views of human nature

 views of human nature

The constant need to understand why humans behave in specific ways has been one of the main areas of studies in sociology and philosophies. The majority of the experts in the areas of research have looked into the various ways in which the human brain works and reason for the majority of the social actions. One of the philosophers and sociologists to analyze the concept was Karl Marx. Marx is renowned for his work as an analyst and journalist involved in revolutionary socialism. In Capital 1, the author examines the different ways in which capitalism is challenging in the community. The challenge of the system was based on the oppression of the laborer by the people in the position to afford both labor and resources despite the workers being essential in the system. In the same way, Marx looked at learning the different ways in which human nature is influenced by personal needs and social standards and expectations. On the other hand, Nietzsche is most remembered for the opposing principles on religion and social values and the enhancement of the concept of self. In their views of human nature, the philosophers differ immensely as Marx attaches the concept to social progress, a system of production as Nietzsche attaches personal development on personal values and as being a continuous process.

Nietzsche attaches human nature as being internal and continually changing. In that, the development and change in the ways of a person are attributed to their values and internal factors. In that, the actions of a person are attached to the development of a person. As Nietzsche compares himself to the politicians, he says, “When I now compare myself with the men who have so far been honored as the rest, the difference is palpable. I do not even count these so-called “rest” men among men in general: for me, they are the refuse of humanity, monsters of sickness and vengeful instincts; they are inhuman, disastrous” (Nietzsche 2009). The author continues to explain that he wants to be different by being a genuine person that looks into improving himself. The aspect of self stands out to him as being internal and being capable of change based on the belief and standards of a person. The author analyzes the human nature as being progressive. In that, a person improves their human life through experiences and learning. Unlike the politicians and faulty leaders that refuse to enact change inside of them, he believes that he can be able to change his actions through study and advancement of self. The great thinker understands that the values of a person influence the development of their human nature. On the other hand, Marx looks at human nature as being influenced by the actions of society.

Marx, as a sociologist, looks into the nature of humans as being influenced by society. In that, the humans creatively find ways to produce character and behavior that is conducive to the rest of community. In that, community influences the nature of humans, which in turn provides products that enhance the standards of society. As by Tucker on the principles applied by Marx, “human nature itself, of transforming each individual who, in isolation, is a complete but solitary whole, into a part of something greater than himself, from which in a sense, he derives his life and his being; [of changing man’s nature in order to strengthen it;” (1972). That is, although the nature of humans is completely isolated, it is controlled by aspects that are bigger than the self. The development of human nature is based on the concept that is greater than their values and beliefs. Marx believed that the life of a person is based on the social cycle in which a person develops in perspective influenced by the social forces around them. Therefore, for internal change to occur, the social change is expected to be transitioned as well. In the example of the Jew, the author expresses the aspect of social evolution of human nature as being influenced by the nature of society. The social change of the entire unit, the community, would influence the change of the self, which remains whole within each human. As a result, Marx looks at human nature as having factors of production.

Marx described the human nature as being influenced by the economic process available in the community. in that, the interaction between the laborers, capitalists, the industry and the technology influence the development of the human nature. As Tucker explains, “Man, according to this conception, is essentially a producer; and material production is the primary form of his producing activity, the industry being the externalized productive powers of the species” (1972). The self of each human is part of the system of production and participates as the producer. The industry is the factor that is external to the self. Therefore, the input in the industry directly influences the aspects produced by the producer, which is the humans in the system of production. As a result, the social standards and expectations are the main factors, thus allowing a person to produce concepts that are conceivable and acceptable in society as products get back to the industry. Human nature, based on the principles of Marx, highlight the aspect that humans are part of the system of production.

Nietzsche opposes the concept of a cycle by expressing the will of more power among all humans as a source of the conception of human nature. In that, all humans have the internal instinct to improve and have more power. Therefore, values and self are advanced continuously. The philosopher explains the levels created in human society, thus expressing humans as being constantly influenced by the need to improve their power. As the philosopher explain, “our adventurous courage, our seasoned and choosy curiosity, our subtlest, most disguised, most spiritual will to power and overcoming of the world that flies and flutters covetously around all the realms of the future—let us come to the assistance of our “god” with all our “devils”!” (Nietzsche 2009). The will of power is defined as the ability and courage attached to a person that allows them to go past their obstacles. The need for control and changes in levels is connected as the driving force for the change of human nature. The author and sociologist, Nietzsche expresses the self as being tied to the values of a person which control the will of power. As a result, the author opposes the concept of development and improvement of a person as starting with the social change instead by the advancement of the will to power, which is invested internally by a person.

The conception of human nature analysis by Nietzsche informs the modern critiques who view it as a form of relativism for anything and everything. The majority of the critique view the analysis of will to power as being part of irrationalism among the people as any of the concepts is allowed to define the society. As expressed in his basic writings, “Shallow judgments frequently take one of three forms. Either one knows all about Nietzsche: he was the man who said, or claimed, or believed this or that. Or one knows how to label Nietzsche as, say, an irrationalist metaphysician, or an evolutionist in ethics” (Nietzsche 2009). In that, the majority of the concepts presented by the sociologists are characterized as irrational. The conception of human nature as being developed internally through the invention of values is viewed as being chaotic. The theory is considered irrational as it does not follow a specific concept in the development as the proposed system of production proposed by Marx, which is defined as acceptable.

Even so, the conception of human nature by Marx is criticized by modern theorists as being oppressive to human rights and freedom. The conception of human nature is defined by the great thinker as being a result of social actions. That is, humans are a reflection of the society which molds their outcomes as results of the concepts gained in society. As highlighted in the Early Life of Marx, “The role of liberator can, therefore, pass successively in a dramatic move to different classes in the population, until it finally reaches the class which achieves social freedom; no longer assuming certain conditions external to man” (Tucker 1972). Marx defines the freedom of a person as being defined by the social freedom attached to power. As a result, this theory contradicts the main ideas of modern philosophers as it goes against the main concepts of human rights and freedom. This is because human rights theorists define it as the ability to be free despite the social aspects that define the life and practices of a person in a given region.

The theory of Nietzsche defines the conception of human nature as being a result of the internal development of values and overall will to improve the level and status of a person, which is linked to irrationalism by critiques. On the other hand, the conception of human nature, as defined by Karl Marx, depends on the social changes and is influenced by factors of production in the given society; thus, it is attached to the limitation of human rights by modern critiques. The two social great thinkers differ in defining the concept of human nature as one believes in the self and the other in the social setting. The theories illustrate the differences in which the understanding of the character of a man can be viewed. In one of the responses to Nietzsche, Marx presents the aspect of a general as being incapable of winning a war without the external factors of others. Both theories illustrate the inability to account for the overall reason for the nature of humans, thus complement each other.