What is human nature?

The concept is open to interpretation as there can really

be no discernible or verifiable definition as to what human nature really is. The
common understanding of human nature reflects the distinguishing characteristics that
people have, including ways their ways of thinking, feeling and acting. Humans tend to
exude these characteristics naturally, independent to the influences surrounding them.
King James and Thomas Hobbes both understand nature to be intricately linked with
government and human interactions. However, their fundamental perceptions of nature
are radically different, emphasizing that the model of universalism for the human
condition is flawed because of a subjective understanding of the natural world.
Hobbes believes that all human actions can be boiled down to a set of principals.
He says that all human actions whether they are voluntary or involuntary originate from
a bodily process he calls endeavors. He says that as humans we are all complex, and
the functions that we follow are from a uniform internal physical process that makes us
all the same. He uses this idea to explain how humans are attracted to some things,
repulsed by others, and in some matters indifferent. The actions that we pursue after
feeling these motivations are called passions as Hobbes puts it. Hobbes goes on to say
that our experiences and the choices we make determine if we are good human beings
or not, and not our reactions to those experiences. Good, Evil, and Contemptible are
determined solely by an individual's emotions whether it be through desires, aversions,
and contempt. Some of these emotions are natural and some are based on experience
(personal and observation).

Hobbes maintains that the Laws of Nature are rules that every human discovers
through deductive reasoning. Hobbes believes such laws preserve human life because
they are innate to us unlike civil laws, which are created by humans. The first natural
law of man is to secure peace for oneself, and if that cannot be obtained then one may
use any means necessary to acquire their peace and freedom. This notion of self
preservation is something Hobbes believed to be a fundamental aspect of government.
Natural Law urges us to demand peace and to seek it, and by doing so we will fulfill our
natural right to defend ourselves.
Part of human nature according to Hobbes is the hope that one can attain what
one desires. Therefore, each individual is at risk of losing what he or she has if it is
desired by another. Since, some desires are natural, this is bound to happen. In the
search for security, each person endeavors to gain more power than those around
him/her. Also, there are some who desire power itself. So, even those that are happy
with only a few meager possessions are at risk. Thus, since there is a constant threat to
individuals that they will lose what they need to survive, they have a right to defend
themselves against such a threat. This is why people, according to Hobbes make
artificial governments. They create them in order to protect what they have, and find
strength in unity. This is important because it highlights Hobbes point of individuals
teaming up with each other. This shows that in the state of nature people will choose to
make a government. Unfortunately, this leads to method of unity leads to war.
Hobbes definition of the State of Nature alludes to the point that in the natural
condition, people will not always get along with each other. There are three major
causes of this inevitable conflict. First, humans in the state of nature see themselves in

competition with each other. In the state of nature one may invade anothers territory
because one desires the others resources. Also, conflict can arise if a sovereign views
another nation as inferior. This can explain why countries go to war with each other.
Another cause for fighting is diffidence within a person. If a person is not confident in
who they are or their surroundings then they try to over-compensate. This is
comparable to countries which invade neighboring countries merely for the safety of
their own. Finally, every human has an innate need to be recognized by those around
them. Humans strive for glory and are determined to be exalted amongst their peers.
Through recognition and perhaps a reward this entitled notion of reverence inflates our
perceptions of who we are, and thus causes us to make rash decisions that can be
costly. Such decisions can include a sovereign invading another country just to bolster
their reputation and reiterate their brute strength.
James makes the argument that due to inequalities in nature, the best
choice of government is clearly of a monarchy. James says that nature is hierarchically
organized, with the most powerful on the top. James uses the argument, if it is seen in
nature, then it must be because it is in accordance with the natural order of life.
Therefore, we have no choice in our government as the most powerful entities are
entitled to have ultimate control.
James contends that the evidence in support of a monarchy is in the biology of
man. He makes an argument about the head being superior the body. The argument is
that the head holds more value because the head holds the brain, which is the seat of
judgement. If one loses a limb, nature shows that one can survive with out it, contrary to
the head. James portrays the King as the brain, and the subjects as the body. Both play

important parts in maintaining the fluidity and effectiveness of a person, and more
importantly to James point of society being governed by a Monarch. Another example
of inequalities in nature is shown within the confines of families. We are born into a
family as an infant dependent on our parents. As children grow up they are still
subordinates to their parents. James says that this condition shows that by nature we
are bound to be ruled by a superior. James uses this argument to say that our
government is one that is not chosen but one that is organic through nature. He says
that due to natural tendencies we elect to have a monarchy because it is familiar to us
because we have been inferiors to someone our whole life.
Hobbes account for human nature is one that is fueled by egoism. In his account
we are the owners of our destiny and of our path. We must be defenders for ourselves,
as self-preservation is our main goal. Hobbes says this can be explained as to why
people choose government, rather than it being an organic causation. The goal of
making a government is to protect large groups of people, who, more importantly are
comprised of individual. These individuals by nature are free and equal because they
are choosing to create an artificial government. Therefore, according to Hobbes, our
social ontology is one that is chosen, as we are individuals who make choices to benefit
ourselves.
James, unlike Hobbes, contends that our social ontology is one that is not
chosen. By nature, he says, we are bound to be led by the most powerful and strongest.
The inequalities in nature paired with the natural hierarchical structure point to the fact
that we are destined to be controlled, and that a monarchy is organically created
through the state of nature to satisfy that need.

There is a stark dichotomy between what James and Hobbes consider human
nature to be, which is evident in their accounts of how government is constructed.
According to James, we are essentially one cog within a whole machine, a machine that
has unequal parts with some parts being superior to others. The reason why neither
James nor Hobbes can claim sole legitimacy over their true definitions of human
nature is because both of their definitions can hold true. Because both definitions are
valid in appropriate context, it would be naive and irresponsible to consider human
nature as a fixed and singular experience. The subjectivity of the human experience
stems from multiple interpretations of the nature that inspires it.
Both Hobbes and James would agree that nature heavily influences the human
condition, yet it is important to note that there is multiplicity in the idea of nature.
Consequently we can conclude that our social ontology is something far more complex
than saying whether or not we choose it. Humans form their human nature through the
experiences they live through. Those experiences if remarkable and impactful enough
can effect the way we think on a day to day basis in a critical manner. Therefore,
through our experiences that reinforce our understanding of who we think we are, we
unconsciously accept the school of thought that we are either a part of a whole and a
member of a team, or an individual who by nature wants to succeed alone.