The optimism found in Aristotle’s view of human nature has been rarely shared by other philosophers. While Aristotle (384-422 BC) regarded humans as rational captains of their destiny, most thinkers in history have considered humans as deficient creatures driven by instincts and social pressure.
Aristotle’s predecessor and teacher Plato (429-347 BC) gave his views on human nature in his books titled “The Republic” and “Phaedo.”
In “The Republic,” Plato theorizes about the division of the human soul in three parts (reason, emotions, and instincts). The same three parts appear in Aristotle’s writings. It’s clear that he had taken over Plato’s theory almost verbatim.
However, there are large differences between Aristotle’s and Plato’s views on human nature. Plato had sustained the theory that the human soul is immortal and that it pre-exists birth.
The soul of each person, said Plato, pre-exists in a mythical realm of pure abstractions, which Plato called “forms.” It joins the body at the time of birth, and returns to the world of forms at the time of death.
After Plato’s death in 347 BC, Aristotle continued to adhere to Plato’s teachings for a while; later, around 345 BC, he began to develop his own philosophy, sustaining that the soul appears at birth and will cease to exist when the body dies.
Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature compared to Plato’s
Aristotle’s and Plato’s opposing views on the soul bear large practical consequences. In the field of education for instance, it plays a major role whether you endorse one theory or the other.
For Plato, education and learning consist of remembering. It means that your soul will remember little by little what it knew already before joining your body at birth. Thus, Plato considers education as a ritual to help students remember innate ideas.
In contrast, Aristotle views education and learning as a pure process of self-development. Every person must first decide if he wants to learn, what he wants to learn and what for. Without motivation, there will be little progress in learning, and without goals, there will be little practical application.
Aristotle’s and Plato’s opposing views on the soul also play a large role in defining friendship and love.
Plato explained all interpersonal relations by referring to the world of forms. When two persons love each other, Plato said, it’s because, before birth, their souls had already been united in the world of forms.
The metaphor of joined souls, split souls, or complementary souls existing before birth had been used also by Aristophanes (4346-386) in his theatre plays.
Aristotle explained interpersonal relationships as emotional and rational choices arising from one’s personality. People who pursue similar goals and practise similar habits (“virtues”) tend to like each other in terms of friendship or romance.
Conversely, explained Aristotle, they tend to dislike people that embody opposite values, pursue opposing goals or practise opposing habits. It all revolves around human rationality, said Aristotle. It is not a question of chance or pre-existing souls.
Optimism in Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature
Aristotle considered life as a process of self-development in which each individual shapes his own happiness or eudaimonia by taking daily steps. It is up to you to define your goals, learn new skills, make plans and carry them out; luck plays a limited role in the process. Steady work normally leads to success.
Why was Aristotle optimistic? Because the reality is overall benevolent. It normally leads to beneficial results when steady work is performed. If you labour for months, building a house, you will normally finish it even if proves less than perfect.
Rain and storms may disrupt your work. Maybe you suffer a fortuitous fire and the half-built house burns to the ground; that would be a pity, but doesn’t justify despair. You can start again and do better next time.
Aristotle didn’t deny the existence of mistakes, setbacks and bad luck, but those constitute the exception, not the rule. If you look around, you will see that people who practise good habits (“virtues”) tend to do well in the long term.
Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature compared to Thomas Hobbes’
Unfortunately, most philosophers disagree with Aristotle’s optimism. For instance, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) regarded humans as essentially bad and dangerous, or at least, easy to tempt and corrupt. He was the quintessential pessimist.
Why was Hobbes deeply pessimistic about human nature? I attribute his pessimism to the fact that he had witnessed first-hand the ravages of civil war in England. He had seen with his own eyes murder, wanton destruction, famine and poverty; as a result, he was convinced that those were natural, normal.
In his book “Leviathan,” published in 1651, Hobbes argued that human beings are naturally cruel and abusive to each other practically under any circumstances. He viewed brutality and poverty as the default status. For Aristotle, the default status of humanity had been collaboration and prosperity.
It’s no wonder that very pessimistic views of human nature led Hobbes to speak in favour of a strong government. He saw as indispensable for people to abandon their freedom and seek the protection of a central authority with potent police powers.
However, Hobbes’ argument is far from waterproof. If his pessimistic view of human nature is true, why does he expect a strong authority to be any better? Will it not make things worse and increase cruelty and abuse exponentially?
Hobbes didn’t answer the question, which points to a major fallacy in his views of human nature. If Hobbes had considered the question, he would have amended this views and endorsed those of Aristotle.
Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature are accurate
Aristotle had not denied that humans can behave stupidly or cruelly. He had himself witnessed some of the darkest episodes in the history of ancient Athens, but those had not polluted his objectivity.
By looking at the world, he could see that humans possess a strong tendency to behave rationally. Most individuals choose to work instead of stealing from their neighbours. Most feuds are settled peacefully. Most transactions are conducted to the mutual satisfaction of both parties.
Like other opponents to Aristotle, Hobbes was wrong. I can understand that his philosophy of human nature was driven by painful personal experience, but I cannot endorse his mistakes.
Aristotle’s views on human nature are realistic, practical and accurate. You will be better off if you study them and put them into practice day after day.
If you are interested in applying Aristotelian principles to real-life situations, I recommend you my book titled “Rational living, rational working.”
Related articles
Aristotle’s theory of virtue and character development
Modern attacks against Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature
Critique of Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature
Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature