What is the correct view of human nature?

[Husseinisdoingfine]

I recently read from Don. Edward Beck, that to take the view that human's are naturally good, or naturally bad, is the wrong perspective as what matters is the life conditions.

The philosopher, Jean Jacque Rousseau, proposed the idea that human's in their natural state out in the wild are ''noble savages''. That society is what corrupts people and creates evil, hence civilized Europeans were more wicked than the Native Indians for whom he took the term: 'noble savage', from. This is the same view of humans the current Dalai Lama takes.

But then there's the more Christian view on the matter, that humans are born naturally wicked and we must use religion to suppress our natural, genetically imprinted desires to be evil. This view was taken by Thomas Hobbes, who held the view that, humans are ''naturally vainglorious and so seek to dominate others and demand their respect''. Society does not corrupt, but does the opposite, as given the condition of human nature, life out side of society would be as he put it: “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

So, the question I'm asking here is: Are humans noble savages, or savage beasts?

Edited February 4, 2022 by Husseinisdoingfine

[aurum]

@Husseinisdoingfine

They’re both right to a degree.

Society creates and influences man. Man creates and influences society. Both at the same time. Man = society.

[happyhappy]

@Husseinisdoingfine none and both!

humans are survival machines. depending on the situation, humans can be noble savages and save beasts. u get the deal right? non binary...

it is like a chameleon that adapt to its surrounding, humans adapt as to ensure the continuity and survival. human's purest form is the noble love and peace, why? cause we all are one loving source!

[Husseinisdoingfine]

I do ask those answering this thread to answer the poll.

[Cascader]

We can’t answer the poll, because neither of them are fully correct. They’re both partial opinions on a reality that is vast, complex, and ever-changing. If you want to generalize, you could say humans are caught in a bind between survival and higher, more loving inclinations. Depending on when you take a “freeze frame”, you can find brutal behavior or selfless behavior.

Wrapping it up in a single blanket statement about humanity’s nature just doesn’t feel right, because it can’t be true, it can only be a belief. What’s the use in taking on a belief like this, as opposed to simply living in the not-knowing and handling humans on a case-by-case basis?

Edited February 6, 2022 by Cascader