One central debate revolves around whether human nature is a fixed, universal essence or something more fluid, shaped by environment, culture, and history. The sources present arguments for both sides. **Universal and Innate Aspects:** Several sources point towards the existence of a common human nature, an endowment of cognitive and emotional faculties universal to healthy members of the species. This innate constitution is seen as providing the fundamental capacities that allow humans to create and learn culture in the first place. The Enlightenment thinkers, for instance, posited a universal human nature that could be studied scientifically, encompassing aspects like thought, emotion, psychopathology (explained by physical brain mechanisms), animal instincts, moral sentiments, selfish passions, and cognitive foibles. They saw a need for a "science of man" based on this universal nature. Some contemporary thinkers, drawing on recent advances in neuroscience and experimental psychology, argue that beyond selfish instincts, humans are "hardwired" to express empathy, altruism, and compassion, capabilities that are naturally primed at birth, although they are also teachable skills. The desire for revenge is also described as a "built-in feature of human nature," a normal biological hardware present in neurologically intact individuals. The capacity for language is specifically mentioned as a possible innate mechanism, part of human nature, involving creative abilities within certain structural rules. This creative urge, a need for control over one's work, freedom from authoritarianism, and an "instinct for liberty and creativity" are proposed as essential features of human nature. The idea that human nature includes innate organizing principles or mental schematisms is supported by some views. For instance, the mind might be equipped with a battery of emotions, drives, and faculties for reasoning and communicating, which have a common logic across cultures, are difficult to erase or redesign, were shaped by natural selection, and owe some design/variation to genetics. Neuroscience is showing that the brain's basic architecture develops under genetic control, exhibiting innate specialization. These innate capacities require a stimulating environment to develop fully. Philosophical perspectives, such as the Thomistic account (interpreted in one way), suggest that the perfection of the true self involves cognitive capacities that require second-personal connection, implying sociality is essential to human nature. Chomsky's view, stemming from linguistics, suggests humans are creative, social beings with a need for liberty and mutual interdependence. **Construction and Malleability:** In contrast, other perspectives emphasize the role of external factors, social conditions, and cultural context in shaping human behavior and what is understood as human nature. The notion of human nature is viewed by some as historically constructed or as an "epistemological indicator" used in relation to, or opposition to, theology, biology, or history, rather than a purely scientific concept. The poststructuralist view suggests that consciousness is a product of culturally transmitted meanings, norms, and values, raising questions about the extent to which the subject is constructed by culture [see previous discussion]. Foucault, for example, mistrusts the notion of human nature, believing it is difficult to define precisely and arguing that concepts of human nature, justice, and the realization of human essence have been formed within specific civilizations, knowledge types, and philosophical forms, potentially forming part of class systems. He explores how power and discourse construct the subject. Cultural studies and poststructuralism have challenged Enlightenment models of human nature that privilege rationality and autonomy as fixed, universal properties, arguing instead that human nature is fundamentally created or altered by social circumstances. The idea that human nature is a "plastic, malleable thing" is supported by the vast range of human deeds, from life-affirming to murderous. Historical examples like Jesus and Hitler are cited to illustrate that humans are not one way, capable of being noble and narcissistic, generous and genocidal. **Debates on the Nature of Human Tendencies:** A significant debate exists regarding inherent human tendencies, particularly whether humans are fundamentally selfish or benevolent. Western philosophers and scientists have often advanced the idea that humans are inherently selfish and compelled to promote self-interests. However, this "selfish hypothesis" is countered by the existence of dispositions like benevolence, generosity, love, friendship, compassion, and gratitude, which are plainly distinguished from selfish passions. Recent research is increasingly embracing the view that humans are also "hardwired" to express empathy, altruism, and compassion. Some sources propose that both positions have merit. Humans might have innate tendencies for kindness _and_ spontaneously selfish feelings. The debate about universal or partial selfishness is considered significant in the "speculative science of human nature". The complexity is highlighted by acknowledging that we are at once innately good and innately bad, with the potential for both occurring