| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "THEORIES HUMAN NATURE": |
|
|
Theories of Human Nature, 2008.
A comparison of the contemporary relevance of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's and Thomas Hobbes' theories of human nature.
1,705 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares Jean-Jacques Rousseau's theory of human nature and civil society with that of Thomas Hobbes'. The paper analyzes which of the two theorists' understanding of human nature has greater contemporary relevance. It provides examples from their works and concludes that Hobbes' theories have far more contemporary relevance.
From the Paper
"In general, Hobbes's theory seems more relevant to contemporary society than does Rousseau's. Hobbes' idea of the naturally brutish, competitive state of man seems more accurate than Rousseau's notion of the man-born-noble-sovereign. More importantly, Hobbes's theory of the civil state is more relevant to the contemporary state. After all, we do in fact do precisely what Hobbes says: we give up our right to wrest things away from other people, in return for the right to walk down the street without having the shirt ripped off our back. On the other hand, Rousseau's theory of the civil state as a place in which we all share sovereignty has no relevance to our modern state, where numbers are so great that almost no one has any sovereignty (unless one's name is Walton, or Bush, or Oprah, perhaps)."
| |
|
Krutch's "Human Nature and the Human Condition", 2005.
An overview of Joseph Wood Krutch's "Human Nature and the Human Condition"
3,375 words (approx. 13.5 pages), 1 source, APA, $ 119.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a review of Joseph Wood Krutch's "Human Nature and the Human Condition". The paper discusses the author's main themes, provides a summary of the work, and addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the collection of essays as a whole.
From the Paper
"Throughout history human beings have attempted to produce theories of knowledge and learning. Some of the most basic questions such theories have attempted to answer concern what knowledge is, where knowledge comes from and how we know what is true. Plato theorized that only things that do not change, that are immutable can be known. Limitations of the human senses and perception have always played into theories on knowing. So too has human capacity for ration and more..."
| |
|
Human Nature and Buddha Nature, 2002.
Looks at the differences and similarities between the Confucian concept of human nature and the Buddha concept of Buddha nature.
2,650 words (approx. 10.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 97.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is a comparison/contrast of the Confucian concept of human nature with the Buddhist concept of Buddha-nature. The two concepts are extremely different, but they still have much in common.
| |
|
Human Nature, 2006.
This paper explores the issue of human nature and focuses on the views and theories of philosophers Thomas Hobbes and David Hume.
2,540 words (approx. 10.2 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 76.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer of this well-researched paper defines human nature as the full scale of human behavior that is believed to remain constant for long periods in time and does not differ in the context of the various cultures that are seen in the world. This paper examines various theories on human nature, in which each possesses a distinctive view on the subject, including that of Plato. According to Plato, there is an intellectual soul that is resident in the brain of an individual. This paper analyzes the topic of human nature by focusing on the opinions and theories of Thomas Hobbes and David Hume. Thomas Hobbes is considered one of the individuals responsible for the transition from the medieval way of thinking to the modern thought process in Great Britain. This paper touches on Hobbes' book "Leviathan" and his views on human nature which are very clear. Hobbes' conception of human nature is a mechanistic one. Hobbes contends that the study of the movements of the physical bodies would prove to be enough in explaining all that goes on in the universe. Hume's approach to human nature differs from that of Hobbes. Hume contends that we, as humans, can only make inferences on what would happen in the future by what we have experienced in the past. The writer contends that Hume progresses from there to say that we would be incorrect to believe that this knowledge and experience of the past is enough to justify what would happen in the future.
Table of Contents:
Hobbes
Limitations in Hobbes' View of Human Nature
Hume
Ethics of Reciprocity
References
From the Paper
"There have been several theories that have been put forward on human nature and each of them possesses a distinctive view on human nature. The earliest views on human nature of substance come from Plato, whose thoughts on life were influenced by Socrates. In the view of Plato there is an intellectual soul that is resident in the brain of an individual and an appetitive beast that is to be found in the belly and genitals of the individual. The role of the former was in keeping the latter in check and over a period of time escape from this uncomfortable cohabitation by welcoming death. This dualist theory of Plato did have immense on the thoughts on human nature and that time and this influence can be seen in Christian theology with the Gospel of John. The extension of these beliefs of Plato on human nature had their influence on Descartes and led him to formulate the theory that man is made up of a soul that thinks and a body that is an extension of it."
| |
|
Human rights vs. Human Nature, 2006.
