The issue of human nature has been hotly debated since probably the dawn of language. The term itself has been described as a name for unavoidable characteristics humans have, created either apriori or by a particular culture. It has been often assumed to be those parts of us we haven’t gained from our environment (anything from genetics to a god given purpose) however, more recently, it has included character traits developed by nurture, parenting and surrounding beliefs.
Human nature has often been referred to as what it “is” to be human. It has been said to be that which binds us as a race and therefore can be found in all humankind. The issue of what human nature is was particularly important to Aristotle as this question lead him to his ideas on rationality and social conduct. Because of his existential standpoint Sartre was more interested in the issue of whether or not human nature existed at all. Interest surrounding this topic has maintained because of the implications of it when considering other philosophical areas. On examination I’ve found that it is necessary to understand what has been said about human nature in the context of purpose, free will, ethics and politics as it has become increasingly apparent that all the major problems with human nature are embedded in them. For this reason I will be comparing and contrasting Aristotle and Sartre via these problems in order to assess the contributions both have made to the overall issue. Therefore, I have separated my essay out into five general sub-sections: background, purpose, free will, ethics and politics.
Aristotle did not explicitly write about the issue of human nature, as did Sartre; it is something we have to discover through reading his texts in general. The most appropriate text is the Nicomachean Ethics. This was written in a period of time before all subjects had separated and so sociology, politics, theology and science were all combined under the heading of philosophy. Because Aristotle was so early on the questions he asked were different to that of modern philosophers. Why are we here, what are we for, how should we behave and how do we find out? These were the issues concerning human nature that Aristotle was interested in. This can be likened to a child and an adult. The child, innocent in its thinking asks the widest questions and is forever exploring everything, the adult is much more concerned with its chosen field of study. Sartre is only concerned with following on from the precepts of existentialism; there is no need for him to ask those scientifically primitive questions already cited.
Aristotle was profoundly influential around the time of the Greeks and after the Romans shut down the philosophical schools of Greece, Aristotle’s teachings were kept alive abroad in the eastern countries where it could be applied very successfully. After the dark ages took over the western world, human nature became an issue that was so closely linked with God it was hard to argue about and discuss openly. St Thomas Aquinas who re-interpreted Aristotle’s teachings and made them his own, proclaimed that the final cause for humans (previously, according to Aristotle, full development of rationality) was to contemplate God. It was not until the Enlightenment (closely linked with the French revolution) that human nature could be looked at more objectively without the worries of religious persecution. This is when the questions surrounding human nature changed from “what are we and why are we here” to “what am I and what could I be without a God”? Aristotle’s belief in gaining knowledge from the real world lived on in modern empiricists such as Hume.
Some of the origins of existentialism can be found in Europe after the First World War. The defeated moods of Germany and the rest of central Europe in the 1920’s has been described as “fertile soil for the seed of subjective absolutism”. The social and political systems of the time had failed people and instead of looking towards the objective thinking that had been associated with them, people looked for new foundations of truth on which to live. Heidegger believed that humanity does not have intrinsic worth and is abandoned in a world of phenomenological subjectivity, as individuals we overcome this by inventing “purposes” and “projects” for ourselves to prove that we exist. Heidegger acknowledged humanity’s need to prove its existence but did not think it had any apriori form or purpose, as Aristotle and many theologians did. Heidegger heavily influenced Sartre and as a French existentialist Sartre also based himself on the precept “existence precedes essence”.
Aristotle’s basic starting point for humans is his four causes. There is a material cause (our substance, what we are made out of), a formal cause (our soul or form), an efficient cause, (the most similar to modern day causes, what made you) and the final cause (The final cause was the reason that you were made, your purpose). Aristotle’s final cause creates a sense of duty for all mankind, because we do have a purpose there is such a thing as a “bad human”, namely someone who doesn’t fulfil his or her use properly. As part of our nature, what it is to be human, Aristotle believed that all substances are made up of ten categories, changes in these create a change in the substence which does not effect the overal form. (This is like the cells in our body; they are continualy changing, growing, dieing, and one by one they are being replaced. We age because of this process and when you compare an old woman to how she looked as a child the two images are very different. However you would not say because of this that it was a different person.) This change is brought about by the four causes.
Sartre believed that as humans we all begin in the same position, part of our human condition. This begins with is existence precedes essence. Abandonment is the realisation that there is no God, “man first exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world and defines himself afterwards. There is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it.” This is in conjunction with anguish, which is the realisation that you have total responsibility for your actions and both are followed by despair. Despair (the realisation that you cannot control others) closely follows abandonment and anguish these are three factors involved in Sartre’s human condition. This ability and realisation that we cannot control others is also an example of how we, as humans, make a transition from a being in it to a being for itself. If you take the creative action of choice as a painting being painted (an analogy that Sartre uses himself) the human condition becomes like the paint brush or the canvas used. Unlike Aristotle whose human nature influences choice, Sartre’s human condition provides us with a background to choice but this does not effect the overall picture.
