The Paradox of Human Nature: Good and Evil Within

Ramona Cucuiet Romanian English Year II, Group Nr. 1

Over the years human nature had brought many questions in the debates of our great philosophers and scientist. If we look in a few different dictionaries we will find many different definitions of this concept, like: the limited range of human actions, his tendency towards common actions generally accepted, his capacity to adapt to a social or natural environment despite cultural background, types of behavior, mistakes and qualities that are generally the same for all of us, the humankind, etc. To sum up we can say that human nature is that element that is the same for all of us and in the same time is totally different for each individual, the essence of our personality with all those parts that made us who we are(family, knowledge, culture, religion, life experience, etc.), the part that no science can reveal completely, is that side that only each individual knows for himself. Regarding this subject, during the years, were presented numerous opinions starting from ancient Greece up to modern times. Socrates thought that we are made for a life build by ration, after all, in our hardest times we stop for a minute, we think about what happened and we search the best solutions from a wide (more or less) range, choosing the best way to stop our torment. Aristotle (Platos student) expressed the same idea in a different way saying that there are three types of humans: conjugal animal (the one that is focused on family, reproduction, the one that give a special attention to the way his families, to the quality of life), political animal (the one that is focused on maintaining a healthy society) and mimetic animal (the one based on imitation). We cannot say that one of them is right, expressed perfectly and completely human nature also we cannot say that one of them is wrong, because, as we shall see each one of this views over the human nature is perfect and incomplete, as we all are. Thomas Hobbes and Ren Descartes have the same opinion, human as matter in motion, an intelligent machinery. John Locke thought that at the moment of birth man is tabula rasa and all that he is capable to do after that, all his knowledge and all his skills are the result of the society in which he lives, his cultural background and of his life experience, all of this form him completely and in a certain general pattern. Jean-Jacques Rousseau is the
2

scientist that combines this two opinions, man as matter in motion and as tabula rasa adding extra explanations as the fact that we were not from the beginning of time as we are today, this is the result of our need to adapt, to be a part of our environment, to make the nature work for us and stop being afraid of it. Besides all of this we have the eternal struggle between natural science and religion. Charles Darwin is referring to human as an evolved ape, Sigmund Freud says that in our subconscious different pathological patterns of behavior form different types of personalities and E.O. Wilson refers to human as a series of epigenetic rules. On the other hand, in Judaism, Christianity and Islamism is stated that the human is a being created by a supreme force, God(or Allah) and this two concepts of good and evil are the results of mans actions, actions that obey to the divine laws or not. In the polytheistic religions evil is the result of supernatural influences (and those supernatural creatures are the demons) or the result of ignorance towards the divine laws. In metaphysics and ethics is believed that human beings are a natural phenomenon , sophisticated creatures and good and evil defined based on the qualities of universal man or they are just simple labels put on those actions that are suited or not according to society. Finally, the astrologers think that our life is influenced by the stars and the alignment of planets. These definitions of human nature, combined, give us the complete definition of human nature, of man. Therefore, we cannot draw a clear line between these opinions, because we are all homo faber, homo religious, homo ludens, homo politicus, etc., we do not know what our nature permits us to be(Jean-Jacques Rousseau). We are often put in some situation, at a certain point and in certain environmental conditions, situation in which our true self is revealed, side of us that we might know or not until that moment. How will this self manage to cope with that situation (or not) depends mostly on our capability to stop that instinctual side of us that acts at a first impulse, it depends of what we had learned from our family but specially on our free-will. We can choose if in a moment of extreme happiness we spread smiles all around us (even in
3

