I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Of all creations in this earth, it is man who had stood up and proved to be highest in forms. Their vast capabilities make man what it is as it is today. An example of this great achievement would have to be the Modern Philosopher I, my self-instituted mentor and the Modern Philosopher II, who had widened my insight on this world and the man living in its place.
Their teachings inspired me to create this manuscript about the real esse of man. From the great Aristotle’s lips once came out, Agere Sequitur Esse. Is it not that this passage is of truth? Of course it is, for we are always to follow are own nature.
But unfortunately, man’s nature is of the negative. Man is truly a wolf, and I agree with the Leviathan. But this is only part of man’s whole nature for man has many aspects. Nature is never defined singly, for surely nature is equivalent to personality. I may not be able to convince that this is truth however, nature is how you act, yes? Therefore, if personality is also how or the manner of you acting, then nature and personality are equal. There—I think— is no equivocation.
II. OF MAN BEING RATIONAL:
Modern Philosopher II had said that thinking is what makes a man. Modern Philosopher I supports this, for he had said that it is not a capability but rather a duty for us to think critically. Of course, this is true. Man is a rational being, capable of thinking.
Man is never man if not for his capability to think rationally. I inserted ‘rationally’ for animals also think through instinct, Man never thinks through instinct. He is capable of analysis. We are able to learn.
Learning is something of a by-product to man’s rationality. It is a must that man should be able to learn if he is rational for we are able to gain new knowledge. Gaining knowledge is one proof that one is rational.
However, it is to be cleared that learning is something not of similarity to operant conditioning. In operant conditioning, animals learn through something which is done repeatedly. A dog salivates every time he hears a bell for he had ‘learned’ to associate the bell with food, for his trainer had done so. Therefore, the dog is not learning, only he is being conditioned.
For man, it is a different matter to learn—although I do not exclude the large possibility of man being able to be conditioned. To learn, you have to gain a new knowledge. You have to know something knew as in learning that a triad is composed of two T tubules and one Terminal Cisternae. This fact you have just learned is not conditioned into you, but taught to you. If you were conditioned into learning that said fact, then you should have associated it with basic animal necessities such as food, water and others.
There is also another proof of man’s rationality: His capability to think original thoughts. Over history, many various people have made things that gave comfort to himself, or for other reason or purpose of the thing made. As one creates, he doesn’t create it out of nothing for it would be absurd. He creates something because he had thought about it. He thought about it precisely, what would be the creation’s purpose and how would it be able to help himself to be pleased. In this rationality comes out man’s second nature.
III. OF MAN WANTING TO BE SATISFIED:
Epicurus said, the experience of pleasure is the criterion of every good thing. This passage is true. Man is to be satisfied in order to say that which satisfied him is good. It is evident that if something does not give man pleasure, it is non-good.
Why is this so? Have you ever wanted for yourself food that is not delicious or tasty to your tongue? Surely you have not and perhaps you will never want in the future. This passage totally explains the nature of man wanting pleasure. Pleasure for man signifies that something is good for man feels good about it. The more pleasure something gives to man, the more man likes that thing.
However, there are men who consider pleasure is of the evil. They think that we should be suffering for man is dirty, greedy. My reply would be simple. Is it not that they are satisfied that they are avoiding other pleasures? The satisfaction of abstinence is also considered pleasure, for you are pleased with yourself and the achievement you have reached.
Pleasure defines the drive of man in what he is doing. This passage does not contradict Aristotle. Of course, what man does, he does for his happiness and fulfillment. It should be noted; however, that in happiness, you also feel satisfied. Satisfaction is pleasure. Therefore it could be accounted that there is happiness in pleasure. Happiness is long-enduring, it should be noted then that the pleasure you will feel when happy is something also long-enduring.
Modern Philosopher II said that there is an ocean-wide difference between pleasure and happiness. I will never beg to differ with this passage. I am only noting that in happiness, you can’t help but feel pleasure. Is it not that God is pleased with us because we love Him? I do not degrade God’s feeling for us. God is happy for us, and in that happiness, he is pleased.
Like man also, if you have married someone for instance, twenty years. You are living with no problems, children growing up well. Your life is fulfilled. You are happy with this. But you can’t also help but be satisfied with your current status and therefore, you are pleased.
It is to be noted also that even though in happiness, pleasure could be found, you cannot find happiness in pleasure. No, it is not contradicting to my other passages. All this denotes is that pleasure is something temporary. Pleasure is something you feel in a short time, much like inventing something for your pleasure. After a short period of time, you get bored with your creation and start something new.
The main point is this: There is pleasure in happiness but there is no happiness in pleasure. Happiness results to fulfillment and excretes a by-product of pleasure, much like photosynthesis. The main product is the glucose but you can’t help producing Carbon Dioxide gas. The pleasure you feel in happiness is just a small sign that happiness is actually good.
How so that happiness cannot be found in pleasure? As Aristotle said, Happiness is the end of man; ergo, man’s main purpose is to achieve happiness and once he achieves it, he is fulfilled. Now, does pleasure give fulfillment? No, instead it gives satisfaction. Take note that satisfaction is something temporary, something you will feel and then is gradually lost. This is explained with my explanation on inventions. Now, as man searches for happiness, he can’t help but actually search for pleasure. Since pleasure does not give eternal satisfaction, man is never stopping from finding it until everything is lost. In this quest of man comes out his third nature.
IV. OF MAN BEING VORACIOUS:
As I have quoted Thomas Hobbes, the Leviathan, he said: ‘Homo Homini Lupus…” What does this connote? This tells that man is naturally a wolf. He never stops until he could finish it all with no crumbs to spare.
In context, I am saying that man is gluttonous in everything. He will never stop. It could be positive or otherwise. Let us look at the positive first.
In man being voracious, it connotes that man is a very resilient, determined, willed and tough character. This then says that man is wiling to do everything that he could do, provided what he is acting is of moral, he will do for the sake of achieving his happiness.
Of course, man is to search for his happiness. He has always done this. This is what drives man to do what he is doing, and that is why he will go to lengths allowable by the social contract and the sovereign will just to achieve his Telos.
However, that nature of man being voracious as positive and negative is separated by a very, very thin line that if this division were physical, the line would be invisible to the naked eye. I could never give more emphasis in this saying that the goodness and the evilness of man’s voraciousness is very, very, very thin. Now, onward to the negative.
In man being voracious in a negative sense, we see man doing absolutely everything, whether what he is doing is already a violation of the sovereign will or not. Man knows it is a war zone out in this earth where it is dog eat dog. He is willing to kill and step on to other people just to achieve his goal, which could be with great possibility, pleasure. If man searches for happiness, then he could be considered voracious in the context of being very determined to finish. However, most of the time, the positive sense is not applicable. I am not contradicting myself in saying that man is willing to do anything to have pleasure. Is this saying that man’s end is pleasure? I am not stating so. What I am trying to manifest is that most of times, man overlaps the meaning of happiness and pleasure, which is wrong—although I am also not saying that happiness and pleasure cannot go together.
In the negative, man sees others as threats. In this man develops a mentality that he is against every man for he is fighting a war against all where the only thing that matters is you survive in the race for pleasure. Hobbes once said that if any two men desire the same thing, which nonetheless they both don’t have, they become enemies.
However, Man is sometimes slick enough to use his enemies for his own benefit. This is where man’s fourth nature is seen.
V. OF MAN BEING SOCIAL:
Now, it has been evident throughout history that man has never survived alone. ‘Man is not an island’ as one proverb had said. Unfortunately, man being social is seldom having a positive, or what I meant to say is selfless, purpose. Let me explain…
Now, suppose that man wants to have friends with other people. What brings man to this? Is it because of man’s desire to help other people? This is not so; however, it is something much negative. Man befriends others for the sake of himself. There are many reasons that can account for this.
One reason for man being social is that man wants protection. Assume a student new to a school. What will he do first? He will first ask the names of people, ask for directions then befriends people along this process. Now, if he were not to do this and look vulnerable, then he would only receive bullies. Therefore, wouldn’t it be wise for someone to have friends who will side by them when man encounters enemies?
Another reason is necessity. Assume again that new student. If he were not to have friends, where would he get paper without a friend? Therefore, man needs friends because he knows he will benefit from it.
The third reason for this is that man does not want to be lonely. This reason is the main essence why man is social by nature. Suppose that new student again. If he were to be alone, he would not have anyone to talk to. Dialogue is very essential to man, as Plato once stated.
Now, all these lead to the fifth nature of man. However, I do not think I have explained clearly why man does not want to be lonely. Therefore I will give an explanation.
VI. REASON OF MAN NOT WANTING TO BE LONELY:
First, I do not answer this with ‘…because man is social by nature…’ for it would be redundant.
One reason is that of the dialogue, as I have said in the earlier article. As Aristotle once said, ‘all men desire to know…’ is one manifestation that man never wants to be alone for with others, we can learn. Social Learning Theory suggests that we seek never loneliness is because we want to learn through other people. When we interact with our peers, it is automatic that we learn from them for we see their actions as new and unexplored. Since we are rational beings, we desire to learn what our friends manifest.
Another reason is that man desire for praise. If man were to be social, then he would gain respect and praise of other people. He feels pleased, of course this is one motivation of man’s nature of wanting to be pleased. Man then develops pride, or if in abuse, ego.