The concept of human purpose has a direct correlation with human nature. To believe in one is to agree with the other because as soon as you suggest that people can have a fulfilled purpose or be a “perfect person” you are assuming there is something about the possibility of achieving that perfection that is universal, namely a nature.
Aristotle’s belief in design and reference to purpose made him a teleologist. Aristotle sees all substances as characterised by a purpose or design, he thought that if you found that purpose you would immediately be able to make it fully perform its function (ergon) and that would make that substance perfect. For Aristotle, an examination of a knife would reveal that its distinctive quality is to cut, and from this we could conclude that a good knife would be a knife that cuts well. This is because the knife’s ergon or essence is to cut. This is why he is so interested in human purpose because in the same way, an examination of human nature /purpose should reveal the distinctive quality of human beings, and from this we should be able to conclude what it is to be a good human being. Aristotle’s purpose was also the substance’s “form” and it can be given externally (as in the case of the sculpture) or be intrinsic (as in the case of an acorn). Our purpose or “telos” is to find the balance in life, and exercise our rational faculties to the fullest extent. Rationality is so closely related to our purpose because, to Aristotle, it is the one thing that separates us from animals. According to Aristotle this form or purpose lies within us, because to him each individual substance is a “hylomorphic composite” involving both matter and form together. Aristotle’s method of finding truth via purpose is what causes him to assume a human nature but he never once states that your rational faculties cannot suppress it. He said himself “I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over the self”.
Sartre rejected human design, taking a very opposing stance to Aristotle in relation to purpose and therefore human nature. However by acknowledging that there is a human condition (the state all humans are born into) in effect Sartre creates a similar alternative to it. To him we are all unfinished products, with no design and no purpose. Unlike the paper knife, which is designed for a specific use and has a pre-disposed form, humans have no blue print mainly because there was no supernatural artisan in whose mind they could have been created. This is why their existence precedes their essence. The freedom of choice is essential to all Sartre’s thinking. For that reason to deny ones own freedom and simply follow orders, is to act in bad faith. Sartre’s definition of human nature is essentially a deterministic one, (we make certain choices because our motives and in-built drives force us to) it could not therefore exist, or it would provide a fundamental flaw to his theories. This is why it is the first issue he tackles in his “existentialism as a humanism”. Aristotle’s definition of human nature was not deterministic. This diffrence provides us with so many similarities between him and Sartre. Aristotle believed that human nature gave us a desire to do something, but unltimatly it was up to us to follow it. Aristotle used the analogy of a tree, whos nature it is to dig its roots deep, however only it the right conditions can it do this. In the same way it is in our nature to become wholesome rational beings, but this can only happen if we live in the right conditions and have the time to “cultivate” ourselves. They both disagree on purpose but through the realisation of a universal human beginning, Sartre ends up agreeing with Aristotle.
Human freedom is a very important issue as you cannot apply blame to someone who did not choose and you cannot apply much blame to someone acting rashly, without connected thought. If there is a human nature we are essentially limited in our choices or controlled in some ways, it is necessary therefore, for any philosopher to define human nature in relation to how free it makes us. Human nature can hinder us subjectively and/or objectively. Both Aristotle and Sartre believe that the subjective is essentially free as long as it is acting rationally; there is nothing in our nature that can over come that, but they disagree on the existence of objective nature, whether or not we can all develop rationality in the first place and therefore develop mental freedom equally.
In Sartre’s time, people were starting to gain equality and politically he could not ignore the fact that there are constituents that bind us all together as a race. Although there is no human nature, Sartre’s human condition creates an equal starting point for all humans. This excludes objective human nature, as it is completely universal. For Sartre someone who is fully human is someone who has become totally aware of themselves and is acting on behalf of themselves. Therefore to act in a way that contradicts their beliefs is to deny your freedom and act in bad faith. This is similar to Aristotle, who states that to be fully human you must be completely rational; to be irrational is to contradict yourself by opposing your own interests. The difference, however, is that although everyone has the ability to become a subjective being, not everyone has the ability to become rational. Aristotle’s belief in human nature positioned rationality in the centre of all things, this allowed him to accept objective nature; he did believe that your status played a part in how rational you were and therefore how free. Aristotle was mainly interested in those who had “time to spare”. These elite men were the only ones he thought capable of mentally fulfilling a higher purpose, and because of his political agenda, were the only ones he cared to research. It’s not hard to understand how he reached this conclusion. Reason had to be cultivated; reason was the means to reach our ends. The elite society would have been the only ones capable of this cultivation; they were the only ones who had the time and money to educate themselves.
Although Aristotle and Sartre express it very differently they end up with a very similar conclusion to subjective freewill; that we are as free as our rational faculties will let us be. Aristotle believed that as humans we are between total actual and total potential, between determinism and spontaneity. I think Aristotle would approve greatly of Hume’s conclusion that freedom and determinism are compatible and are not opposites to be based between, as are spontaneity and determinism. Aristotle believed that human freedom stemmed from our rationality, that it was the part of our nature, created to suppress our appetites and emotions in order to keep ourselves from being entirely driven by nature’s forces (such as hunger or lust).
Sartre’s human condition merely provided the environment for human freedom and choice to be made and expressed. Just as Descartes affirmed the autonomy of man in his own free thinking, Sartre defines human freedom as the only possible way of knowing what human nature is all about. Man is bound to be what he is only by his freedom. After all, there is no such a thing as a “human nature” or an “essence” to which would correspond an existential condition of being a human being. Our human condition is given within the very facticity of our existence, and it is only by freely choosing to transcend ourselves that we can be authentic in our humanness. Sartre believed in the will to freedom as an infinite, inescapable element of existence. (This was initially brought about by Descartes in his Meditations of First Philosophy.) We therefore create ourselves as we live, choosing our values as we choose our actions. We are “condemned to be free”.
Kant is a half waypoint between Aristotle and Sartre because he believed that rationality is freedom. It is only through rationality that you can see what is right and act on it. Kant like Aristotle and Sartre also connects morality with freedom. To be free is to follow our own rational principles instead of just our desires, to follow our own legislation and to act on maxims that we will to be universal laws. Hence, to be free is to be moral. So freedom and morality are ultimately the same mystery. Similarly to Aristotle, Kant said that we know we are free because we can know if we ought to have acted otherwise and so we could have acted otherwise (and so we are free).
Morality is the natural conclusion of an examination of human nature, purpose and freewill. With a fatalistic human nature or without a human design, we are essentially without blame; we can have no moral standards other than what is given to us by our actions. With a human design or without a fatalistic human nature we acquire the responsibility to choose right, via the possibility of choosing wrong.
To Sartre the creation of an action is like an artist painting a picture. No one tells the artist what he or she should paint or how he or she should paint it. There is no “wrong” painting and no “right” painting. Sartre also tells us that because there is no human nature, there is no perfect human and therefore no “good life” or moral responsibility. By saying, “In fashioning myself, I fashion man”, Sartre refers to the rational limits of our subjective freedom. Even though the lack of a human nature relives us of an objective moral code, you still can never choose what you don’t believe is right for anyone else in the same situation as you. The human condition explains that if you were a doctor choosing between two patients when there was only one dose of medication, and you chose person A. Then, to you, every other doctor who is in exactly the same position should agree and do the same. This is because as humans we are forced to live by a universality of action comparable to that of Kant and his deontology.
Through his examination of human nature Aristotle realises that the function of humans “is an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational principle” and human good is therefore “an activity or activities of the soul that are in accord with a rational principle”. “Eudemonia” is the final reward, the state we reach when we have acted in accord with our human nature and fulfilled our purpose to its fullest extent (have become a wholly virtuous and rational being). The exact translation is the good life, but it has been likened to happiness in its broadest sense. The happiest life is lived by someone who has a full understanding of the basic causal principles that govern the operation of the universe, and who has the resources needed for living a life devoted to the exercise of that understanding. Evidently Aristotle believes that his own life and that of his philosophical friends was the best available to a human being. He compares it to the life of a god: god thinks without interruption and endlessly, and a philosopher enjoys something similar for a limited period of time. We learn that because we have this Eudemonia (the human goal we strive to reach) we must have a human nature to steer us towards it. You can trace Bentham and Mill back to Aristotle’s theory of happiness as priority; the utilitarian principle of creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number has obvious similarities. Because Aristotle believed that through the realisation of human nature we are steered towards a happy life, Aristotle created virtue ethics, an ethical doctrine that helps us to understand ourselves and become wholly virtuous. No one had written an ethical treatise before Aristotle, so it is amazing that his virtue ethics is still popular today. This theory was based on the principle that all moral actions (virtues) were based between two vices. On one end of the scale you would have boring, on the other buffoonery and in the centre would be wit. The aim is to be in the centre of everything, from intellect to health.
Both Aristotle and Sartre are political. Probably because Aristotle comes from a time when that was part of philosophy and Sartre comes from a time when the political upheaval meant that common opinion thought it should be. Philosophers’ concepts of human nature essentially affect their view of people (e.g., it’s in our nature to be trustworthy); this in turn influences how they would set up society (e.g., less security checks and more personal freedom).