inappropriate circumstances), if in a moment of devastating sadness we try to find the guilty ones or we realize that guilt is as much on their side like it is on our side. Then our actions will be labeled as good ones or bad ones and we will become good people or bad people. We can choose if we are just an evolved ape or a fallen angel, although we cannot be sure that we remain completely faithful to one of them. If we say that we are just evolved apes that over the years gain the ability to keep our spine straight, speak fluently, drive cars and use smartphones (but not only that), and we were not able to cast those remains of animal instinct from ourselves keeping a memory of what we were, that implies moving from an inferior plan to a superior one, evolution. Is we convert this idea in mathematic terms this would be a plus, a positive trajectory. On the other hand, is we say that humans are fallen angels, then what happened to us in our descending trajectory is that we lost not only our beautiful white wings that helped us to break the boundaries of time and space, our purity, but we lost also our ability to be immortal, our ability to see what other creatures cannot see until the moment of death but we could keep and cultivate the positive thoughts, mercy, love and faith. This subject brings to life an important question. What if the humans are not evolved apes and certainly not fallen angels? I think we are somewhere in between, as T.H. Huley said the thief follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. We can be sensitive and remorseless, we can be different by the means of good or by the means of evil, but as mathematic taught us (when we had the capability to understand this notions) that a positive sign, a plus (+), when is put into equation with a negative sign, a minus (-), and they both have the same value (like -3+3) the result will be zero. In the same way the humans stand somewhere between an angel and an ape, the good and evil are melting in one even they do not have the same proportions, and the result will be an unitary product, more or less effervescent, we are oscillating constantly between on side and another because everywhere the human soul stands between a hemisphere of light and another of darkness(Thomas Carlyle). Off course, there are multiple occasions in which we do not have the power to maintain our balance and we fall from one side to another one, but we have to remember
4

when we are tempted to socially ruin the ones that we think are evil or malevolent people and to worship the ones that we thing are extremely good creatures, that they are not complete human beings, the part of their personality that brings the charm in life(in the case of the negative character) and the part reveals that charm(in the case of the positive character) is missing, and the normal people, those who stand on that thin line between light and dark, those overshadows are the real humans, with all their faults and qualities. In the same way we tend to banish from our lives those who have different opinions, but if we will all think in the exactly same way, like some type of robots, then this whole world will be colorless. I nothing is forbidden then where is the pleasure in trying difference of opinion makes horse races (Mark Twain). Is only one way to be one hundred per cent sincere with yourself and this moment is when you look in the mirror. This is the moment when you realize that some of your sorrows never existed at that intensity you gave them, and those little joys were the important ones. It is just you that is able to put a label over your personality. Every one of us knows exactly when he or she used in a just way the gift we all received from Eve. This details are more or less important for each one of us, it depends on our subjectivity, on the way that he or she is able to work in real life with what culture and society gave us, on our psychological characteristics and spiritual strength. We have the power to choose if we are a good person or rather an evil one. We have to remember that an expensive gift sometimes can be useless and sometimes when something is taken from you, that is the real help, is our duty to stop pretending that we are saints and stop wearing masks, is normal to try another way when that one that was in a straight line and clear enough to prevent you from falling does not take you to that place you want to see. Human beings invent just as many ways to sabotage their life as to improve them(Mark Gulston), they do that because they want to or not, but is clear one thing: They are doing it by means of different actions and thoughts. We will not be labeled any more when we will stop being good or evil and just try to be normal, good and evil, light and dark, sincerity and mystery. For this we need to let that
5

to do

something that frighten others, or that is a complete mystery? Let us remember that

mask fall, give up hypocrisy (that thing that is usually called diplomacy, and I call it the mans greatest sin). We are the happy ones that are formed from contradictory elements that form a unitary creature, with soul, body and the ability to speak, to think, to act, to obey or not. Man is a creature with free will; therefore each man is potentially good or evil, and it is up to him(through his reasoning mind) to decide what he wants to be(Ayn Rand).

Bibliography

Demetrescu, Scarlat. Din tainele vietii si ale universului, Oradea: Emet, 1996. ***.Dictionar de filosofie, Bucuresti: Editura Politica, 1978. Grimaldi, Nicolas. Tratat despre banalitate: Bucuresti: Nemira, 2006. Jankelevitch, Vladimir. Pur si impur, Bucuresti: Nemira, 2000. Lama, Dalai. Etica noului mileniu, Bucresti: Editura Stiintifica, 2000. Stan, Nicolae. 36 de interpretari de texte filosofice, Bucuresti: Nemira, 2002.