10. Read the following texts on human nature, for questions 1-4 answer with a word or short phrase.

There can be nо single, simple definition of human nature. Many inter-twining ideas in the history of philosophy have helped us to form our understanding of ourselves. Yet there can be nоmore important question than who we think we are, unless it is who I think І am, and who you think you are. The twin questions of the character of humanity and the nature of the individual person are always linked.

Ideas of human nature radically affect the kind of society we live in and the kind we would like to live in. How far dо we need society? Is it feasible to imagine living in splendid isolation? Linked to this is the question as to whether we are all naturally only concerned for ourselves, and only willing to co-operate with others when it is in our interests to dо so. Are we, on the other hand, social beings by nature, eager to co-operate with others for the common good? Our political views may be influenced by our answers. There is also the problem about whether our natural inclinations and desires have to be restrained in society or whether they find their proper expression in it. Does the beast in us need restraining, and is civilization the result of curbing some of the strongest of human impulses?

Might it, therefore, be possible to change human nature by political means? Anyone who believes this will be likely to have greater faith in the effectiveness of political change, and may even be tempted by а doctrine of revolution. Those who consider human nature to be fixed, perhaps biologically, may well be morе cynical about the likely effects of political action, and perhaps be more ready to acquiesce in the existing state of affairs. Conservatism, as аpolitical philosophy, however, may also thrive when the central role of custom and tradition in human life is experienced. If they have made us what we are, by striking at them, we may seem to be striking at ourselves.

1. What does the writer mean by the phrase ‘the beast in us’ (line 14)?

2. Why, according to the writer, might people choose conservatism as their political philosophy?

Ideas about human nature are of their essence philosophical. They are not simply the result of scientifically established facts, but are general conceptions arrived at through rational argument. They are inevitably often controversial, but the theories produced determine our vision of ourselves. Most writing on the subject is explicitly philosophical. Since, though, philosophical assumptions about our nature lie at the root of any discipline concerned with the activities оf men and women, it is not surprising that some thinkers have written primarily from the standpoint of another intellectual discipline. History, politics and social anthropology, to name only the most obvious, all proceed with some view about human nature.

The largest assumption of all, which should never be taken for granted, is that there is such аthing as `human nature'. The concept has implications, particularly that we can assume similarities merely on the basis of membership of one biological species. We will then all have some tendencies, and some likes and dislikes, in common simply because of our common humanity. That notion of humanity would not be an empty one. It is in fact controversial to hold that saying someone is human already tells us аlot about him or her. Many assert that belonging to а society is far more significant, because we are moulded by our society. If, however, this view is pressed very far, it becomes clear that we cannot assume any point of contact between members of one society and those of another. Neither set would then be able to understand the other. As аconsequence, any discipline depending on the comparison of people in different societies would find its very existence threatened.

History is impossible if we cannot attribute similar motives to inhabitants оf the past as to ourselves. Politics cannot compare the effects of different political systems if the members of one are not fundamentally similar to those of another. Social anthropology cannot hope to grasp the strange customs of those who, on this view, would be as alien to us as the inhabitants of some distant planet in science fiction.

3. Why, according to the writer, are other disciplines involved in notions of human nature?

4. What, according to the writer, would make history, politics and social anthropology redundant?

Listening