In the following essay I will examine the arguments for and against the idea that there is such a thing as a fixed and essential human nature. This is a debate which goes back to antiquity, to the time of Socrates and to his idea that a person must endeavor to know oneself. Thus founding the first philosophy, which was the study of man and of human nature. Firstly I will examine the argument for a fixed human nature in the form of the theory of argument from design and also determinism. Then I will proceed to examine the argument against a fixed human nature, in the theory of existentialism. Lastly I intend to show the evidence, as to why I conclude that there is no such thing as a fixed human nature, and that the theory of existentialism is the plausible argument.

I will examine now, the idea that all humans have a fixed human nature. Plato and Aristotle were the first to concur on metaphysics as the first point of study. They differed to each other in so far as Plato had a dualistic approach and believed in a world outside of the changeable physical world, that we exist in. He thought this world, was just a world of appearances' another world known as the world of ideals or forms. Plato thought the only way we come to know the world of forms was through the intellect. Aristotle however was concerned only with the material world and what he could learn about through his senses. He rejected Plato's idea of an immaterial reality and was concerned only with this world as the primary reality. Aristotle, believed that each substance may be composed of matter and form, but the substances were not separate from each other. This metaphysical view rejected Plato's body – soul dualism. But although they both had different views about the status of metaphysical forms, their role in advancing the investigations of human nature were very similar. They both agreed on the importance of using their intelligence and learning more about themselves, and the world in which we live. They both agreed in reason as the primary source of knowledge. And thought that it was through the shared knowledge of human nature that we become aware of the ideals that we should aim for. And that it was through learning we understand those ideals and how they become possible.

It was this Platonic and Aristotelian thought that was picked up by Christian thought and applied to their doctrines. The metaphysics of form and matter was applied to Christian thought. Where Plato's forms became ideas in the mind of God, and how he created the universe. Christian theology, however, compromised the positions, between Platonic and Aristotelian views. The thought then within the abrahamic religions, was that god created the world and that god created man. The creation story in the book of Genesis gave man a higher status among other creatures, and had the benefit of a continued relationship with his creator. Therefore, man's human nature must come from God. This theory is also known as the argument from design and a variant of the watchmaker analogy. But when we examine this argument, we see why it fails to show any evidence to contradict the theory of existentialism. The argument from design holds that because of the purpose we see all around us in the natural world, that this must be evidence that there is a purposeful agent responsible for it designing it. And that all the complexity seen in the world, couldn't be the random products of nature. So that then there must be some agent with the incredible intellect to design and bring all into being, all these parts of nature. So, as we see in the argument put forward by William Palely, “just as a watch, for instance, is artfully designed for a particular purpose and that leads us to infer the existence of a watchmaker”. And so with the complexity of the natural world, this show's evidence of purpose. This leads us to believe that there must have been a creator. And the only designer with powers great enough, being God. Therefore proving the existence of God.

This opposes the view that we are free and compose our own human nature as we live our lives. But this argument fails in my view, as Charles Darwin proved with his theory of natural selection there is another explanation for the complex design of materials, one where a designer is not needed. Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection was seen then, as providing another explanation to the Watchmaker analogy. Then we must also examine the problem of evil. Because if God is all knowing and knows when bad things will occur, why would he not stop these things from occurring, if he is benevolent.

The Renaissance humanists and empiricist's, however, argued that the human character is capable of being moulded and changed by internal and external forces. That each individual is determined and shaped by the environment in which he or she is born, brought up, and lives. These changes or developments in human beings can be regarded as the product of social or cultural or biological changes. This theory was in contrast to the earlier thought and disconnected from the idea of a world outside of the physical world in which we live. The methods of understanding human nature form this point of view is from an understanding of the world through the senses. The gaining of knowledge from our direct experience. The empiricist position then opens up the empirical studies of the sensory experience as being the only available starting point for reasoning and attempting to attain the truth. John Locke, thought that human nature was, a blank tablet or 'tabale rasa' at birth. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/) In his view the mind is at birth a blank slate without any inherited or innate human nature and that information or rules and the rules for processing the information comes directly from our sensory experience. Locke though that human development was determined by education and influences by social conditions. David Hume also argued against the concept of innate idea's and concluded that humans only have knowledge of things they directly experience. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/) Thomas Hobbes supported this idea and felt that human's were “impelled into motion by the mechanical effects of our senses”.(Hobbes, Leviathan) Hobbes said that, “Humans are simply objects in motion like every other object making up the universe. They appear otherwise only because they are more complex. Material objects are essentially external to each other. Bonds such as compassion, empathy or common purpose cannot unite them.” (Hobbes, Leviathan)

