From my initial interpretation, the prompt is depicting a view similar to Kant's as it shows a degree of freedom to choose within humans- and being given the choice to be good or evil. However, something it doesn't indicate that Kant believed was that we are naturally inclined to make evil choices. Therefore I believe that it is more strongly linked to Plato's theory of human nature. While he acknowledges that our "raw" or "primal" instincts are strong and can potentially swallow us, he was slightly more optimistic and believed that if we nurtured these fundamental qualities we can then become good and just. A key aspect of this prompt is that it shows no bias towards either good or evil, thus meaning it would lead towards explaining that rather than being born with a predisposed human nature you are born with the ingredients for two different sides that you then have control over.
Yes, our dualistic nature. I'm not sure Plato viewed humans that positively though--which is why he felt that society should be ruled by an elite group of philosopher-rulers (the only ones who could in fact control our unruly appetites).
I like the base of this proverb. I think that it gives a good basic outlook on how to behave and how to view every decision. It is a good philosophy to live by. However, this proverb treats good and evil as though they are equally easy to give into. I believe that it is far easier and often more pleasurable to appease the evil wolf. The desire to good is far more admirable, in part because I believe it is less natural and more difficult. I choose to believe in the good of people, not because I believe them to be good. Rather I choose to believe in their good because I know that the good decisions and the good actions are the conscious ones. I know that those who do good are those who actively aware of the choices they make. If left to animalistic devices, I believe that inherent evil takes over. If left to unconscious decisions, the evil wolf is fed. Because I believe that the difference between my proverb on the wolves, and the Cherokee proverb is this: The evil wolf will always look for food, either it is consciously not fed, either it is consciously fed, OR it feeds on the individual. If left on its own, the evil wolf will win. It is by critical thinking and mindful, deliberate choices that the good in people is revealed. It is not as simple to feed your good wolf as it is to feed your evil one.
I'd like to take a moment to discuss what I feel the proverb means when it says "The wolf that wins? The one you feed". I feel first of all that it is impossible to only feed one wolf, no one can never tell a lie, no one can never have a moment of compassion (excluding of course those that die too young to experience the world) and I feel this is important in understanding human nature. The proverb acknowledges this, it acknowledges that human nature is not constant. But I feel the duality of human nature is not the only image we can take away from this proverb. I feel it also acknowledges the evil wolf, because without it the good wolf would mean nothing.
Now I'm not condoning evil, or that evil is in fact good or anything trippy like that, I'd just like to suggest that evil gives good meaning and vice versa. It is our fear and understanding of what evil can do that drives us to feed the good wolf. To live without evil would be to live without good, to live without emotion. And that wouldn't be human.
In other words: the whole of life is composed of dualities. There is never one thing without its complementary opposite. The Yin Yang. Both sides should be respected. But as Solomon points out: it is so common to pit one side against the other to try and find a "victor." Why is that I wonder?
I really like Zack, Aaron and Gianluca’s points. This prompt is definitely an open ended question, leading you to consider your own choices in life and reflect on what you might be ‘feeding’. What interested me was the choice of living animals to represent the ‘good’ and ‘evil’ parts of humans. I think if the metaphor had been made with for example ‘dark’ and ‘light’, it would not have the same effect for me. The fact that the two opposing sides are alive and struggling appeals to me because wolves are not tame creatures. You could argue that the metaphor implies that neither good nor bad tendencies come naturally to us- humans might be neutral and neither intrinsically good or bad (human nature!) This fits in with a couple of human nature theories about humans being blank canvases for good and evil. The metaphor of the wolves suggests effort made on behalf of humans to distinguish between right and wrong and adopt good and evil attitudes, in a way. This is morality- the fact that we search for good and evil, right and wrong suggests a natural conscience.
As mentioned before, the prompt clearly suggests that human drives can be split into those that are 'good' and those that are 'bad,' and that these drives are congenital properties that strive against each other. The prompt also implies that humans have the ultimate power to make themselves virtuous or not by 'feeding,' or cultivating one set of drives. It does, however, seem to entirely ignore the potential effects of upbringing or disposition factors (existing since birth) on a person's tendency to feed either wolf. For instance, the extent to which a child is able to choose to be virtuous or not is unclear. It might well be that children, without the ability to make conscious decisions about abstract concepts such as morality, have little choice over which wolf they end up feeding. Furthermore, a child born into poverty might be predisposed toward crime as an adult, not necessarily out of choice, but out of circumstance. As children become adults, their childhood experiences certainly continue to influence their thought and decision making process to an extent. Furthermore, just as depression has been known to have genetic causes, so may some persons be naturally predisposed toward shyness, violence, or compassion.
