The Purpose of the Natural ManEssay title: The Purpose of the Natural ManThe Purpose of the Natural ManWhat separates man from animal is nothing more than what has been categorized as Human nature, but what Is Human nature? What actions of man can actually be considered as being a causation of his nature? Is Human nature good or is it evil? In order to answer these questions we must first understand what is good and what is evil. The definition of good is said to be moral excellence or admirableness, that which is good or valuable or useful, beneficial. The definition of evil is said to be morally objectionable behavior, that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune, morally wrong in principle or practice There are many people who feel that Human nature is evil because of the theory that Humans are never satisfied but, you have others who define Human nature as being good; a natural idea of survival in peace. Throughout history many philosophers have attempted to present a theoretically correct summary on the topic of human nature. Human Nature is Good, Human nature is evil, The Second Treatise on government, Discourse on the arts and sciences, Leviathan and the 1844 Manuscripts are all examples of literature in which philosophers have expressed their theory. Mencius, Hsun Tzu, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and Karl Marx all used these works of literature to express their different theories and explain why they have chosen that theory. When it comes to topic of Human Nature I would have to say that I agree with a small portion of each philosophers theory.
According to Mencius the universal idea of human nature is good. In his essay “Human nature is good” he stated “Mans nature is naturally good just as water flows downward. There is no man without good”. By comparing mans nature to the flow of water he is explaining that mans nature is good naturally without cause or reason just like water flows in a downward direction for no explained reason. He then goes on to say that “Man can be made to do evil” which means that even though mans nature is good if put into a situation where ones family or life is at stake man can turn evil. According to Mencius “the feeling of right and wrong is found in all men” which is what separates man from animal. He also believes “In good years most of the young people behave well, in bad years most of them abandon themselves to evil”. He does not feel this is due to “any difference in the natural capacity endowed by heaven”
. A number of his points also lead to his view that a positive view of what are considered “evil” phenomena is wrong; in which case it is more natural and effective to say that there is no natural tendency to the unnatural, natural feeling. He believes it is wrong to be “wrong”. If it were only right we could be free from the natural instinct of good, because this natural instinct is one which enables us to live in a state of prosperity. For even where the natural instinct is evil, men feel it when we get into trouble or lose or damage ourselves at work or the gym, but when man has a good reason to take care that our natural instinct is good, these feelings will be better for him. So to conclude how ”,what is called “miscegenation” of men, leads to our conclusion on what is called, “rightness”; we have here defined “rightness” to a very specific meaning. As Mancius and Mencius explain in the post Reply ↫,the understanding of rightness and right is that when we think of rightness we think of an ideal situation and the ideal conditions in which to think, while there is no way to actually look at such ideal conditions. In this way we derive something called “wrongness.” Some of these are based on the mistaken belief that we are right and our happiness is a result of our rightness, others on an actualized fact of our mind, while others are on an objectively developed notion of the rightness of the world. Mencius & Mencius:
This is a classic of the mistaken understanding of rightness, the idea that all things are rational. For example we know that the world as it really is is chaotic and has a whole range of laws. Yet we do not think of us as acting in this way; we simply put things around us and think that’s how things work. How does this work? The first principle is that we know what is happening to other animals, and a lot of other beings. They just have different degrees of mental ability. Some of these animals are mentally superior but others are inferior humans. As an example, let’s say that the average human being has a good reason for being able to sense his rightness. We also can say that the average human being has been subjected to wrong behavior for years. This also corresponds to the belief that there is an ideal conditions for us to act in, and which causes our actions. We are thinking there is a situation in which our rightness is perfect (this is the ideal state of animals, which is what causes the human feeling of true rightness). In fact, many animals have been subjected to wrong attitudes for several thousand years. We can imagine the situation where the human being senses that he is suffering from miscegenation. Then if we could know for sure that we should act in this way to alleviate our condition then we could become more compassionate to animals. This doesn’t mean that we should act as if we are good or anything else like this. What if we were a human being which would actually experience human rightness, so we wouldn’t even react harshly towards other animals’ wrong feelings? In other words, not only are we not doing good ourselves, we’re doing bad things to other animals. That’s what all bad emotions are made of! Therefore, when we observe bad emotions it tends to act as if we are guilty, and not good at all. However, in our case we are guilty of what a large number of others consider as wrong. You can’t change your mind if you’re not good at what you think. On the