It is to be noted that pride and ego are never in congruence. We see pride as bad but it is not necessarily so. It is to be noted that pride is also self-pity, but not in the sense that we pity ourselves. Self-pity in this text denotes man is not willing to do things that will ruin his reputation. Ego, on the other hand – I am not saying this ego in the context of the Psychoanalyst’s view – is the excess of pride. When we become egoistic, we begin to look ourselves as too high. We think we are very much higher in status than others and that we think that our own selves are the top of the food chain – although it is to be noted; however, that in reality, man is indeed on top of the food chain. I do not wish to mean the food chain in my passage as the biological food chain but a hierarchy of statuses.
VII. OF MAN BEING MORAL:
Now, after all the natures I have stated, it has come to the fifth nature of man.
Man being moral has resulted from his experience that other people care for him and that when man experiences this care, he feels obliged to do the same to others. Is it not that when someone helps us, we feel the need to give that help back? This results to the nature of man being moral.
Man’s morality states that being good could be learned through experience, or as modern Philosopher II would say, being good is not taught (formally) but caught.
VIII. THE INTERRELATIONS AND LIMITS OF THE FIVE NATURES:
It is now evident as stated that these five natures of man are interrelated. One nature is brought about by another nature. Such is the nature of man being voracious. We are voracious for we desire pleasure too much. Yet we try to learn for it is our nature to make ourselves happy and fulfilled.
It is also clear that one nature has appeared due to the presence of another. A nature can be instigated as its need arise due to another nature. As such, it could be said as example that we are social for we are voracious due to that we try to befriend our enemies. I have said a better explanation on this on the articles I have created in reverence to this interrelation.
However, the natures are never to be said that they will not appear because of an absence of another or that one nature cannot appear without the other. I am not contradicting myself in stating this. Yes, I have said that a nature appears when another nature gives way. It is to be noted that one could still be social without being voracious. Let me expand, sir. We could be social without being voracious in a sense that we do not look for friends for necessity, instead we just do not want to be lonely. There is a reason for this as I have stated in article VI.
It is also essential to be clarified that when a nature gives way to another nature, it does not denote that the former nature passes away. Let me give an example.
Suppose that of man being social has given way to the realization of man being moral. This does not count that man will never be social anymore. Man will still continue to be social, as all his other natures. All these natures coexist, as a shorter premise could be stated.
How about the fact that man could be moral and negatively voracious at the same time? Could this happen? My reply is affirmative. The two natures could indeed be at the same for we could choose to be moral to our friends yet be voracious to our enemies. It is also clear that we could be voracious even to our friends. Is it impossible that friends fight because of something? No. Even friends fight then go on different ways. This problem could arise because of jealousy, envy, greed and the like.
IX. THE ONLY UN-INTERRELATED NATURE, MAN BEING CORPOREAL:
Of all the natures of man been stated, It is the nature of man being corporeal that is only the one un-interrelated to the others.
No long explanation is required of this nature for it is surely evident. Man dies, ages, corrupts. Simple, is it not?
The evidence of this nature is the truest truth: death. It has been said by Martin Heidegger that death is not to be avoided, for evidently it cannot be. This is the ultimate nature of man.
Modern Philosopher I said in his work that it is only in death that we could feel we have lived. This states that man is indeed mortal, for if we were to live forever, how could we know we are indeed living?
X. FINAL DEFENCE:
If one were to say that the natures I have said were merely characteristics of man, then I disagree with that person. All the natures I have stated have actions that follow it, and using the principle agere sequitur esse, it is clear that if there are actions that follow a thing, then that thing is a nature. If the natures I have stated have no actions following it, then it is not a nature. However, I have given enough premises to give proof that the natures I have stated in this text have actions of man following it. This accounts that the natures I have stated are natures indeed.
There is a distinction between a characteristic and a nature. It is to be noted that a characteristic is something that gives a description of a thing. As such, greediness is a characteristic. However, this greediness has resulted into an action called being greedy. This action follows the nature of man being voracious. Therefore, man being voracious is a nature.
Also, The voraciousness of man is something un-erasable. Every man is voracious, yet greediness is erasable in man. Some are contented while others are not. The ‘erasability’ of something denotes the distinction of a characteristic from a nature.
In that example, we could see that some men are not greedy, they only consume what they have. But in that case, is it possible that one cannot consume everything he has? No. You have it, then there is a wide possibility you will consume or use it up to its last bit. That is voraciousness. Let’s take in consideration a pen. Some people are not while others are greedy, that is, they take away others’ pens. But do all people take away others’ pens? No. That means not all people are greedy. But when it comes to consuming the ink of one’s pen. Do you leave behind a small part if ink and throw it away? No. You consume all of the ink. All people do this. Therefore, all people are voracious. In this example is shown the difference of greediness, a characteristic, and voraciousness, a nature.
