Poets and prophets have ventured to describe the facets of their behavior and of their very being, their “nature,” not only as competitive with “other kinds,” not only able to exercise power over other orders of life, but also as being sensitive to pervasive powers somehow beyond themselves.
From the heritage of the sages comes a sense of the beautiful and the good and the wise as well as reminders of the cruel and base. All sorts have expressed their self-understanding in imaginative narratives of their origin, in dialogues speculative of their destiny, and in poetry depicting what they hold most dear. This is a volume on the nature of man in the traditional sense of that term, that is, “man” is used as a generic term to include all humankind. Writers from the psalmists and Thomas Aquinas to Jean-Paul Sartre, and from Shakespeare and Alexander Pope to B. F. Skinner have so used it. Indeed, “in the beginning,” the Biblical statement is: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis I:27). In other contexts, other writers represented here have been careful to draw distinctions between “men” and “women” when that is the focus of their discussion.
The selections in this volume have been grouped into categories to form four parts: (1) The Physical Nature and Evolution, (2) The Psychological Nature, (3) The Social Nature, and (4) The Spiritual and Moral Nature. But it will be evident that a number of the selections might fit as well into one category as another, and many cut across the bounds of several parts. This division is mainly a convenience for study and discussion. But in reading of different aspects of human nature, one should always keep in mind the whole person. And when discussing a particular aspect, according to readings in one part, one should never hesitate to bring in relevant ideas from other writers who happen to be grouped in other parts of the volume (or even in other volumes).
Many broad basic questions should come up for thought and discussion. Just what is human nature? What distinguishes human beings from lower animals? Is man inherently good, or evil, or both, or neutral?
Lao-tzu, the oracle at Delphi according to legend, Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, Thales, Cervantes, Alexander Pope, and others have urged the advice, “Know thyself.” What does this mean?
In the Judeo-Christian heritage especially, there has been a continuing concern for a definable purpose, or a way to impart “meaning” to human life. Such a quest is derived from the concept that man is created by a transcendent God. Karl Marx, quite oppositely, denies the existence of God but finds man’s nature as the product of his social relations (real economic activity) within the societal environment. Yet Jean-Paul Sartre—equally with Marx an atheist—affirms that man is free, whatever his environment, free to define his existence according to his own will. Thomas Aquinas, prince of medieval theologians, holds that man possesses a God-given soul consisting of the intellect and the will, and long before Sartre proclaimed man’s will to be free. Yet B. F. Skinner maintains that there is no free will. Edward Osborn Wilson looks for a compromise. Wilson emphasizes a physical basis for mental activity. For free will to have any meaning must there not be a certain determinism, a chain of cause and effect? Otherwise would not life be based altogether on caprice?
A number of the authors represented here address questions relating especially to the psychology of women and to their place in society. Are men and women essentially different in psychology and moral outlook? If so, can they ever fully understand each other? How does one account for the centuries of the subjection of women? Why in some societies do they rise to places of prominence and not in others? If queens may reign in Great Britain, why must male heirs always take precedence in the succession? How have women come to be heads of government in Moslem and Hindu countries?
Frequently it is said that three men shattered the concept of a man-centered universe—Copernicus, Darwin, and Freud. What was Darwin's role in this shift? How did Freud influence the concepts of the place of man?
Many conclusions presented by various writers should be seen as the opinions that they are, and even those based on scientific research and objective evidence are subject to modification. Jane Goodall, for example, arrived at a number of reasonable conclusions based on ten years of observation and study of chimpanzees in East Africa; then, after twenty more years of observation and study, she found it necessary to change a number of those conclusions and she was able to arrive at far more complete descriptions of the behavior of chimpanzees and through that to propose a better understanding of some human behavior.
Most of the “great issues” presented in this series relate to assumptions about human nature. As Henry Adams wrote, “Knowledge of human nature is the beginning and end of political education,” and Pierre Charron said in the sixteenth century, “The true science and the true study of man is man,” and Alexander Pope in the eighteenth, “The proper study of mankind is man.”
Joseph L. Nelson
Professor of Religion