the comparison, a human organization that claims the allegiance of believers and asserts a certain authority of both doctrines and practice stands behind each belief. There is the Church for Christianity, while Marxists have the Communist Party. To be more accurate, there are rival Christian churches and communist parties that make competing claims to follow the true doctrine of its founder, defining rival versions of the basic theory as orthodox and following different practical policies.
This way of paraphrasing is unacceptable because the bulk of words from the original are simply copied. There is also no indication of quoting, i. e. no quotation marks for the copied words to make the paraphrasing a quotation and no acknowledgement of the author of the words paraphrased. To correctly cite paraphrasing, it is necessary to place the name of the author of the source paraphrased and the date of the source publishing. Paraphrasing does not demand quotation marks and the indication of the specific page the information was taken from.
Acceptable paraphrasing
The two belief systems discussed, Christianity and Marxism, are similar in the claims of knowing the truth about life and human nature. The supporters of each belief have to adopt theoretical and practical policies of either Christianity or Marxism (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004).
Also, each belief system is supported by the human organization. Thus, Christianity is promoted by Church, while Marxism is the ideology of the Communist party. In history, there were always several competing churches or communist parties that claimed loyalty to the founder and accused their competitors of violating the initial principles of either Christianity or Marxism (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004).
The above examples are acceptable instances of paraphrasing as far as they preserve the information from the original but put it in writer’s own words. The idea and the main notions of the messages are preserved, but the way of their presentation is changed. Moreover, no quotation marks are needed as the paragraphs are correctly paraphrased and modified. Finally, there are indications of the authors of the sources the information was taken from and the date of publishing of the sources. Therefore, the above examples of paraphrasing are acceptable and free of plagiarism.
The book by Stevenson and Haberman (2004) is a rather professional and detailed account on the ten dominant, according to the authors, theories of human nature that the mankind has ever produced. And the two initially addressed theories are Christianity or Marxism, which have a lot in common as Stevenson and Haberman (2004) argue. The first, and the most important, point of comparison is the consideration of both views on human nature as the “closed systems”. The meaning of this term is concentrated in the assumption, which is further proven in the book by Stevenson and Haberman (2004), that both Christianity and Marxism have complete worldview systems with their own values, ideas, and views of the creation of the human being, its role in the world, and opportunities for free choice and making changes in its life.
Although, the nature of the Christian and Marxist view on basic questions is completely different, Stevenson and Haberman (2004) find similarities in the presence of answers to basic human questions in each of the theories: “Both Christianity and Marxism have beliefs about history…For the Christian, the meaning of history is given by its relation to the eternal…Marx claimed to find a pattern of progress in human history that is entirely internal to it” (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004, p. 6). Thus, Christianity finds explanations to its basic questions in the spiritual sphere, while Marxism addresses rationale and science as the tool to explain purely materialistic, according to Marx, process of creation of the human being. As well, Christianity and Marxism consider the reasons for differences individual human beings display, the causes of human misfortunes and the ways to avoid the latter. Although differing in explanations of the above phenomena, Christianity and Marxism are similar in their focus on the same questions and, being complete systems of worldviews, they can be called “closed systems”.
Considering the theories of human nature, Stevenson and Haberman (2004) describe how religious people, according to them, confront philosophical challenges. The correctness of this account is disputable because religious people as such can be divided into two main types. The first type includes the people that worship a religion, Christianity in this case, and keep to all its principles. The second type includes people that hold beliefs of Christianity but do not feel obliged to follow its dogmas and have the religion-based worldview. Drawing from this, the generalizations made by Stevenson and Haberman (2004) that, for example, “the Christian believes that only the power of God Himself can save us from our state of sin” (p. 7), are true in relation to some Christians, but false for others.
Therefore, the views held by Stevenson and Haberman (2004) are not deprived of the rational core but what they need to become more adequate and applicable for the wider range of people is to avoid sweeping generalizations like in the example above. The degrees to which people are committed to the religions they worship are different, and therefore the account presented by Stevenson and Haberman (2004) lacks only the consideration of the practices of handling philosophical challenges adopted by those people, who are not very religious and admit scientific and materialistic explanations to some phenomena of the reality.
One of the mostly widespread theories of human nature is the so-called theory of determinism. Being initially a purely philosophical theory explaining the motivations and moving forces of the events, actions, etc. in the objective reality, determinism was introduced into the study of human nature as the belief that all human actions are conditioned exclusively by the preceding actions and their results, but not by the free will (Abel, 1991). In other words, determinism in the study of human nature is the idea of all actions being predetermined prior to their being actually committed by human beings (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004). For example, if a person thinks that he/she freely chooses the unskilled job, this decision is, according to determinism, actually the result of the person’s failure to get education in the past.