Sartre was a communist for a long period of time. This seems like quite a strange relationship (Marxism and Sartre) as Sartre’s views on human nature make it very clear that we are all individuals and must rely on no one. Sartre was criticised by communists for ignoring the solidarity of mankind. This was another criticism he hoped to refute during “existentialism as a humanism”. Sartre accepts Marx’s connection between economic cooperation and political solidarity as leading to the ideal society. This is ultimately something that Marx has inherited from Aristotle. And so can be seen as a direct link. Marx and Aristotle share, with many other European writers, a view that “the good state”, or the utopian political condition and “the good”, or what is good for humans can be defined in relation to human nature.
One major difference between Sartre and Aristotle on politics is that Aristotle believes because people often have a higher or lesser perception of rationality and perfect forms they are different by nature. So long as Aristotle maintains the view that all have a similar human nature, he must see inequality and social differences as an unfortunate necessity. However, as soon as he argues that human beings are by nature different in important aspects he can argue that different natures require different satisfactions. Where at first it seemed that in relation to morals, gaining rationality was a matter of cultivation, he states that only certain people can do this in relation to power and politics. This justifies slavery and sexism as a matter of necessity by showing how women and “lower classes” can never be fully rational and are therefore not fully human. Although at first you are reminded of the Nazi’s excuses for the genocide of the Jews, you have to remember that it is a view still widely believed today, that people have important innate differences in intelligence and skill. More powerful positions suit the more intelligent, more artistic profession suit the more creative. If you think about it our education system also supports this view, streamlining students into professional areas based on ability.
To conclude, because Aristotle does not tackle the issue of human nature directly, his contributions to the problems are less than his potential.
Aristotle’s teleological methods help us to find a reason for being, something that all humans seek to find, as no one likes to feel like they are pointless. This is why Aristotle’s belief in purpose has encouraged so many other philosophers to finish what he begun and look deeper into the nature of humans. Aristotle’s main contribution to the issue of human nature was to make it more realistic, more accessible; the mystery of humans became something this worldly and suddenly answerable. We could be aware of our nature and become freer because of it; no longer were humans just a plaything for the all-knowing Gods, who previously were the only ones with access to that information. The idea that human nature doesn’t necessarily have to be fatalistic, that there is freedom within our constraints is something that Aristotle took from Plato’s belief in rationality being the charioteer for all our natural desires. Aristotle then used this centralising of rationality to steer away from Plato’s other realms and mysticisms and via the teleological method encouraged the use of rationality and observation. No one had written an ethical treatise before Aristotle. Suddenly, because we had a knowable human nature and purpose, we could discover what it was to be a good human. In this sense Aristotle’s contribution to the issue of human nature was sidelined by the other theories he developed out of it, such as ethics. Politics was also another area Aristotle influence heavily, again his views that we are essentially rational, social animals make up the foundations of his writings on this topic, but Aristotle forgets about examining human nature at this point, taking the beliefs he has acquired on rationality as givens.
Contrastingly Sartre directed his philosophical standpoint towards an examination of human nature. For this reason his contribution has been immediate.
All people continually ask the question “why am I hear or what is the meaning of life?” Sartre’s refutation of human nature and pre-disposed forms answers it simply; there is no reason, we just are. I personally find this the more attractive argument as it places us firmly in the middle of our existence and gives us the opportunity to take hold of our lives. We become free to choose as we act. Sartre’s contribution to the issue of human nature could never be as prolific as Aristotle because whereas Sartre is one of many existentialists, Aristotle (and evidently the other Greek philosophers) is effectively the parent of all western philosophical thought. Sartre was still very much caught up in a Cartesian (Renee Descartes) point of view - that is to say Renee Descartes saw the world in terms of a sharp distinction between the “subject” “por soi” and the “object,” “en soi.” For this reason Sartre has been rejected by modern intellects for whom it is popular to assume that the world (including mind) is made up of only matter. Sartre spends the whole of his being and nothingness talking about the absence of human nature and God, supposedly basing himself on an experiential point of view, this is misleading, as he is essentially an introspective philosopher. His distinction between mind and body throws up many of the criticisms between what we are mentally and physically made of. Sartre’s theory on human nature leaves us with a pleasing moral outcome, to act, as we will, however in practice this could never happen. Laws and mutual constraints are needed in order for society to run smoothly.
Sartre is pleasing to the reader, feeding them with ideas of capability and freedom when really he is incredibly un practical and theoretical not sound. When reading Aristotle he seems like the one with constraints, forcing us to act in certain ways, but really he is the one who is giving us the freedom to think what we want, our human nature is at our disposal, we can know it and choose it. This is why Aristotle has and will have a greater contribution to the issue of human nature.