A discussion regarding the justification of war and the issue of human rights versus human nature.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 10 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews the question of justifying military intervention on the basis of protection of human rights, pointing out that such a question requires a prior assumption. The paper clarifies this assumption to be that countries are capable of benevolent, disinterested altruism. History refutes this assumption. The paper further discusses how individuals and groups within a country may very well have the best intentions to bring relief to the suffering citizens of a brutal dictatorship or civil war; but countless examples, from Vietnam, to Latin America, to Rwanda, to present day Iraq, show a road to hell paved with such good intentions. The political and military forces involved in such maneuvers, by their very nature, preclude truly altruistic actions.
| |
|
Marxism and Hobbe's Concept of Human Nature, 2001.
A look at Marxism and some of Hobbe's theories in the realm of human nature.
2,267 words (approx. 9.1 pages), 4 sources, $ 70.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This is a brief debate on the concept of Marxism. It gives comments in favor as well as in against of the concept and mentions the arguments of Carl Marx in favor of it. Moreover, it discusses the Hobbe's theory of human nature in this context.
From the Paper
"Karl Marx laid the foundation of modern communism and socialism. His writings in the early nineteenth century initiated the movement of socialism set the wheels of modern Communism and Socialism in motion. With the help of his friend, Heinrich Engels, he developed the philosophy and concept of Communism in the year 1848. his theory was adopted by a number of failed countries for the development of their economies and political structures. The major economies that adopted this philosophy include the U.S.S.R and East Germany. The majority of people today believe that Marxism is no more applicable and that the theory has failed. The reason being that the ideas proposed by Karl Marx are not in consistence with the type of the societies that prevail today. The current system of a welfare society has outclassed the arguments made by Marx and have proved them to be irrelevant."
| |
|
Confuciani vs. Buddhist Concept of Human Nature, 2002.
Explains both the Buddhist concept of human nature and the Confucian concept of human nature and then compares the two philosophies.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 1 source, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares Confucian concept with Buddhist concept of "human nature". Buddhism emphasizes the spirituality of the individual, and is a more "inward-oriented" philosophy. Therefore, as will be argued, while Confucianism represents "human nature" as external actions and rituals shaping the inner man, Buddhism represents the "Buddha nature" as the inner man achieving ultimate selflessness through meditation and reflection.
| |
|
Conceptions of Innate Human Nature., 2002.
This paper discusses the various conceptions of innate human nature presented by Emerson, Joyce, Didion, Hobbes and Camus.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews the conception of innate human nature in several authors. To Emerson, innate human nature implied being an individual, free from imitation of society. Joyce searched for meaning in the face of disillusionment and disappointment, where there was incongruity between the real and the ideal. Didion sought self-respect in the light of her experiences. Hobbes saw self-interest and selfishness as innate human nature. Camus saw life as absurd. None of them understood human nature in the light of God.
| |
|
Mencius and Xunzi on Human Nature, 2008.
A discussion of the views of two influential Chinese philosophers from the third century B.C., Mencius and Xunzi, on human nature.
3,570 words (approx. 14.3 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 99.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the views of Mencius and Xunzi, Chinese philosophers from c. 300 B.C., who belonged to the school of thought of Confucius (551-479 BC). It compares their differing approaches to human nature and relates that while Mencius saw the individual as fundamentally good, Xunzi's viewed human nature as bad and in need of care and correction. The paper addresses the influence of these two extremely influential philosophers, whose contrasting approaches continue to be seen today in Chinese civilization. The paper concludes that their thoughts on human nature are timeless and, thus, they will continue to be reviewed and discussed for many years to come.
Outline:
Introduction
Human Nature as Corruptible
Man as Weak and Bad
Implications over Time
Concluding Remarks
From the Paper
"Mencius spent years moving from court to court and we presume that he had many chances to see how feudal rulers chose to lead. He was a sought after advisor to different rulers towards much thinking on what worked and what did not to restore order, for example, or prevent future troubles. He seems to have come up with something like the Social Contract that shaped Western thinking in the modern era in a model of a decent kind of leadership and attention to the needs of life and protecting citizens to which individuals could adhere. If a decent environment was not provided, then the people should be expected to overthrow those in power towards new leadership. In the view of Mencius, a ruler must show jen in humaneness, humanity and benevolence, as a very old Chinese concept indeed. (Chan Jen) There should also be the yi of righteousness and a sense of duty, if a ruler wanted to see righteousness, cooperation and industriousness amongst his subjects."
| |
|
Karl Marx' View of Human Nature, 1999.
Karl Marx's view of human nature and why he is critical of the ideas of human rights and political rights and emancipation.
1,444 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 6 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay examines two aspects of Marx's philosophy; firstly, his view of human nature and, secondly, why he is critical of the ideas of human rights and political rights and emancipation. The paper argues that Marx?s view of human nature underpins his thought and work and shows that Marx is critical of human rights and political rights and emancipation because he believes there to be a greater goal.
| |
|
Human Nature, 2002.
