The main contributors to our discussion were Upanishadic Indian thought, Buddhist philosophy, Confucianism, Plato and Aristotle, Christianity, Hobbes, Kant, Marx, Sartre and Kierkegaard, Arendt, feminist thought, and evolutionary theory. If you had to pick from this set – and to answer this question you do! – the three that in your view most helpfully contribute to a plausible overall picture of human nature, which would they be? Weave together the ideas you would take from each of the three and show how they help to illuminate our subject.
I personally think that, when it comes to discussing human nature, it is specifically Platonism, Marxism, and Evolutionary Theory that may come in particularly handy, in this respect. One of the reasons for this is that the challenges of contemporary living (often concerned with the process of people making philosophical inquiries into who they really are) in just about any part of the world are being directly or indirectly related to the fact that, as of today, Western civilization enjoys an undisputed economic, geopolitical and socio-cultural dominance. This course implies that in order for people’s inquiries in this respect to producing qualitative insights into the discussed subject matter, they must be discursively sound. That is, these inquiries need to be conducted within the conceptual framework of the Western philosophical tradition. This partially explains my rationale for picking Platonism, Marxism, and Evolutionary Theory – these theories are the byproducts of an unmistakably Faustian (Western) philosophical genius. Another reason why I decided to choose in favor of the earlier mentioned theories is that they organically derive out of each other – hence, confirming the legitimacy of the idea that there is nothing cyclical about the vector of humanity’s advancement and that an ongoing cultural, economic and technological progress has been predetermined by the very laws of nature.
Nevertheless, it is namely the fact that Platonism, Marxism, and Evolutionary Theory do provide people with practically valuable advice, as to how they should act while addressing life-challenges, which contributed to my choice more than anything else did. This is because the value of just about any philosophical theory cannot be referred to in terms of a ‘thing in itself’, as these theories emerged exactly for the purpose of benefiting people, in the utilitarian sense of this word. After all, philosophical/scientific theories are nothing but ‘informational models’, which more or less adequately describe the surrounding reality, so that people would have a better chance of ‘bending’ this reality in accordance to what happened to be their will-powered desires. What it means is that there are no ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ theories but only the ones that did contribute to what used to be the predominant socio-philosophical discourse, at the time of their emergence, and those that did not.
For example, during the time of Greco-Roman antiquity, the majority of people used to think of Gods as essentially ‘persons’, capable of experiencing the irrational emotions of love and hatred. This is the reason why every Greek city-polis had its own ‘God’, who was expected to be revered by the citizens. In his writings, however, Plato succeeded in exposing the sheer fallaciousness of such an idea. According to this Greek philosopher, the tribalistic vision of God was nothing but an extrapolation of people’s perceptual arrogance. This is because one’s belief in God, as such that passes down the ‘law’, while threatening to punish those that refuse to act in accordance with this ‘law’s’ provisions, effectively prevents him or her from being able to expand its intellectual horizons.
Yet, it is specifically people’s innate desire to make inquiries into the surrounding reality (which presupposes their willingness to put away with the ‘law’), which presupposes the continuation of scientific progress. Because this progress has created objective preconditions for individuals to be able to enjoy ever-higher standards of living, and consequently to afford the luxury of not having to compete with each other for food 24/7, as animals do, it is a name people’s sense of inquisitiveness, where ‘God’ actually resides. According to Plato, ‘God’ is wiseness, and the extent of just about every person’s affiliation with the concept of ‘divinity’ is being reflective of the strength of his or her commitment to attaining knowledge, as the foremost purpose of his or her life (Wild 7). Even though that Christians later distorted Plato’s idea to be consistent with the dogmas of their religion, in its original form it still remains discursively relevant.
During the course of the 19th century, the sheer fallaciousness of Christianity became clear to European intellectuals. Nevertheless, being endowed with the Faustian mentality, they could not help tackle the issue of injustice within society. This established prerequisites for the emergence of Marxism – the theory that explains the origins of people’s inequality from a materialistic perspective. According to Marx, this inequality is artificially created, because the representatives of the bourgeoisie exercise unilateral control over the generation of the so-called ‘surplus product’ (Mezhujev 29). Therefore, in order for people that belong to the socially disadvantaged classes (proletarians) to be able to cease suffering from being economically oppressed, they would have to overthrow the bourgeoisie-favoring government and to establish their own ‘people’s government’. Even though throughout the course of the 20th century, Marxism has sustained an ideological fiasco, many of its ideological tenets remain legitimate even today.