When we look at the empiricist theory of human nature, we must also look at social influences' as not only can man be shaped by biology or knowledge from the senses, he can also be shaped by the environment in which he lives. Hobbes believed that the life of man in a state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish and short”. (Hobbes, Leviathan) Hobbes believed that man needed some outside influence to “keep him in awe.” (Hobbes, Leviathan) As man in the natural human state without this outside influence is in a state of war of 'every man against every man." (Hobbes, Leviathan) He thought that people are selfish, self-centered, driven by 'a perpetual and restless desire for power after power that ceaseth only in death."(Hobbes, Leviathan) Hobbes argued that man's fundamental concern is with self-preservation. And that without a strong central government life is just grief because of mans struggle. And he argues that reason suggests, that peace is a better way of life. He argued that peace can only be maintained if every person agrees to give up the right to govern themselves and to gave the power to an individual, or group, who would create peace and security using force if necessary. He argued that people must promise to obey the law in return for order and security. Thus,the choice then for society for Hobbes, is between absolute power or complete anarchy. Locke also believed that man's human development was determined by social organizations and education, and that it could have a positive or negative impact. He argued that the purpose of government is to protect the 'natural rights' of life, liberty, and property (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/) Locke argued that citizens have the natural right to rebel against a government which does not respect the rights of its citizens. And since all humans are born with minds that have no learning and must be taught, that there are no inborn cultural differences between people. Rousseau, however, was passionately committed to individual freedom.(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/) He saw reason and civilization as destroying rather than freeing the individual. So if then outside influence directly determines who and what you are and if all our actions and choices are limited in this way by outside events such as sensory experience. Even a series of events which go back indefinitely, to a time before we were even born. How can we possibly then, be seen as authors of those actions and choices. This implies then, that outside influences can affect who or what we become. Thus concluding that that something outside of our selves directly influenced our behaviour.

According to this argument if every action is caused in an infinite chain going back to the beginning of the universe, what was the first cause. Or if we cannot choose what influences us, or not, then how can we be held responsible for our choices. We are then just products then, of our environments' and cannot be held responsible for our actions. And if our actions are determined, then the idea that we are free, and they we could have acted differently is an illusion. Then we cannot be praised for any good that we do or blamed for any bad, as it is inappropriate if we do not control our actions. Therefore this argument also fails for the following reasons, while I agree that experience certainly shapes us, I do not agree that it can determine us. As even in a certain set of circumstance's, we still have a choice about how we respond and what choices we make.

The second interpretation being that, each individual is independent, self governing and must "make" himself. I argue for the independence of man and the rejection that laws of human behaviour, or historical influence determine who we are. Because freedom is to not being bound by these things. That man is capable of taking responsibility for his own actions, because he has the freedom to exercise his will. The theory of existentialism holds that we are free. This theory says that “existence precedes essence.” This theory argues that there is no fixed human nature, no human essence. Kierkegaard explored existentialism from a religious point of view. He argued that we are radically free but essentially uncertain as people. He believed that if we are radically free, then we are not really anything and must construct who we are through faith. He thought we could construct ourselves, through faith in ourselves or faith in God (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/) Sartre although thought to have been influenced by Kierkegaard approached existentialism from an atheist point of view. I concur with Sartre when argues that we create ourselves. That we are born first and we then go on to define who we are, and what our human nature is, through our actions. As Sartre's said, it is 'existence that precedes essence' this means existence then, is an act of free self creation, then essence.(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/) Nietzsche was an influential thinker in this field also,with his belief that we must find our own meaning in life and live according to what we feel is true, just and right for us. Nietzsche thought that there are no absolute truths and that life in this world such be our concern, besides looking to a world outside of this one for meaning. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/) Freedom also has a negative tone for Sartre as well, because if we are free to be whoever or whatever we want we are also responsible. Sartre argue's that with this responsibility comes pain as we bear ultimate responsibility for who we are, our actions and how our life turns out. Sartre argue's that circumstance cannot be thought of as a factor. He argued that no matter what our circumstance we still have a choice. Sartre also argue's that we have great responsibility as whatever choose for ourselves we also choose for all humanity. That not only do we shape our lives, but we also shape the world. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/)

I conclude that this is the only plausible theory, because it takes into account the fact that we have the ability to choose. Even if we are influenced by our environments, biological factors,even our genetic make up, we are not bound by them. We can still choose how we respond to those factors. I have now examined in the preceding paragraphs, theories for and against the idea of a fixed and essential human nature. I have shown why the existentialist theory on human nature is the only plausible argument. I have shown explanations for the idea that we have a fixed human nature in the form of the religious argument from design and determinism. And I have also shown an explanation for the idea that we do not have a fixed human nature, in the theory of existentialism. Therefore I have given explanations for the theory for and against a fixed and essential human nature.