Farewell to you

I feel like I've stated my mind and got everything across to you that there is to get across, so I really don't need to write this blog anymore. I think somewhere in the back of your mind you know it too.  Human Nature states that we are selfish people and if you've been reading this blog, you obviously know I think we are selfish. Selfishness; it's a hard quality to admit you have. Even for me it's hard. Here I am assuming that people are listening and agreeing with me on my opinions (which you should because they are true) when I don't know if they really are. But my views are right! You have to LISTEN to me people! The Brits didn't listen to me, but they didn't know what they were talking about. I am right! Human nature is bad! As humans,we are bad and selfish people. We can't escape it. Humans are selfish on purpose, it just comes naturally. Those selfish thoughts are put in our minds by human nature. Self preservation is the only way to ensure survival. So live long and prosper people, it's the only way to go. Fare thee well and good luck.
                                                                                                                        Thomas Hobbes 

The Three Understandings

"Philosophies of leadership are determined by beliefs about human nature." 
 All this means is the way a leader rules is people is based on what he sees of them. If a leader sees that his people are greedy and they all want potatoes, he then has to rule them by splitting up the potatoes so they all get their potatoes. But if this was true and a whole village wanted their crop of potatoes, well, there wouldn't be enough of them so they'd all fight each other to get them. So leaders should also know how their followers will act. If a teacher is in a room with a bunch of tired and cranky kindergartners, the teacher knows that she needs to control them or else the whole situation will get out of hand. The teacher will need to provide relaxing and calming activities to calm the kids down. How a leader determines to rule his/her people is what the leader sees in their people.
I agree with this understanding, somewhat. I know those two parts just completely contradicted each other, but it's true. I know that a leader will rule their people in the way they think they need to (ahem, in order, cough, to control them, COUGH) rule them. But I don't agree with the fact that leaders rule in different ways. Human nature is human nature--it's everyone in the world, not just just a fraction. All leaders need to rule their people in the same way to insure that they don't kill each other (because they will). Take the potato example. Everyone wants the potatoes and the leader knows that, but how to stop it? One option is to equally distribute the potatoes, but who are we kidding? There would be some people in the crowd that would come back for seconds. Or, the leader could ban eating potatoes, which probably wouldn't go over well and the potato eaters would get mad and act upon the leader. OR, the leader could just keep all the potatoes for themselves. It could go either way. But anyway, I do see that leaders rule their people in what they see of them because it is the most successful way of ruling them. Leaders need complete control and by following and observing their people's actions, they will know their ways and can then rule them with knowing how they will act.

"The governed have a responsibility for their governance." 

Addressing his Germans

Ah, government. How unsuccessful you really are--in my point of view, but don't tell anyone I said that. This is wrong, the governed shouldn't have ANY responsibility for their governance. Why? Because it will ruin them. The governed need a third party to equalize their actions. This understanding means that the people lead by a ruler or a decision maker have the responsibility (or the say, meaning they get to choose...) on how or who governs them. This is what that brainless guy Locke thinks is true. A democracy. Democracies will never work. They will assume their power too boldly and take everything for themselves. Don't believe me? Take Adolf Hitler for an example. He was elected by the German democracy and look at the good he did for that country! He took WAY to much power into his control and ended up attacking most of Europe and that didn't really work out very well. The people had no control over him... so this understanding is clearly wrong. Democracies don't work. A monarchy is the best type of government because the ruler has control over the people, and he will rule fairly (well, as fairly as humanly possible) and comply to their follower's needs-as I mentioned above. 

"Human Nature does not determine our actions; it inclines us towards certain actions."

Human nature insures that we are bad. Bad defined as greedy, selfish and egoistic. So this is saying that even though we are bad, our actions won't always be bad. We might be doing 'good deeds' if the situations presents itself, but even though we are doing good, we can't help but think bad thoughts. Because that is human nature. And again, I can't agree with this. It's wrong. Human nature dictates our actions. We are bad. We are selfish and greedy and if we are doing good deeds it's for the benefit of ourselves. When Macbeth thinks about killing Duncan, he doesn't want to (yes, unfortunately this does help Locke) BUT, he does kill him in the end. Macbeth realizes that if he killed Duncan, then he could be the King of Scotland. He was selfish and so he killed him and got himself a throne. Human nature greatly influences what humans think and do. Humans want everything for themselves and that's just the way it is.There are no thoughts that somehow creep into our mind and tell us bad thoughts, we think them. We make them up. The only reason Macbeth wasn't going to kill Duncan was because he was appalled with himself for even thinking those horrible thoughts. It was his brain, his thoughts. It's our brains and our thoughts. Human nature is in control, so just hold tight and go for the ride--it's instinct.

Alternate Endings

• As I've said before, Lord of the Flies is a great example about human nature and how humans act. Except the ending...which stinks. No one gets rescued on an desolate island in the middle of the ocean, especially when no one knows that your there. I think that Ralph should have died. Ralph dying is the logical thing that would have happened. To go all the way through the book and have Jack take over Ralph's power and alienate him so that he feels like he's all alone and then have them get rescued? Golding messed up there. He probably just wanted to finish the book, which I don't blame him for. Jack should have found Ralph in the thicket and killed him so that he could then have complete power, because, think about it, that is what would've have happened. Jack killed everyone around Ralph so that Ralph would realize how powerful Jack is. Killing Simon (which he Ralph was unconsciously a part of ) and Piggy were not necessary because they held no high power; but they were-in a way- parts of Ralph. Simon was Ralph's supporter and Piggy was his logic, by killing them, Ralph was now vulnerable.  Jack-being human-wanted all the power, and so the only logical way for him to have complete power was to kill Ralph instead of the boys being rescued. 