Nevertheless, it is specifically the Theory of Evolution, which provides the most conceptually legitimate framework for the discussion of what human nature really is. According to this theory, the representatives of Homo Sapiens species are nothing but hairless primates with enlarged brains. This explains why, regardless of what happened to be their officially proclaimed agenda, people’s true aim in life remains essentially the same across cultures – to be able to enjoy themselves to the fullest (by the mean of striving to ensure their affiliation with the most financially lucrative and yet safe pursuits), while applying the least energetically consuming effort. Hence, the traditional prestigiousness of such professional careers as lawyers, actors, and diplomats.
By acting in this way, individuals simply follow the behavioral pattern of dominant alpha-males within the societies of apes, which in time free from having sex, preoccupy themselves with a bellyful idling (Ward 81). Evolutionary Theory also explains why, when under extreme circumstances, people tend to forget about their ‘humanity’ – the layer of people’s cultural refinement, which covers their de facto ‘monkeyness’, is only skin-deep. This theory also provides answers as to why; whereas Westerners were able to land a man on the Moon, many representatives of the so-called ‘traditional cultures’ were never able to advance beyond the Stone Age. There is also an ethical aspect to the Theory of Evolution – it suggests that, in order for humanity to be able to remain in the path of progress, people need to be willing to put away with the outdated notions of conventional morality. Recognizing the fact that each of us has a ‘monkey’ within, is an integral part of the process.
What do you think is the most optimistic assessment of the potential of humanity (# 6 from our list of dimensions of human nature) that is supported by what we have read and discussed together? Show how your assessment can be defended.
Neither of the mentioned theories supports the idea that democracy is the best form of government. According to Plato, the reason why democracy cannot be considered the best form of political governing is that it presupposes the rule of a majority. However, as practice indicates, the majority of voters give preference to those politicians that offer the most emotionally appealing and therefore unworkable solutions to the pressing problems of socio-economic importance. Crowds always strive to hear what they want to hear. However, what they want to hear is not necessarily what they should be hearing. Therefore, only the limited number of intellectually enlightened philosophers should have the right to exercise political authority. While not being concerned about having to appease intellectually marginalized voters, as the main precondition for their reelection, these philosophers would be able to rule wisely and effectively.
Marx also never ceased criticizing democracy. According to him, this form of political governing is nothing but an instrument for the representatives of social elites to maintain their dominance within society. The reason for this is simple. By providing ordinary citizens with the illusion that they can indeed influence the process of political decision-making, by the mean of casting their votes, the rich and powerful simply reduce the acuteness of economic tensions within the society – hence, making these citizens less likely to revolt against being continually exploited. As Marx used to point out, the very conceptual premise of democracy presupposes the process of people casting their votes being second in importance to the process of these votes is actually counted.
This is exactly the reason why the concept of democracy is synonymous with the concept of corruption and why democracy is dialectically predetermined to transform itself into an oligarchy/plutocracy. Therefore, according to Marx, the best form of government is the ‘dictatorship of proletariat’ when, after having eliminated capitalists physically, workers enjoy shared ownership over the means of production. Marxism provides a scientifically substantiated explanation, as to why there is very little rationale to believe that, contrary to what the proponents of neo-liberalism suggest, the rich and powerful would ever be willing to share some of their riches with the society’s underprivileged members – unless when they are being forced to do so by purely external circumstances. These circumstances, however, must be strong enough. Hence, the Marxist idea that, in order for socially underprivileged citizens to cease being the subjects of exploitation, they must be ready to defy the very principles upon when the continual functioning of capitalist societies is based – including the principle of democratic voting. This, of course, exposes the ideological inconsistency between Marxism and the concept of democracy.
Evolutionary Theory also disfavors democracy. This is because this form of political governing is based upon the assumption of people’s universal equality, regardless of what happened in the specifics of their biological constitution. As such, democracy contradicts the ‘survival of the fittest’ principle, as it allows existentially unfit individuals to not only survive physically but also to take part in the process of political decision-making. In its turn, this will eventually result in undermining the biological quality of the population in question – hence, making it the subject of extinction. The analysis of current socio-demographic trends within Western democratic societies confirms the validity of an evolutionary outlook on democracy, as the counter-productive form of political governing.
After all, the number of biologically degenerative/defective citizens in these societies has long ago reached a critical mass. This is why, as of today, Western democratic societies are being gradually overtaken from within by much more existentially fit Muslims and the representatives of racial minorities from the Third World. Therefore, it is fully explainable why nowadays the concept of democracy assumed the subtleties of a sophistically sounding but essentially meaningless ‘buzzword’. In the West, everybody praises democracy; whereas, only a very few people believe that this particular form of political governing truly works. In its turn, this once again points out to the fact that the Darwinian laws of evolution do apply to people, just as much as they apply to plants and animals – the reason why democracy does not work is that its ideological premise stands in a striking contradiction to the most fundamental principles of the universe’s functioning. In turn, this implies that it is only a matter of time before the concept of democracy will be recognized discursively outdated – just as it happened to the religion of Christianity during the course of the 20th century’s second half.
