Shakespeare Human Nature

Shakespeare Human Nature
It was very common that authors during the Renaissance Era would mostly talk about their feelings and about human nature. William Shakespeare
and Francis Petrarch are both examples of authors that are well known to talk about human nature and expressing their feelings about love, people
and nature. Shakespeare's sonnets contain an overall sense of story and deep feelings where the reader can relate. A lot of people like his poems
since it is very easy to understand and relate to them. However, we still do not know if they were real life events or not because nobody knows
enough about Shakespeare's life to say this is accurate. In the other hand, Francis Petrarch sonnets are also very easy to relate since he talks a lot about
love. In his...show more content...
In his sonnets not only shows his love side but also how he struggled with self–doubt and insecurities. One example of this would be " All men make
faults, and even I in this, authorizing thy trespass with compare, myself corrupting, salving thy amiss, excusing thy sins more than thy sins are" (Sonnet
35, lines 5–8). I think sometimes as humans we tend to judge and blame others even if it's been our fault. In this sonnet he talks how his lover
betrayed him and something I actually liked that he said and I think we, as humans should do is that he decides to assume equal guilt despite the
pain that his lover gave him. As most of the Renaissance era authors talk about love, there is many times where their sonnets express loss, grief,
and pain where we can also relate. An example would be "and yet I live, grief and disdain to me, left where that light I cherished never shows, in
fragile bark on the tempestuous sea. Here let my loving song come to a close, the vein of my accustomed art is dry, and this, my lyre, turned at last to
tears" (Sonnet 292, lines 9–14). Petrarch is dealing with the death of someone whom he has loved for many years and feels useless and rather be
death than suffer and being in this world since she is
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Nature And Human Essay
Maria Moiseeva
Professor Ahrens
English 101
13 August 2014
Illusory Freedom
"...Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from
elsewhere to save us from ourselves."–Carl Sagan.
If there is only one thing that humanity has to learn, that would be the superior power of compliance with natural laws. Human species have never had
any true freedom. Freedom is illusion. When it comes to the order of nature, either you align or you suffer.
So, who are we, homo sapiens, a branch of great monkeys, the source of all problems on the Earth, the reason behind dramatic changes of environment,
...show more content...
Where is the "second chance" for the people and other inhabitants of this planet who died from this man made disasters? These examples prove that
there is no such rule of a "second chance" simply because nature doesn't privilege us with one.
The relationship of humans to the Earth is an evolutionary process. First Homo sapiens are the most obedient environmentalists of the planet. Many
thousands of years ago, our super–monkey brethren began to discover how to engage nature. We went from being completely at the mercy of the
habitat, gathering our food with some hunting, living and migrating around the natural seasonal regeneration, to an agricultural revolution, learning
how to cultivate food, create more sophisticated tools to ease labor. In fact, this new awareness and ever–increasing understanding to harness the
processes of nature to our advantage is what has led to the vast technological innovation and

Human Nature Essay
The Evil Nature of Man: An Essay on Human Nature
People today enjoy the many pleasures life provides, including entertainment and technology, all the while living longer than ever before. This
would not be possible, if it were not for a government that protects it's citizens from danger and promotes peace. Humans are evil by nature, and
therefore require some form of power in a society that will protect each person. This evil is described in a interview with a U.S. soldier who after
returning from Iraq, found his evil nature to control his emotions toward Muslims, until he was able to join their group, an become a member of their
society. Thomas Hobbes, an English Philosopher from the 17th century, wrote a book on the subjects of human...show more content...
Of course with this State, the idea of the third law of nature comes into view, with people of the State "perform[ing] their covenants made"(45), having
each man follow the rules of the State, which is able to determine for itself what is just and unjust. The violent nature of man is thwarted through the
existence of the State, which every man gives up certain rights to, yet gains security and peace from, allowing them to live with instead of war, the
pleasures of industry, invention, culture, exploration: all the things that make life worth living (Hobbes 42). This is evidenced by our culture, where
most men and women are able to go about their daily lives, enjoying all the pleasures in our society, while our government protects each of its citizens
from threats. The only thing we as citizens have to do in return is follow the laws of the government. Another Philosopher,John Locke, took a view that
was opposite of Hobbes. In his work "Of the State of Nature," Locke feels that since humans were all equal, left to their own devices, they would be
able to establish their own form of government that they themselves could control (48). The argument made starts off in a form similar to Hobbes idea
of two men having the same goal, yet in Locke's