• As exampled in  Lord of the Flies, humans are only out for their personal gain and will act upon anything if it is within the means of their intentions. (In the book, Jack wanted power, and so he would do anything--killing, Piggy and trying to kill Ralph--to try to get what he wanted).

A Lost Boy on his journey to freedom

•  The Lost Boys of Sudan are an incredible group of boys. For the past fifteen years, boys from Sudan have walked from Sudan, through Ethiopia and finally to a refugee camp in Kenya.During their journey, they came in counter with many human examples of war, selfishness and greed.  The northern part of Sudan has tormented southern Sudan for decades. Their motive? Land and different religions. Northern Sudanese Islamic forces has been attacking the south Sudanese Christians since 1987. They boys have seen horrific images of death and destruction as they've seen their family, friends and villages killed, tortured and destroyed. All for the land. Greed has taken over their lives. And it's not even their greed. It's their government's greed that has ruin their life. During their journey, thousands were killed, but at the refugee camp, life is still hard. As it should be. Not that they deserve to have a hard life-they don't- but they do. As refugees have been brought over the the U.S., it can only be fore one reason. First let me explain the U.S. government. They are in debt, serious debt. Americans have been cutting costs on everything, and so what would be better than bringing refugees who don't know any better and get excited about earning $8 an hour. By bringing in the refugees, the government gets cheap labor and more tax money all when the Lost Boys think that they are being treated to the good life. Which they are; compared to their old life, they are living the American dream. But I wonder when the boys and America will wake up and realize that their 'dream' is only the government housing (which they really aren't, the boys have to pay their way after 'a few months) these men to look generous and appear to be 'giving these men a new life'. Well don't you think that if America was 'generous', then they would at least have the decency to pay each refugee's $850 air fair and not expect repayment? If the Lost Boys haven't even switched a light switch on or off before, how are they going to be expected to go out (and cross the street successfully) and find a job that they will understand and not be taken advantage over? It's called personal gain Lost Boys, welcome to America.

Hobbes, Thomas Hobbes

I'm Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher and I know all about human nature.

Me

As Machiavelli said, "Men are fickle, hypocritical and greedy of gain. And he is right. Human nature is a parallel to the phrase "Every man for himself!". In a state of nature--a blank world with no morals, rules or customs--humans would go into complete self preservation mode. Our only natural right is to protect ourselves by any means, even if it means using violence and slaughter. I believe that humans would stoop that low if it would ensure their survival. If two people were stranded on an island, there wouldn't be enough food for the both of them. Scarcity is everywhere, and that is what that challenger, John Locke, is wrong. He believes that there is always abundance. He would think that five bananas on that lowly island would be an abundance of food for those two unfortunate humans to live on. FIVE BLOODY BANANAS!!! That man clearly has issues. Five bananas is a scarcity...those two humans will die--unless those people split those bananas up. But, think about it, will those two really agree to equally split those bananas up evenly?  No they won't. They won't sleep or stray away from the bananas in fear that the other would take them. Think about it. And so, the only way to fairly split up those bananas is to bring in a third party (now, if you are stranded on an island this task will most likely be impossible to accomplish). When a third party is introduced they would hold the power. This would be helpful for those people and their bananas, but it could be extremely dangerous when the 3rd party (lets call them a sovereign) realizes their power. They will abuse their newly found power of keeping the fruit that the two humans are trusting them and will use them to their advantage. This is the social contract of human nature. 

Take William Golding's Lord of the Flies for example. This is a perfect aspect and example of my view on human nature (they are even stranded on an island!). When Jack and his crew killed a pig, he fed it to only his hunters because they were "the only ones who did anything".There were less kids in the hunting group than on the whole island and therefore by just sharing it to the hunters, there would be more for the hunters then there would be if they shared with everyone. Jack showed that he would be rather be mean towards the others and keep the food to himself and his close friends in order for him to survive. Survival is the number one motivation that keeps humans living. Everything people do is for them selves. As Gloria Gaynor sings, "I know I will stay alive/I've got all my life to live/ I've got all my love to give/ and I'll survive/ I will survive!" 

She's a superstar and she's not afraid to sing what she knows

 A lot of celebrities do community service now days. I refuse to believe that they are actually for doing good. They have enough money, they should just donate secretly or something if they really want to help. People such as Justin Timberlake, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts and Taylor Swift (and a lot more) helped Haiti this past year after a horrible earthquake struck Haiti. But can you honestly believe they were doing that for themselves? I can't. They are doing it just for their image and to look caring for the press. But, please, come on...do you really think that Taylor Swift is going to actually go down there and help, which would mean ingesting dust and debris? Uhh, no. She wouldn't because it might hurt her throat and therefore completely wreck her career. But hey, at least she looked good. 

It's human nature to be selfish. Everyone's selfish and only out for the benefits for themselves. Don't deny it, in some form you are. And in some form I am too.