Which perspective on human nature in your view most strongly supports the idea that war – organized violent conflict among nations – can over time be made to cease? Which view we’ve discussed would you regard as its most persuasive critic? Which of these two wins the debate between them and why?
Out of three earlier discussed theories, it is namely Marxism that favors the idea that war can over time be made to cease. This is because, according to the Marxist doctrine, the very existence of capitalist states, which periodically wage wars on each other, serves the interests of the bourgeoisie. In other words, wars are nothing but the consequence of capitalist societies remaining stratified along class lines. The validity of this Marxist suggestion can be partially illustrated in regards to the fact that in just about every war, it is mainly poor people that end up being drafted and eventually turned into the ‘cannon meat’. What it means is that, once the representatives of the bourgeoisie are being denied the right to hold governmental offices; this should necessarily result in eliminating the preconditions for wars to break out. Nevertheless, even though being thoroughly logical, the earlier mentioned suggestion cannot be referred to as such that represents an undisputed truth-value. After all, throughout the course of the 20th century, there were many instances of formally ‘classless’ Communist countries finding themselves in a war against each other, such as Communist Vietnam and Communist China. In fact, it is by pure chance that a full-scaled nuclear war did not break out between the Communist countries of the USSR and China during the sixties. This, of course, suggests that, contrary to Marxism’s provisions, there is nothing ‘artificial’ about wars.
In respect of what happened to be its attitude towards the notion of war, Evolutionary Theory differs from Marxism rather dramatically. This is because, according to this theory, wars are nothing but one among many emanations of the process of representatives of Homo Sapiens species competing for the same environmental niche, containing the limited amount of natural resources. Given the fact that this competition is exactly what ‘fuels’ evolution, and the fact that evolution is a unidirectional process, predetermined by the objective laws of nature, wars cannot be eliminated, by definition. Because the human society can be well conceptualized in terms of an open-thermodynamic system, it implies that in order for this system to be able to continue functioning, it must ensure the continuous flow of energy from its ‘energetically-rich’ parts to the ‘energetically-poor’ ones. Once this flow of energy stops, it will result in ensuing the state of ‘energetic entropy’ within the society – hence, causing the concerned society to collapse. After all, the notion of entropy is synonymous with the notion of death. Because wars are being usually waged for the purpose of ‘redistributing’ the most valuable natural/human resources (hence, ensuring the earlier mentioned flow of energy), they can be well conceptualized as such that actually allow human societies to continue advancing. The well-known fact that it is namely during the time of war that the pace of technological progress speeds up rather dramatically, serves as yet another proof of the earlier statement’s validity.
The beneficence of wars for humanity appears especially evident nowadays when the problem of overpopulation represents one of the 21st century’s most pressing socio-economic issues. It is important to understand that the process of food-technologies becoming ever more effective can never solve this problem. After all, these technologies’ continual advancement can be best discussed within the framework of a linear progression. Yet, the population of Earth grows exponentially. What it means is that, as time goes on, there will be more and more people suffering from hunger – regardless of how often the UN bureaucrats hold symposiums on the ‘elimination of the world’s hunger’, while consuming lobsters and black caviar, in time free from coming up with well-meaning speeches. This, of course, implies that wars are the only effective solution to the problem of overpopulation. There is simply not enough room under the sun for all – pure and simple.
It is understood, of course, that wars are being commonly regarded as ‘immoral’, on the account of many intellectually arrogant/religious people believing in the ‘sanctity’ of one’s life. However, when assessed through the lenses of Evolutionary Theory, this belief appears utterly fallacious. This simply could not otherwise, because; whereas the amount of natural resources is limited, there can be no limit to the amount of ‘human resources’, because they are self-renewable. It is namely one’s ability to continue advancing, in the evolutionary sense of this word, reflected by the concerned individual’s rate of IQ, which accounts for his or her de facto value, as a human being. In turn, those with high IQ do not hold any moralistic/religious illusions, as to the possibility for wars to be altogether eliminated. Had this been otherwise, intellectually advanced populations would not be able to remain on the path of progress, at the expense of freeing the Earth of populations that represent the ‘dead ends’ of human evolution. Therefore, for as long as humanity continues to advance, there will be wars.
Works Cited
Mezhujev, Vladimir. “Marxism in the Context of the History of Civilization and Culture.” Studies in East European Thought 45.1/2 (1993): 23-35. Print.
Ward, Carol. “The Evolution of Human Origins.” American Anthropologist 105.1 (2003): 77-88. Print.
Wild, John. “Plato and Christianity: A Philosophical Comparison.” Journal of Bible and Religion 17.1 (1949): 3-16. Print.