Human Nature Essay
"It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake."
–H.L Menckens
From the moment they are born, humans have a naturally evil predisposition. Although the term 'evil' is difficult to define, there are various views on
morality. The most commonly referenced one, Moral Objectivism, holds that moral standards are universally transcendent, and that certain acts are
right or wrong independent of human subjectivity. It is by this unspoken moral code that humanity's acts are judged. There is some debate whether a
fundamental human nature exists, as social and environmental influences are present from the moment someone is born. But if we can define human
nature, it is beyond doubt, naturally evil. The English philosopher Thomas...show more content...
The atrocity of acts committed by mankind throughout history demonstrates the dangerous results when society is unable to restrain the natural evil
present in human beings. The words 'humane', and 'civilized', both come from roots that describe society. Their positive connotations associate
humankind with an inherent morality. But it is hard to have faith in our race when throughout history; we have brutalized each other in such barbaric
ways. How can independently thinking, emotionally compassionate beings take part in massacres like the killings at Columbine or in the terrorist
attacks in 2001? The September 11th bombings took thousands of innocent lives, and struck fear into the hearts of millions. What shocked the
observing world though, was not the number of dead. It was the senselessness of the cause, the raw savagery of the attacks, the utter lack of humanity.
It begged the question: what happens when the moderating hand of society fails to restrain a group of radicals? The answer was simple. We saw the
innate evil present in each one of us, in its undistilled, uncensored form. The Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were disillusioned
bullies– torn away from society's expectations through a combination of violence tendencies and psychosis. Their horrific acts were a result of their
innate evil nature breaking through the wall of societal structure. Golding's contention was that in most cases, rules were forced

Humans Nature
Human Nature
Good or Bad?
Whether human beings are instinctually good or evil in an elementary natural state is a question that has been boggling the minds of even the greatest
philosophers. There is a spectrum of theories that support both good and evil within the human race, each with valid points that explains the range of
our interests, being either for ourselves or for others. However, my personal stance is the sensible theory of Altruism. Past experiences and observations
allow me to take the stance, and support the argument that humans are caring and genuinely good individuals and have the will and desire to help those
around them. Philosophers such as Mengzi (4th Century BCE) also known as Mencius in the West, explains...show more content...
These ongoing debates continue into literature and are for example the two philosophical authors Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and Joseph Butler
(1692–1752). One philosopher fighting for the truth of the evil nature within humans, and the other rebutting for the good. Hobbes' book the
"Leviathan" expresses harsh outlines for the nature of human and describes the human life as, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." 1 He concluded
that humans are antisocial, and that cooperation between individuals or groups is nothing but self–interest. Joseph Butler however, wanted to
reestablish his belief and published the book "Fifteen Sermons Preached at Roll Chapel." His goal was to prove that human nature included positive
elements. Within his book, Butler states that humans have varying characteristics pertaining to their nature and this encompasses a measure of
self–interest. This self–interest is a natural attribute that roots back to the human animalistic nature of "survival of the fittest." This self–interest is also
a human quality that does not conflict with benevolence. Butler arranged these human attributes into a hierarchy with the top being conscience. In
regards to conscience, Hobbes maintained the opinion that acts of kindness

Human Nature: Good or Evil? Essay
For centuries many philosophers, as well as most individuals, have pondered on the question what is good and what is evil. More–so philosophers of
all ages have also stumbled upon a more in depth question which is if the intuitive knowledge of man's nature is good, or if it is evil. Many have
claimed to have an answer to these puzzling questions yet most of their answers were found to be incomplete and inadequate at a later date. Religion
also tried to provide a solution but to my understanding only caused more of an entanglement if anything. According to the current definition from
Webster, good is defined as morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious; where as evil is defined as morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked. One could
Would these people be considered evil and if so how did they become this way? Were they born this was or was it some sort of external forces that
led them to become evil? Well according to Hsun Tao, another Chinese philosopher, humans were born of an evil nature and with some sort of
guidance from a teacher could learn to become good. He believed that what is natural to human beings is desire and desire inevitably leads to conflict;
since this is evil then so is the nature the results within. Yet referring back to the young child and well example, why would most people do the right
thing? Is it because they are taught to be good again is it something that is deeper? However, another Chinese philosopher, Kao Tzu, beleived that
human nature is neither inherently good nor inherently evil but rather a "blank slate" that could be conditioned in both directions. When an individual
is born he/she has no ideas or preexisting behaviors but that through life experiences and external forces, such as family and friends, that influence
ones human nature. Or according to John Locke "the mind at birth is a blank white sheet of paper on which experience writes." Religion also claims
to provide a solution for whether human nature is initially good or evil but this of course varies upon the religion. According to Catholicism everyone
who has been born is tainted with original sin which according to the bible is an inclination to evil caused

