The Views of Human Nature Advanced by Marx and Aristotle - Report Example

THE VIEWS OF HUMAN NATURE ADVANCED BY MARX AND ARISTOTLE By and Submission Introduction Human nature is the distinguishing characteristic that human beings tend to possess naturally. These include feelings, acting, and ways of thinking. The human nature is independent of cultural influence. The question of the human nature dominated the central arguments of Western philosophy. The question is particularly important in theology, politics, and ethics. The reason is that human nature can be primarily regarded as a source of ethical norms of conduct, way of life, and presents obstacles to living a decent life. Numerous philosophers and historians have devised theories and views describing the human nature. One of such theories was developed by Marx, on what is popularly referred to as Marxism. The theory of human nature developed by Marx primarily criticizes the conception of capitalism and communism, which are popular political ideologies. On the other hand, Aristotle describes the human nature as one that is unique and is notable by diversity. This paper compares the views of human nature as described by Aristotle and Marx. Discussion Aristotle maintains that man is naturally blind to morality, implying that human beings are amoral creatures. At the same time, Aristotle argues that man is born without knowledge and, therefore, morality cannot be a part of the human nature (Kupperman, 2010, p.4). In the course of his life, man continues to acquire the knowledge of morality. In this argument, Aristotle is not only making the argument that the nature of man is amoral but also the fact that morality is a post-acquired knowledge in the due course of life. The statement is backed by Aristotle’s later argument that wickedness is voluntary, and no man is born evil. It is the rational choices that human beings make after birth that make them either moral or immoral. Another important aspect of the human nature put forward by Aristotle is the idea that man is a hedonistic being. This means that he can shun the pain and pursue pleasure by nature. The man described by Aristotle is capable of dreaming, sleeping, and is anxious about the old age. He also lives in a political state and is continually fascinated by the animal world. Man is also naturally religious and tends to look at heaven with hopes of a better destiny. Aristotle believes that man is a rational social animal and that both the body and the soul were essential parts of the nature of man (Ward, 2005, p.290). At the same time, Aristotle maintains that; without a society, man would not be human. The self is mainly discovered through the natural potentialities that are predominated by virtues and vices. Aristotle makes an argument on the normative implication of the existence of human beings. He wonders how human beings should live and concludes that success or failure requires man to philosophize his nature in order to discern his true human potentialities. Once the moral and intellectual virtues have been identified and determined, the potentialities must then be actualized (Alkire, 2002, p.182). Another ideology offered by Aristotle on the nature of man is based on the attributes of articulating the vision and how the normative implications follow the theory of human nature. In this perspective, Aristotle argues that rationality is the nature of man because it is the natural function, and anything must depict its nature. It is the rationality nature of man that sets him apart from other animals; it makes him human. Likewise, Aristotle maintains that natural things become successful in life through the fulfillment of the function of being. Unlike the animals, man must choose his course and life. Therefore, the primary human demand is to determine and make the right choice. Aristotle believes that man is a thinking being and must have a great level of intelligence in order for him to differentiate things and make the right choices (Fowler, & Schreiber, 2008, p.912). Choice is everything in human life, ranging from the virtues of morality, ethical standards, and norms. It is the ability of man to think and make sound decisions that he can manage and govern other animals. At the same time, the high intelligence capability of man makes him able to govern other men. The argument offered by Aristotle on the nature of man is similar to Marx’s argument on the human nature. Marx also maintains that it is the thinking capability and high intellectual capacity of man that differentiates him from other species and makes him a unique being (Leopold, 2007, p.12). In the political set up, man can influence other men in the administrative units that form the government. Marx also discusses the theory of human nature and the theory of self. In his discussion of the theory of human nature, Marx argues that human beings are producers by nature. The nature of their production is determined primarily by historical conditions because human beings are special beings (Tabak, 2012, p.6). This is contrary to Aristotle’s argument that the rationality and social nature of man determine his existence. In his description of the self, Marx maintains that man’s existence in the social environment tends to focus on groups and classes. The argument is applicable in the modern world where man has been socially, economically, and politically stratified into classes that are determined solely on power and resources. The argument is similar to Aristotle’s contentment that human beings would not be human without the society. It is the society that determines all the aspects of human nature; ranging from social, economic, political, and religious groupings (Wenge, 2000, p.6). The two philosophers tend to agree on the role that the society plays in shaping the morals and ethical standards of man as a social being in the universe. On the normative implications of human existence, Marx maintains that history tend to unfold based on its own laws. In this perspective, man can only listen to the inevitable revolution where all false consciousness and alienation will disappear. The start of human liberation, according to Marx, is the thinking capacity of man that influences him to think on the ways and means of survival (Heynen, & Robbins, 2005, p.6). The argument is similar to Aristotle’s views that success or failure in life requires man to philosophize and focus on the future for the determination of the moral and intellectual virtues. Aristotle’s views are that freedom is a requirement for human life. He maintains that human beings must have freedom to be able to explore their thoughts and determine the moral and ethical standards. However, on the contrary, Marx maintains that freedom is not the primary basis for human life. History tends to unfold based on the ability of man to think and act freely in a free society. Human beings also tend to be alienated by the historical forces of freedom. The abolition of freedom and the establishment of a free social and political society is, therefore, an abolition of history. Unlike Aristotle’s views, Marx basis his views of human nature on the criticism of communism and capitalism and the materialistic conception of history. Marx believes that human beings are capable of shaping and making their nature. This is different from Aristotle’s view that human nature is shaped entirely by the society. Since man is a social and a thinking being, his intimate intellectual capacity and level of thinking may influence him to change his own nature. The view of Marx is that man is the sole determinant of his true nature and determines his course of living. In other words, the nature of the virtues of right and wrong and the ethical standards that shape the social, economic, and political nature of man are determined by the self and the society. The arguments made by both Aristotle and Marx on the nature of man are similarly based on the fact that man is viewed as an integral of the self and the society in both cases. Although Marx is of the view that the true nature of man is determined and shaped by the self, Aristotle’s view on the role of the society in the nature of man is also valid. Man is born in a social and political environment that acts as a determinant of his nature. Since human beings exist in a society, their morals and ethical standards must also be shaped by the society. The incorporation of all the elements of the true nature of man with the society is a better version of the definition of the nature of man than the attribution of man with the self as a definition of his true nature. Conclusion Both Marx and Aristotle describe the nature of man based on the ethical and moral standards that are characteristic of the social and political existence of human beings. The philosophers agree with the view that man is a thinking being, and the intellectual capacity of man determines his true nature. At the same time, the self and the society seem to be the primary determinants of the nature of man. In other words, the difference in social, political, and religious setups and foundations may be explained by the relationship between the self and the society as far as the nature of man is concerned. Reference List Alkire, S. (2002). Dimensions of human development. World development,30(2), 181-205. Fowler, J. H., & Schreiber, D. (2008). Biology, politics, and the emerging science of human nature. Science, 322(5903), 912-914. Heynen, N., & Robbins, P. (2005). The neoliberalization of nature: Governance, privatization, enclosure and valuation. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 16(1), 5-8. Kupperman, J. J. (2010). Theories of human nature. London: Hackett Publishing. Leopold, D. (2007). The young Karl Marx: German philosophy, modern politics, and human flourishing (Vol. 81). Cambridge University Press. Tabak, M. (2012). Dialectics of human nature in Marxs Philosophy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ward, J. (2005). Aristotle on Physis: Human Nature in the Ethics and Politics. Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought, 22(2), pp.287-308. Wenge, L. (2000). Generative Thinking: The Mode of Thought in Modern Philosophy [J]. Social Sciences in China, 6, 004. Read More