Human nature

The traits shared by all humans simply for being human — the same in everyone, before culture shapes you.

Everything has a special activity; ours is reasoning; so our nature is to be rational animals and the good life reasons well.

The activity it's meant to do, and do well — an eye to see, a knife to cut, a human to reason.

It assumes nature gives us a 'purpose', but unlike a made knife, nobody obviously built humans for a job.

Some reactions — fear, laughter, needing others — turn up in every human culture.

Humans differ hugely across cultures and history, so little may be truly the same in everyone.

Is there a fixed nature at all? And if so, what is it like?

Aristotle's label for humans: animals, but the ones whose special activity is reasoning.

If we're born good, why is cruelty so common? (He replies: the sprouts wither without care.)

We have inborn traits AND are shaped by upbringing — so the real question is how much is fixed.

Weigh competing views using all the evidence and reach a reasoned conclusion — don't just describe.

Are we born a certain way (nature), or made by our environment and experience (nurture)?

The newborn mind is a blank slate; everything we know is written on it by experience — pure nurture.

Behaviour is shaped by conditioning: reward a behaviour and it grows, punish it and it fades.

Learning to repeat what's rewarded and avoid what's punished.

Identical twins raised apart still end up strikingly alike, which suggests a lot is born in us.

Upbringing clearly shapes us, and rewards/punishments really do change behaviour (Locke, Skinner).

Genes and environment combine: a gene can switch on in certain settings, and inborn traits shape how we're treated.

The evidence cuts both ways, so the real question is how much each matters and how they combine.

Are humans basically rational or basically emotional — is the head or the heart really in charge?

The passions mislead, so reason should rule and keep them in check.

The 'passions' — strong feelings that are useful signals but unreliable rulers.

Reason alone never moves us; only feeling makes things matter, so reason serves our feelings.

With no feeling at all, nothing would matter — even caring about truth is itself a feeling.

If feeling rules, it's hard to criticise cruel desires — and reason can reshape feelings, not just serve them.

Feeling supplies what we care about; reason works out how to get it and can correct feelings built on false beliefs.

Descartes: reason should rule feeling. Hume: feeling rules, and reason is its servant.

A feature found in every known human culture — like language, family, morality or ritual.

The view that beliefs and values are only 'true' relative to a culture, so nothing is fixed across all people.

Language, some form of family, music, telling right from wrong, fear of death, laughter, birth/death rituals.

A feature appearing in every culture despite huge differences is probably built into us.

The outlines are universal (every culture has language, family, morality); the content (which language, which rules) is local.

Each 'universal' looks very different up close — maybe they only seem alike from far away.

If all values are only relative, you can't condemn any cruelty as genuinely wrong.

The shared outlines point to a real human nature; the varying content shows it's a thin frame, not a fixed rulebook.

Blank slate (Locke): the mind starts empty and experience writes it. Fixed nature (Aristotle): we're born with a set shape.

Traditionally yes — but animals plan and machines out-calculate us, so maybe it's a bundle of traits, not one thing.

Basically good: we're born with moral 'sprouts' like compassion (the child at the well) that society should grow.

Basically bad: crude and self-seeking; goodness is trained in, like straightening warped wood.

Mencius: born good. Xunzi: born bad and needs cultivation. Both agree there IS a fixed nature.

Both extremes fail: we're born with tendencies, and nurture largely decides which of them grow.

Use a stimulus + your own knowledge to explore a philosophical issue about being human [25].

Exploring and weighing several views on the stimulus and reaching a reasoned conclusion — not describing.