The Human Nature Of Humans

Instinctivist theories on human aggressiveness often promote the notion that warfare is in the nature of humankind and therefore cannot be prevented. However Margaret Mead eloquently refuted this idea in her renowned essay Warfare: an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity. Mead states, “War is inevitable unless we change our social system and outlaw classes, the struggle for power, and possessions; and in the event of our success warfare would disappear, as a symptom vanishes when the disease is cured.” Through this statement Mead makes it clear that because aggression and subsequently warfare is a learned invention, it can be avoided. For the purposes of this essay, aggression will be defined as “a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism.” This essay will outline how and why aggression, and thus warfare, is not biological and is rather a behaviour that is learned as a reaction to social stimuli. Furthermore, it will be explained that violence is used by societies as a political weapon to achieve ostensible objectives.

In Genesis one and two, it provides a full understanding of God’s creations and wisdom of human nature because it is free from evil. Human nature is revealed from Genesis one with God creating the Earth and the Heavens and creating the man of his likeness. The Bible explains how God created Adam, from dust and was placed in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:7). The Bible explains humanity was created to work and serve (Genesis 2:15). Subsequently, Eve was created; “God had created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Adam and Eve would help God because He wanted them to multiply the Earth by taking care of all of his creation (Hiles & Smith, 2014). God is the sovereign ruler, he created humanity as how he should have wanted. The Bible explains about human nature that God created everything to be distinct from animals and all of His creation. God created us in his own image, which is why we all look different; we are unique in His eyes. Also, God created us to be good because we are born innocent of all evil and loving of God. In addition, we were all born pure as Adam and Eve were. The Bible explains that God was pleased with his creations, “God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:10-21).

In Genesis the word of God leads humanity in the direction of self preservation, urging them to procreate, to ”Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:1), and to minimize hostility and violence among people. As Freud asserted, “Besides the instinct to preserve living substance and join it into ever larger units, there must exist another, contrary instinct seeking to dissolve those units and bring them back to their primeval, inorganic state” (Freud 77). Genesis exemplifies the struggle between the two opposing human instincts, with God acting as a moderator between them. Forms of justice are put into place in an attempt to control these drives, one example being the proclamation that “Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). The ethics and laws that develop throughout Genesis seek to “prevent the crudest excesses of brutal violence” but are unable to control “the more cautious and refined manifestations of human aggressiveness” (Freud 70). Since they cannot be completely eradicated, the scriptures instead play into the more negative aspects of human nature, especially narcissism, and manipulate them into a force for conservation rather than annihilation.

Human beings are part of the animal kingdom, and therefore part of nature. If that is true, then everything they create or destroy is by default "natural". I agree with the statement.

Human nature by essence has been the cause of many entrepreneurial paths, all follow to known the essence itself behind of what we conceive as life. Moreover it’s righteous description and abstract content, that many great man has humbly studied and that for centuries have made a path closely enough to the understanding of it, yet far from the light, it seems to be and unsolvable question that gives us a “Raison d'être” to our existence in this world.

Warfare and violence has been a part of human life since before history was recorded. As time goes, and war still is a part of life, there is an ongoing debate on whether war and violence are inevitable. War is clearly evitable with the way humans were in the past, as well as how their closest known biological relatives act. By examining history, as well as the looking at the behavioural evidence of other primates, it is clear that warfare and violence is not inevitable.

One of the most vital concepts incorporated into The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is the representation and depiction of the duality of mankind. Jekyll works to find a solution which will separate him into his reckless, immoral persona and his respectable, Victorian self. After consumption, this potion causes him to completely transform into a man who is known as Hyde. As Hyde, he can express himself in immoral, evil ways. This not only includes moral and immoral wants but rational and irrational wants. Not only does this transformation enable him to keep his good reputation even while he does horrid, unacceptable things, but it allows him to do things which he most likely would not even

War has been a part of human history since humans have had a history. Yet it has devolved from survival of the fittest into something baseless and cruel,

It is within human nature for war to be risen towards society. Our human evolution in one way or another essentially needs to have different views, this is because conflict is an inevitable component in not just human life but in any life. “The furious passions of men, modified as they are by moral instructions, still operate with much force; and by a perpetual fallacy, even with the conscientious in each contending nation think we may join in war, because they each believe they are repelling an aggressor” (Source D). It is necessary

As human beings, we have all experienced the notion of being plagued by a single, paralyzing, and perhaps irrational fear. Often seen as a point of weakness and fragility, fear is an integral part of human nature and for the most part, cannot be destroyed, but merely conquered. Touching Bottom follows the female protagonist in her endeavors through her life in relation to her fear. A major variable in her life is swimming and being around water, as the story kicks off with her struggles in learning to swim. She undergoes a traumatizing experience with a leech at summer camp, leaving her paralyzed with a fear of murky water, and leeches specifically, a fear she carries on with her throughout her life. Forward to the protagonist as a married

The flaws of human nature are many, but one of the biggest is the gullibility, especially in the presence of the supernatural. It is often easy to think that the thoughts or actions of an individual are of their own doing. It is even easier to assume that the range of the mind falls between good and evil. But society is not quite clear and even in fiction, there is always something motivating an action that lingers in the back of the mind of any character. The supernatural in particular is known for its ability to push people to extremes and alter their perception drastically. In Shakespeare’s Macbeth, it is easy to assume the blind ambition that brews within Macbeth and his wife or the guilt that plagues them following their actions is the biggest motivator. But that is just the surface of the complexity interlaced into this tragedy. Dig further, and it becomes clear that these emotions were not always prevalent in the characters, but were instead prompted by a force so powerful, it toyed with fate and provoked deception until the end; it was the supernatural that fueled the emotions and actions that take up much of the play.

In the book Our Kind Dr. Harris mentions the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin. He went to great details about our closest living relative the chimpanzees, and how their survival was base on they will to fight. Therefore, our willingness to fight wars and kill each other for nonsense reasons is simply our nature.

Human nature, the essence of what makes a human person what they are, is something that everybody has. Every person is innately a person, but how they put their personhood into action is the biggest indicator of their character, or the projection of a person’s human nature. At their core there is human nature, but their actions are what direct this source of humanity. The quality of someone’s actions is shaped by their environment and sometimes their biological makeup as well. Human nature does not have good or evil characteristics. It is how a person thinks and acts that is the true factor in the shaping of their character.

“It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake.”

2. There are different theories that seek to explain why humans still fight in war. Some of the individual, state and global level theories of conflict are based on: Human Nature or Individual Leaders, States’ Internal characteristics, and Global Level System (Turetzky lec 11). Human Nature arguments for the causes of war are based in Sigmund Freud idea that “aggression is simply part of human nature that stems from humans’ genetic programming and psychological makeup.” Realists also “argue that violence is a product of bad human nature” and that there is not anything to eliminate this bad human habit. I believe that it is true that humans’ nature is composed with an instinct of violence (War). However, society has a lot to do with the expansion of this bad habit. Today aggression is embedded in everything, which enforces our acceptance and practice of violence. Obviously, as realists argue, it is almost impossible to eliminate this bad habit from human nature. In contrast, the individual Leader arguments blame the state leaders for wars. However, we can’t blame a country’s leader for war. The author Stoessinger, stated in his book that a state head’s perceptions are decisive in war (Stoessinger 65). I believe that a leader’s