in every individual. Our biology determines these contradictory aspects, while society modifies both tendencies. This leads to the "goodness paradox": humans are both intensely calm in normal interactions (low reactive aggression) and yet capable of extreme aggression (high proactive aggression), which is cold, planned, and deliberate. The combination of low reactive aggression (explaining virtue) and high proactive aggression (accounting for violence) resolves the paradox, suggesting human nature is a "chimera," a combination of seemingly contradictory traits embedded in our biology. **The Role of Science and Philosophy:** The sources discuss the challenges and complexities of studying human nature scientifically. While some advocate for a "science of man", others question whether the methods of natural sciences are appropriate for studying conscious, subjective human beings. Social science is often mixed with theory and empirical observation, requiring critical readers to identify the primary focus. Studying human behavior is difficult because much of what is known is extrapolated from studies of limited populations, and the "unique self-contained mind" is attempting to study itself. There's a tension between objective scientific inquiry and the subjective reality of human experience. Science often aims for an objective "view from nowhere," stripping away personal experience, which is seen as unsuitable for understanding human affairs where individuals are subjects, not just objects. Understanding others requires engaging with their subjective perspectives, making sense of them from a standpoint _between_ ourselves and them, rather than achieving complete identification. The shared structure of human perspective – as embodied, situated agents with interests – allows for intersubjectivity and the possibility of perspective-taking. The debate about human nature has been influenced by political and moral considerations. Evolutionary psychology, for instance, has faced accusations of claiming humans are selfish or wicked, although its task is presented as connecting knowledge about human nature with how the world works and explaining facts with minimal assumptions. Conceptions of human nature are deeply entwined with different ways of life and political systems, often becoming a source of conflict. Foucault and Habermas, in their debates, engage with the question of human nature in relation to science, power, and social critique. Foucault challenges the notion of an essential human nature as an object of science throughout his work. Habermas, while also critiquing scientism, argues that fundamental categories of thought are necessarily presupposed, even when studying human nature through fields like neuroscience. Their differing approaches highlight a tension between seeking universal, stable aspects of human nature (Habermas) and critically problematizing whatever appears as universal or necessary to open possibilities for self-transformation (Foucault). **Human Nature and Societal Organization:** Conceptions of human nature, whether explicit or implicit, fundamentally underlie doctrines of social order or social change. Debates about how society ought to be organized, and criticisms of existing structures, contain assumptions about the human condition. For example, different views on freedom and equality can stem from different conceptions of human nature, such as whether humans are primarily rational, self-determining agents requiring freedom or "blank sheets" receptive to social conditioning for equality. Chomsky's view, suggesting humans are rational, mutually interdependent, creative, and social beings, attempts to transcend this dichotomy and reconcile freedom and equality. He argues that any moral or political advocacy is based on an assumption about human nature – that the proposed change is better for humans because of how they fundamentally are. However, the sources also note the potential dangers of making definitive claims about human nature. The denial of human nature, often rooted in the "blank slate" doctrine, is argued to distort science, public discourse, and individual lives, leading to misguided policies and practices. Conversely, anxieties exist that acknowledging innate human differences or potential immorality could justify oppression, make improving the human condition futile, negate free will, or strip life of meaning. The sources argue these fears are often based on faulty logic; claims about human nature do not necessarily imply these negative outcomes. Instead, understanding human nature can provide a foundation for a realistic humanism, appreciating the mind's complexity, identifying moral intuitions, fostering natural relationships, unmasking oppression, and valuing democracy and the rule of law. In conclusion, the exploration of human nature involves a deep, ongoing debate between views emphasizing universal, innate characteristics and those highlighting social and historical construction. This debate is intertwined with scientific inquiry, philosophical perspectives, and fundamental questions about human capabilities, moral tendencies, and the organization of society. The sources suggest that understanding human nature, despite its complexity and the controversies involved, is crucial for navigating social, political, and ethical challenges.