Moreover, the theory of determinism is used in the human nature by the two rather influential movements. They are the movements of behaviorism and psychoanalysis, whose founders B. F. Skinner and Sigmund Freud respectively, attributed the prominent role to determinism in their ideas (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004; Abel, 1991). Thus, B. F. Skinner is a worldwide famous scholar and the father of natural determinism and behaviorism in the sphere of human nature studies. His ideas can be formulated in the statement that all human behaviors are internally and externally conditioned and the choices that human beings make allegedly on the basis of free will are actually predetermined.
In more detail, the ideas by Skinner are focused on genetic and environmental causes of every single action committed by every particular person (Abel, 1991). Skinner believes that human behavior is transferred at the genetic level and is also influenced by the environmental factors that include the circle of friends and acquaintances the person communicates within, the influences of the society, the system of punishments and rewards adopted in this society or in the particular family, etc (Abel, 1991). Based on this, B. F. Skinner does not reject the possibility of the human choice but says that even this allegedly free choice is predetermined by the above mentioned internal and external factors (Abel, 1991). Drawing from this, it is obvious that determinism was the part of Skinner’s theory of human nature called behaviorism.
Further on, Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis can also be considered through the prism of determinism. Sigmund Freud searched for the reasons of human psychological issues in the unconscious and determinism was the most fitting theory to explain the relations between the unconsciousness and human actions. The very determinant of human actions, neurotic disorders, etc. was this or that process taking place in the human unconscious (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004; Abel, 1991). Thus, Freud considered the human psychology to be the determinant factor, which he used as one of the main tool of the psychoanalysis procedure. The latter was used by Sigmund Freud as the instrument of explaining human actions and behavior that cannot be explained in any other way but through determinism (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004; Abel, 1991). For instance, is a person has no obvious reasons to commit a crime and free will cannot be considered the reason for the latter, Freud would explain this crime by the unconsciously determined choice of this person.
Needless to say, Skinner’s theory of behaviorism based on determinist ideas caused a lot of controversy and various objections from different scholars. The three main areas that resulted in the widest dispute include the views of B. F. Skinner concerning language acquisition principles, higher cognitive skills, and human freedom on the whole (Weston, 2008). The bulk of the objections were delivered by either the supporters of biological determinism, like Chomsky, or the proponents of the free will theory in human nature study, like Staddon or Burgess (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004). The main objectives to Skinner’s behaviorist ideas include the following points made by Chomsky, Staddon, and Burgess:
- Skinner’s purely scientific approach to explaining behaviors does not consider the probability of free will in making choices;
- This theory cannot be applied to all occurrences of human behavior;
- Based on Skinner’s views, criminals should be helped but not punished;
- Skinner’s theory rejects the possibility of intention as the motivation for an activity;
- Skinner’s theory undermines the importance of moral choice for people’s actions;
- Skinner’s theory does not recognize innate abilities of human beings explaining any cognitive activity through punishment, rewards, and reinforcements from the environment;
- Skinner’s views on language and higher cognitive skills acquisition reject the possibility of free choice or innate abilities;
- Skinner’s theory undermines the very principles of valuing human freedom and is dangerous to the society.
To critically evaluate the reasonability of the above arguments, it is necessary to notice that the major opponent of Skinner’s views was Noam Chomsky, the supporter of the biological determinism and the fierce rival of the ultimate determinism by Skinner (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004). This stated, the arguments presented can be considered dually, i. e. from Chomsky’s viewpoint and from the point of view of an ordinary person’s rationale. Considering the former perspective, Skinner’s views are too exclusive, i. e they exclude the possibility of any other scenario but determinism. Although Chomsky was not a supporter of free will theory either, his biological determinism and the possibility of innate abilities of people were ignored by Skinner, and it is natural that Chomsky criticized behaviorism.
Considering the latter perspective, it is actually hard to imagine that every action is predetermined and people are deprived of free will and freedom of choices at all. For example, when a person plans to draw a picture it is his/her intention to do it and it seems not to be determined by any circumstances. A human being can have intentions and put them into practice.
Moreover, the rejection of the intention and free will as people’s motivations would involve therapy for criminals but not their punishment as they cannot be hold responsible for their actions. If every deed is determined, than a person cannot control his/her criminal activities and cannot be punished for them. This approach is rather dangerous as it might help numerous criminals avoid responsibility for their actions.
Finally, scholarly research and experience of daily life proves that innate abilities have significance for cognitive skills acquisition. Thus, Skinner’s theory undermines this principle by rejecting innateness and basics of human freedom. Although it cannot be labeled as an inadequate theory for human nature study, behaviorism by Skinner needs to be more inclusive and less hostile to other theories. In its current approach to the human person, behaviorism cannot be used to explain the activities and behaviors of people.
Sigmund Freud was another scholar that resorted to the help of determinism in his theory of psychoanalysis through which he could get at the unconscious (Abel, 1991). There were six major techniques used by Freud that are still in use nowadays. They include dream analysis, para praxes, word associations, projective tests, free associations technique, and hypnosis. Based on the assumption that the unconscious is formed by hidden symbols that people learn from fairy tales, jokes, and communication acts, Freud asked patients to recall their dreams and analyzed the symbols observed (Abel, 1991).
This technique was called the “royal road to the unconscious” by Freud (Abel, 1991). Para praxes involved the analysis of slips of the tongue and pen of the patient, which, according to Freud, revealed the actual thoughts of the latter. The essence of word association technique was in asking the patient to pronounce the first word that comes to his her mind on hearing a word pronounced by Freud (Loptson, 2006). Projective tests involved analyzing the associations of a patient with the images, mainly abstract ones, shown to him/her by the analyst. Free associations technique was the analysis of the free topic chosen by the patient for conversation and his/her ideas expressed while talking on this topic. Finally, hypnosis was the most complicated procedure when the patient was placed in the state of trance and his/her unconscious was uncovered and easily analyzed by Freud.
Needless to say, the opponents of Freud’s views claimed psychoanalysis was everything but a science. For instance, Wittgenstein called psychoanalysis a myth rather than a science as it was based on the ancient belief in the symbolic power of dreams and on myth-based interpretation of those symbols (Loptson, 2006). Moreover, Karl Popper challenged the scientific basis of the psychoanalysis because the latter operated with ideas and considerations that could not be tested in either empirical or theoretical way (Abel, 1991). Comparing psychoanalysis to Einstein’s theory of relativity, Popper claimed that the latter could be challenged, tested, and disproved in case of proper experimental procedures undertaken, while psychoanalysis could not. Finally, McGinn calls psychoanalysis “an intoxicating mixture of truth, half-truth, and sheer invention” (Loptson, 2006, p. 24) and seems to complete its defeat as pseudo-science.
However, such an attitude towards the status of psychoanalysis as a science is not uniform. For example, my knowledge of human nature and of the peculiarities of the human personality has been considerably influenced by the theory of psychoanalysis by Freud. Through this theory I have widened my scope in human personality studies and found out such interesting facts about the human psychology as the interpretative nature of symbols from dreams, the possibility of uncovering the unconscious through associative techniques, and the usefulness of hypnosis for diagnostics and treatment of psychological disorders.
The views on human nature that are absolutely opposite to the views discussed above can be observed in the ideas by the French writer and philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, whose most famous expression is referred to by Stevenson and Haberman (2004) as the embodiment of belief in free will: “Man is condemned to be free” (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004, p. 4). Being a committed atheist, Sartre was however different from Marx in his idea that human life is not conditioned or determined by anything; human life, according to Sartre, is the process of making decision based on the free will of any particular human being. Moreover, the existentialist values of Sartre are reflected in his idea that “there are no objective values for human living, only subjective individual choices” (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004, p. 5). Thus, speaking about human nature, Sartre stands for the assumption that every human being fights for his/her interests and the choices he/she makes in this fighting are based on their free will only.
Thus, Sartre’s view of human nature and freedom is the absolute opposite to, for instance, the determinist theory of Skinner. The latter, as discussed above in this paper, held the view that determinism, either internal or external, rules the decisions and actions of people and rejected the very existence of such a phenomenon as free will (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004). Sartre was the fierce proponent of the free will and tended to explain every single human action through this phenomenon. The idea of the human being condemned to freedom can be directly opposed to the view by Skinner who argues that all activities are dictated by the genetic peculiarities of the person, his/her family environment and social influence upon this person (Stevenson and Haberman, 2004; Abel, 1991). Moreover, Skinner sees the great significance in reinforcement and encouragement in the process of skills acquisition, while Sartre sticks to the point that only subjective values of a person might make him/her take up a science or any other field of professional activity.
Drawing from this, supporters of each of the views have their reasons to consider their favorite theory to be superior. For instance, Skinner’s supporters might argue that determinism is the most scientific and rational explanation of human activities, especially the ones that do not fall into the category of rationally decided and freely chosen. Moreover, determinism explains the role of education and enforcement in it, while the theory of free will is made into a myth by determinists. The supporters of the free will theory and Sartre’s views, on the other hand, do not even assume that a person can act based on a certain external factor other than his or her own will and rational grounding. The free will theory stands on the position that all people obviously pursue their subjective interests and goals, and are not limited in their actions by any factors from the environment. Whichever theory is correct, the study of human nature still demands more research to be carried out and more theories to be formulated to present the only adequate theory of the human personality.
Works Cited
- Abel, Donald (Ed.). Theories of Human Nature. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 1 edition, 1991.
- Loptson, Peter. Theories of Human Nature. Broadview Press; 3 edition, 2006.
- Stevenson, Leslie and David Haberman. Ten Theories of Human Nature. Oxford University Press, USA; 4 edition, 2004.
- Weston, Anthony. A Rulebook for Arguments. Hackett Pub Co; 4 Revised edition, 2008.