Human Nature Essay
Human nature is loosely defined as the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that that tend to come naturally. Our human nature is a mixture of our
own personal beliefs and views as well as the perceptions of our surrounding environment and the society we reside in. It affects the way we interpret
and present knowledge without realizing it, including our thoughts and actions. Since writing is just a collection of our thoughts and the way in which
we interpret the world, our human nature inevitably seeps into our writing. This paper will argue that the Hesiod's writings, in particular the creation
story of Pandora in both Theogony and Works and Days, are heavily influenced by the misogynistic views held by the Greek patriarchal society at the
time. The influence of society's misogynistic views on the portrayal of characters and roles are fully exemplified when comparing the creation story of
Pandora to that of her male counterpart and Eve.
The portrayal of Pandora in Hesiod's Works and Days is filled with the philosophy and viewpoints that men held towards women, greatly influencing
her creation. Many of the characteristics possessed by Pandora mirror the viewpoints that men, and in particular Hesiod, had towards women. The mere
creation of women, by Zeus, was an idea set around the punishment of man for the acts of Prometheus: "To set against the fire I shall give them an
affliction to which they will all delight as they embrace their own misfortune" (W&D 57–59).

Maus Essay On Human Nature
As time goes by one would think the world is evolving in a positive manner. With all the new technology and new resources, we would assume to be
better people than the generation before us. Many would argue that we are better because we are always well informed by the tabloids and social
media of what is happening in the world. Unfortunately, we as humans are evolving in a negative manner. Our human nature since generations before us
show how cruel we are. In the book, Maus written by Art Spiegelman shows us how malicious and inhuman people can treat each other. The novel
illuminates our understanding of human nature as being evil as well as deceiving individuals, who do not act to better the world as time goes on. In
the comic, Jews were sent to concentration camps but before they left a riot downtown was described. Vladek said "...Everyone Yelling, "Jews Out!
Jews out!"...even two people killed. The police just watched!"(Spiegelman 37). The quote shows how people are constantly being influenced when a
higher authority figure has more power than them. In this instance, Hitler had the authority and did not want the best for Jews. Police are to keep
everyone safe and control chaos. As we can see in the quote above, the...show more content...
Anja knew she involved herself in illegal action by translating communist messages. Instead of hiding the messages in her house, which she knew by
doing so she would get arrested. She gave them to her seamstress. Anja said "Miss Stefanska–Please! Hide this package for me–don't tell ANYONE
about it!" (Spiegelman 28). She deceived her seamstress because she tricked her into hiding the messages and later on the seamstress paid the price of
Anja. Anja gave the envelope full of translated words to her to protect herself, but this does not justify what she did. Spiegelman shows us that instead
of accepting our faults we try to blame others for

Essay on Principles of Human Nature
Fundamental Principles of Human Nature The heated controversy over how human beings develop their behavior, ideas, reasoning and other abstract
traits has been in ongoing debate for centuries. John Locke's "blank slate" theory of experience and sensation, and Edward Wilson's theory of
evolutionary biology and innate genes are both valid and apply to the development of human nature. It is has been proven through scientific research of
the human genome over time, that both sides of this controversial subject are partially correct (Powell). However, I believe Wilson's theory is the most
reasonable and legitimate in influencing the outcome of one's character. John Locke's theory states that the mind begins as a "blank slate", and that
Locke's theory that all ideas and knowledge result directly from experience is quite reasonable, however I believe that experience only goes so far
in determining the overall outcome of who a person is and the way in which they behave. A common saying some like to say when referring to the
way a person acts or behaves is, "Oh, she got it from her mother/father." I hold this true to myself, being my own example, I know for a fact that I
inherited certain unique qualities and behavioral traits from my mother and father. My older sister and I were raised together in the same environment
for 18 years, under the same/similar circumstances, and it is quite obvious that although we share many interests and ideas, our personalities are nearly
polar opposite. She is calm, patient, and extremely shy, which is strikingly similar to my father's personality. I am very outgoing, impatient, and
(unfortunately) emotional, which my mother finds humorous at times, seeing how we are so similar in the way that we reason and react to things.
Although there is no documented or scientifically proven evidence that this is true, I know that it must be true to some extent, and that hereditary must
have played a role in my collection of reasoning and understanding. For instance, if genetics did not play any role in this outcome, then how could
fraternal twins, raised under the same environment and conditions, differ at all in behavior

Shakespeare Human Nature

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Shakespeare Human Nature