Akshay: you make a very valid point about the ability of someone to actually make the choice to feed/sustain one wolf over the other. That is something the prompt ignores. Your point actually segues nicely into our next topic on Free Will and Determinism!
Although my views on the prompt has been represented in the 8 or so comments above, I do feel that we should look at the main premise of the prompt. This premise is the fact that the prompt assumes we humans have a human nature. Unless cherokee's have turned into existentialists overnight I do understand why the view that there is no human nature is not represented as it is a relatively new and radical idea.
I think that there is a very strong argument to the idea that we do not have a human nature and we are free to determine what we want our human nature to be. How else can we explain the many different types of human beings in this world. We might share certain characteristics that other people will perceive as part of our human nature, but we are never truly the same. We are the product of our circumstance and the decisions that we make despite the circumstances that might limit the scope of our decisions. Also take the example of two twins who grow up in the exact same circumstances but grow up to be different. The difference in their personality is not because they have different human natures because that would not make sense, it would be because of the different choices they have made throughout their lives in order to form what might be called their 'human nature.' According to existentialists such as the demi-god (he he he) Jean Paul Sartre there is no set human nature and the implications of this is that the term human nature is rendered useless as there is no such thing as human nature, only humans.
Before the question of human nature can be answered, it is imperative that we define what is meant by the term 'human nature.' In common usage, it is used to refer to a set of characteristics that are shared by all humans. You yourself said that there are certain characteristics that all humans share. In saying that alone, you have admitted the existence of human nature based on the previous definition.
There are clearly many things that are shared by humans, including a highly developed neocortex that gives us a capability of logical thought that surpasses that of all other animals (except, perhaps, Elephants). Since this characteristic is shared by all humans, it fits our definition of something in our 'human nature.'
On a much deeper level, I can break down everything into protons, neutrons, and electrons. On this level, all matter in the universe has the same 'nature,' since all matter is made up of the same protons, neutrons, and electrons. Furthermore, since matter is merely energy, then everything in this universe (with a certain uncertainty) as exactly the same nature. It is all energy.
From my initial interpretation, the prompt is depicting a view similar to Kant's as it shows a degree of freedom to choose within humans- and being given the choice to be good or evil. However, something it doesn't indicate that Kant believed was that we are naturally inclined to make evil choices. Therefore I believe that it is more strongly linked to Plato's theory of human nature. While he acknowledges that our "raw" or "primal" instincts are strong and can potentially swallow us, he was slightly more optimistic and believed that if we nurtured these fundamental qualities we can then become good and just. A key aspect of this prompt is that it shows no bias towards either good or evil, thus meaning it would lead towards explaining that rather than being born with a predisposed human nature you are born with the ingredients for two different sides that you then have control over.
ReplyDeleteYes, our dualistic nature. I'm not sure Plato viewed humans that positively though--which is why he felt that society should be ruled by an elite group of philosopher-rulers (the only ones who could in fact control our unruly appetites).
DeleteI like the base of this proverb. I think that it gives a good basic outlook on how to behave and how to view every decision. It is a good philosophy to live by. However, this proverb treats good and evil as though they are equally easy to give into. I believe that it is far easier and often more pleasurable to appease the evil wolf. The desire to good is far more admirable, in part because I believe it is less natural and more difficult. I choose to believe in the good of people, not because I believe them to be good. Rather I choose to believe in their good because I know that the good decisions and the good actions are the conscious ones. I know that those who do good are those who actively aware of the choices they make. If left to animalistic devices, I believe that inherent evil takes over. If left to unconscious decisions, the evil wolf is fed. Because I believe that the difference between my proverb on the wolves, and the Cherokee proverb is this: The evil wolf will always look for food, either it is consciously not fed, either it is consciously fed, OR it feeds on the individual. If left on its own, the evil wolf will win. It is by critical thinking and mindful, deliberate choices that the good in people is revealed. It is not as simple to feed your good wolf as it is to feed your evil one.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to take a moment to discuss what I feel the proverb means when it says "The wolf that wins? The one you feed". I feel first of all that it is impossible to only feed one wolf, no one can never tell a lie, no one can never have a moment of compassion (excluding of course those that die too young to experience the world) and I feel this is important in understanding human nature. The proverb acknowledges this, it acknowledges that human nature is not constant. But I feel the duality of human nature is not the only image we can take away from this proverb. I feel it also acknowledges the evil wolf, because without it the good wolf would mean nothing.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm not condoning evil, or that evil is in fact good or anything trippy like that, I'd just like to suggest that evil gives good meaning and vice versa. It is our fear and understanding of what evil can do that drives us to feed the good wolf. To live without evil would be to live without good, to live without emotion. And that wouldn't be human.
In other words: the whole of life is composed of dualities. There is never one thing without its complementary opposite. The Yin Yang. Both sides should be respected. But as Solomon points out: it is so common to pit one side against the other to try and find a "victor." Why is that I wonder?
DeleteI really like Zack, Aaron and Gianluca’s points. This prompt is definitely an open ended question, leading you to consider your own choices in life and reflect on what you might be ‘feeding’. What interested me was the choice of living animals to represent the ‘good’ and ‘evil’ parts of humans. I think if the metaphor had been made with for example ‘dark’ and ‘light’, it would not have the same effect for me. The fact that the two opposing sides are alive and struggling appeals to me because wolves are not tame creatures. You could argue that the metaphor implies that neither good nor bad tendencies come naturally to us- humans might be neutral and neither intrinsically good or bad (human nature!) This fits in with a couple of human nature theories about humans being blank canvases for good and evil. The metaphor of the wolves suggests effort made on behalf of humans to distinguish between right and wrong and adopt good and evil attitudes, in a way. This is morality- the fact that we search for good and evil, right and wrong suggests a natural conscience.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned before, the prompt clearly suggests that human drives can be split into those that are 'good' and those that are 'bad,' and that these drives are congenital properties that strive against each other. The prompt also implies that humans have the ultimate power to make themselves virtuous or not by 'feeding,' or cultivating one set of drives. It does, however, seem to entirely ignore the potential effects of upbringing or disposition factors (existing since birth) on a person's tendency to feed either wolf. For instance, the extent to which a child is able to choose to be virtuous or not is unclear. It might well be that children, without the ability to make conscious decisions about abstract concepts such as morality, have little choice over which wolf they end up feeding. Furthermore, a child born into poverty might be predisposed toward crime as an adult, not necessarily out of choice, but out of circumstance.
ReplyDeleteAs children become adults, their childhood experiences certainly continue to influence their thought and decision making process to an extent. Furthermore, just as depression has been known to have genetic causes, so may some persons be naturally predisposed toward shyness, violence, or compassion.
Akshay: you make a very valid point about the ability of someone to actually make the choice to feed/sustain one wolf over the other. That is something the prompt ignores. Your point actually segues nicely into our next topic on Free Will and Determinism!
DeleteAlthough my views on the prompt has been represented in the 8 or so comments above, I do feel that we should look at the main premise of the prompt. This premise is the fact that the prompt assumes we humans have a human nature. Unless cherokee's have turned into existentialists overnight I do understand why the view that there is no human nature is not represented as it is a relatively new and radical idea.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a very strong argument to the idea that we do not have a human nature and we are free to determine what we want our human nature to be. How else can we explain the many different types of human beings in this world. We might share certain characteristics that other people will perceive as part of our human nature, but we are never truly the same. We are the product of our circumstance and the decisions that we make despite the circumstances that might limit the scope of our decisions. Also take the example of two twins who grow up in the exact same circumstances but grow up to be different. The difference in their personality is not because they have different human natures because that would not make sense, it would be because of the different choices they have made throughout their lives in order to form what might be called their 'human nature.' According to existentialists such as the demi-god (he he he) Jean Paul Sartre there is no set human nature and the implications of this is that the term human nature is rendered useless as there is no such thing as human nature, only humans.
Before the question of human nature can be answered, it is imperative that we define what is meant by the term 'human nature.' In common usage, it is used to refer to a set of characteristics that are shared by all humans.
DeleteYou yourself said that there are certain characteristics that all humans share. In saying that alone, you have admitted the existence of human nature based on the previous definition.
There are clearly many things that are shared by humans, including a highly developed neocortex that gives us a capability of logical thought that surpasses that of all other animals (except, perhaps, Elephants). Since this characteristic is shared by all humans, it fits our definition of something in our 'human nature.'
On a much deeper level, I can break down everything into protons, neutrons, and electrons. On this level, all matter in the universe has the same 'nature,' since all matter is made up of the same protons, neutrons, and electrons. Furthermore, since matter is merely energy, then everything in this universe (with a certain uncertainty) as exactly the same nature. It is all energy.