A paper which compares the theories relating to human nature, as put forth by traditional and liberal philosophers.
1,429 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper shows that traditional philosophers believed that the community should be given preference over the individual while the liberal philosophers suggested that the individual rights were more integral to human life. It describes how the logic behind their beliefs was based on their conceptions of human nature and the political values they put forth came from this same understanding. The paper shows that although philosophers and political theorists like Aristotle and Hobbes seem to epitomize the creative potential of the human mind, the history of ideas can be understood as the exploration of a conceptual space rather than as a sequence of more-or-less unique works. The paper seeks answers for questions such as: are humans naturally selfish or sociable? and, What is the basis of human nature?
From the Paper
"While Aristotle understood politics and humans through a rational belief and logic Hobbes had a different perspective. Hobbes argued that human beings are fundamentally equal and endowed with certain natural and inalienable rights;[Morgan, chp 12] defended the idea of a state based on the role of law;[ch 13] maintained a basic distinction between the public and private;[ch 14] held that a primary task of good government was to secure a minimum welfare for all citizens;[ch 14] affirmed that civil laws govern actions, not thoughts or conscience;[ch 15] insisted on the utility of toleration;[chp 16] and advanced a form of representative government based on the idea that subjects' obligation to obey the civil law stems from the fact that each subject, in obeying the sovereign's command, is obeying a power that the subject himself could be seen as having consented to and authorized.[ch 13]"
| |
|
Human Nature in Confucian Thought, 2006.
This paper stresses Confucius's positive view of human nature, as it is sometimes not recognized.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 1 source, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The Analects of Confucius (551-479 BC) became important after the sage's death and in a fascinating way they continue to influence various persons of Chinese origin or whose cultures have been linked, at some time, to the Sinic world. This paper explains Confucianism's positive view of human nature, despite how the tradition is often stereotyped as rigid or austere, that is perhaps responsible in large part for the tenacity of Confucianism as it has combined with other religions and secular philosophy, through time. Confucius encouraged a positive view of human beings and human nature that may well explain its popularity and ongoing influence.
| |
|
Cause of Human Nature, 2003.
A look at the question of what causes human behavior, nature or nurture?
1,811 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines what is the underlying cause of human behavior and in what proportion nature and nurture influence human behavior. The writer discusses early theories of Freud and his contemporaries regarding human nature and shows how this question is still debated by scholars today.
From the Paper
"Why is human behavior different? Why are some people smarter, why are some people more stressed or depressed than others? For many years, two categories of reasoning have been given to answer these types of questions: heredity (nature) and environment (nurture). This is the fundamental question of many sociologists, psychologists, and behavioral scientists. Nature versus nurture is one of the most controversial issues discussed in defining what determines human behavior. Today, the nature-nurture controversy has largely been resolved by many behavioral genetic scientists who have taken the position that both nature and nurture contribute to the variances in behavior traits."
| |
|
Human Nature: An Analysis of Marx and Mill, 2006.
This paper discusses the similarities between Karl Marx's and John Stuart Mill's views on human nature.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill each offered views of human nature which involved concepts of self-making.
This paper explores those views in this context and shows that they are not incompatible and certainly cannot be described as being mutually exclusive. The paper shows that, although Mill considered individuality to be supreme, he acknowledged the existence of obligations to others, and although Marx emphasized obligations to others, he acknowledged the importance of the personal development of human beings as individuals.
| |
|
Divine Justice vs. Human Nature, 2002.
Takes a look at how Dante and Boccaccio make opposing arguments on the issue of divine justice versus human nature.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 2 sources, $ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper demonstrates Dante?s and Boccaccio?s opposing views concerning whether the importance of God?s divine justice outweighs the innate human qualities present in all peoples. Using the example of how each portrays members of the clergy in their works, Dante?s preference of divine justice emerges, as does Boccaccio?s preference of human nature.
From the Paper
"Dante and Boccaccio disagree on the issue of divine justice versus human nature. In The Divine Comedy: Inferno, Dante employs Fortune to prove the importance of divine justice. As a creation of God, Fortune operates strictly within the will of God, enhancing Dante?s depiction of God?s omnipotence. Dante also illustrates the importance of God?s divine justice through the various people the pilgrim meets in the circles of the Inferno, specifically members of the clergy. In sentencing these men to hell, Dante demonstrates the fair and impartial manner in which God judges all people. He points out that God does not favor the clergymen because of their church titles, but judges all people according to the same moral and religious standards. Boccaccio, on the other hand, utilizes the same constructions in The Decameron, but uses them to contradict the previously accepted philosophies set forth in the Inferno. Boccaccio presents Fortune as God?s enemy, a power that provides earth with more than it needs."
|
|
|
