The Nature of Man
Posted by maradjao magbalantay on 11th March 2007


Author
The nature of human beings, along with the elements of the human psyche, plays a major role in human behavior, and has been the subject of controversy since the beginning of history. It has been explored both by ancient philosophers and by modern scientists, and views as to the nature of human beings have ranged from it being innately good to being innately evil.
According to Plato, human psyche consists of a hierarchy of three distinct elements: the element of reason; the “spirited” element of emotions; and the irrational element of bodily needs, desires, and appetites. Of the three elements, Plato valued reason the most and the appetites the least, considering the role of reason to be the maintaining of the proper balance and harmony among all the elements.
In a particular person, Plato said, one or another of these elements will be dominant, and will result in the person having a distinct kind of personality, and a particular type of goal in life. Where reason is dominant, the primary goal of a person is knowledge and truth. Where the spirited element is dominant, the person lives mainly for success and public acclaim; and where the appetites are dominant; the person strives mainly for money to satisfy his desires.
For Descartes, he viewed those human beings as a physical mental dualism, being comprised of a physical substance and a mental substance, with each being a distinct and independent substance from the other. Physical substances and all of nature, he said, behave like the “workings of a clock,” mechanically responding to other bodies, or stimuli, which impact upon them. Descartes saw the physical systems of human beings, like the circulatory and digestive systems, as belonging to this “clockwork system;” but the thinking, rational, moral, and spiritual nature of human beings, he considered to be aspects of a person’s mental substance, and not part of the clockwork system.
Descartes viewed the mental substance of man as being the true “Self” of man, the “I” in his famous proposition, “I think, therefore I am.” However, another philosopher, David Hume, dismissed as “nonsense” the notions of mental and physical substances, as there are no sense perceptions of the existence of a mental substance. Hume also viewed the existence of the “Self” of a person as being nonsense, as there are no sense perceptions of the existence of a continuous, distinct, and identically same Self, or human essence, underlying an individual throughout his lifetime. He saw the Self to exist as a phenomenon that just collects and reacts to stimuli.
The twentieth century philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre also believed that the individual has no underlying enduring essence, or “Self”. He saw the “Self” of a person existing only as a consciousness, which is conscious of a stream of impressions from various sources. However, in Sartre’s view it is the consciousness of a person that makes the individual a distinct, totally separate and different type of being from other kinds of beings, and from the material things of the universe.

Henrick, secretary of Papal Nuncio, and Felix
In his writings Sartre, often used the term “conscious being” in referring to human beings. According to Sartre, other beings and material things lack this ability of consciousness of self.
Thus, several different views of the essence of human beings were held by these philosophers: one view being that a person consists of the three distinct components of reason, the spirited element, and the appetites; another, that a person is comprised of a mental and physical substance, with the mental substance being the true Self of a person and having a spiritual nature; and the opposing view, that there is no true knowledge of the existence of a mental substance, or an underlying Self.
Posted in Henrick Tagalo | No Comments »
















