What do you think?
Rate this book
Seven Theories of Human Nature
This is an introductory book, intended simply as a rapid tour of a fascinating intellectual landscape. If it whets the reader's appetite for more detailed exploration, and helps him to start doing it for himself, then I shall have fulfilled my purpose. I assume no previous knowledge of the topics covered.
132 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
29 people are currently reading
378 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
November 2, 2009
This book is an introduction to general tenants and postulates. In such a small space, it is difficult to detail anything other than broad, esoteric references to texts. I found the choice to include both thinkers as well as systems of thought somewhat confusing. The attempt to quantify human nature is endless and this book does provide a very brief, concise, and broad introduction to such pursuits, but otherwise, you might as well just read the actual texts being analyzed...perhaps it would be more fruitful?
December 29, 2016
A truly excellent required undergraduate read in a number of philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, and poli sci courses! Not at all "dumbed down" but quite concise and thoroughly comprehensible.
January 27, 2016
Normally you would get all this from Google but it is nice to have it all in one place in a hardcopy. If there are two words that I would use to describe this book they would be thorough and consistent. No wonder it sold so many copies, it is so readable, almost mathematical, so logical, so methodical, so eye-opening. (That's five more descriptive words.) Here's my take on each of the seven theories.
1) Plato said there is an almost unattainable essence in everything - intangible concepts like courage and justice as well as more concrete things like cats and dogs. That essence is the pure Form, which is unchanging and eternal, to which everything else is an imperfect imitation. Only through education of the intellect, which leads to knowledge of the pure forms can we become morally superior beings who are, according to Plato, the only beings capable of ruling a just society. Plato's world is a dualistic world - the material world and the spiritual world. Each of us has a soul which equates to the spiritual world. Plato's theory is open to the objection that it is unscientific - it is not open to analysis through scientific method, and the ideal world that Plato envisages - philosopher-kings ruling a hierarchical tiered society is a dystopia - similar to the society envisaged in Huxley's Brave New World. I personally don't believe in a dualistic world, and I don't believe there are unchangeable Forms.
2) Christianity also lays itself open to scientific challenge. Only a religious whacko would believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent super-being who sent his only son into the world to be killed at a specific point in time in a specific place in order to expiate the world of its sins. It's totally implausible. However my dislike of Christianity goes much deeper. Christianity is founded on a belief in original sin, that man is inherently evil. Evidence from history shows it has caused the deaths of so many good people over the ages. I have no faith in Christianity.
3) Marxism, like Christianity, is another ideology which explains away any evidence that is contradictory (for example, the inevitability of the Communist revolution in advanced economies, and the inability of capitalism to continually increase economic growth - both proved false) and this is suspicious. Marx made some highly interesting philosophical points. Humans are basically social; they need to be productive; their socio-economic conditions determine what they do; their socio-economic position largely influences their consciousness. Any theory based on generalizations, any top-down theory, will inevitably be flawed because the facts within the subject matter have to be squeezed into the theory, and when the theory tries to predict the future, it will come unstuck. We are dealing with social science here, not pure and applied science. Marxism in practice has produced very different consequences than Marx intended.
4) Freud is also open to criticism for the impossibility of falsifying his theories - for example, his interpretation of dreams (which is more like literary criticism) or his division of the mind into id, ego and superego (no physiological basis) - are not open to scientific analysis, except by matching qualitative results against observed quantifiable evidence and that is a very subjective approach. The most interesting point for me is the nature of the sub-conscious. Undoubtedly there are medical cases of conditional amnesia where memories are repressed. I am still trying to reconcile the idea that part of the mind can act as agent to suppress another part of the mind. I prefer the idea that there are levels of consciousness and it is the current focus of our experience that determines our consciousness. When we are asleep, our consciousness is not stimulated by outside experience and our consciousness changes to a different level.
5) Sartre's existentialism is the easiest of these theories to understand because it deals solely with individual consciousness. To sum it all up - our existence is accidental, existence precedes essence, we have no prior God-given purpose, any purpose we create for ourselves, we are not things - we can change our being whenever we want, doing nothing is not an option, this leads to angst in deciding what to do. We can pretend we have no choice - it's the situation, we are programmed, we have a job, we have a particular character, but this is just a cop-out - or "bad faith". We are responsible for everything, whether we like it or not. We are ultimately in control of our free-will, our consciousness, and our emotions.
That's all very good, but it doesn't allow for our own weakness and the influence of our society on us. Often we can't control our emotions (why not?), and we are not isolated beings and society's influence on us is very great and cannot be played down. Sartre said that we should be "authentic"beings and take responsibility for ourselves and that we should aim towards a society which maximises our individual freedom and our personal responsibility, Somewhat contradictorily he eventually discarded existentialism and accepted Marx's analysis and became an advocate of social justice for the masses.
6) Skinner put even greater emphasis on society than Freud or Marx and he said that our behavior is entirely conditioned by our present and past experiences. The flaw in this behaviouralist approach is that it does not allow much room for man's free-will and contrariness. People can be taught to respond to particular stimuli, but they are quite capable of doing unpredictable things despite years of conditioning. A man may give up smoking after 30 years. Or the opposite, he may start smoking again having stopped for 30 years. A strict behavioural approach to human nature doesn't work. It doesn't match the observable evidence.
7) Lorenz is another scientist who explained human nature in terms of the four dominant drives - feeding, reproduction, aggression and flight. This reduces man to an animal, and leaves little room for the higher human activities - reading, writing, creating, playing games, solving problems, telling stories, and so on.
What I would like to do is create a grid with headings at the top such as importance of knowledge, existence of a dualistic mind, influence of society, free-will vs determinism, evaluative vs normative, role of consciousness, because each of these theories emphasises a particular concept.
1) Plato said there is an almost unattainable essence in everything - intangible concepts like courage and justice as well as more concrete things like cats and dogs. That essence is the pure Form, which is unchanging and eternal, to which everything else is an imperfect imitation. Only through education of the intellect, which leads to knowledge of the pure forms can we become morally superior beings who are, according to Plato, the only beings capable of ruling a just society. Plato's world is a dualistic world - the material world and the spiritual world. Each of us has a soul which equates to the spiritual world. Plato's theory is open to the objection that it is unscientific - it is not open to analysis through scientific method, and the ideal world that Plato envisages - philosopher-kings ruling a hierarchical tiered society is a dystopia - similar to the society envisaged in Huxley's Brave New World. I personally don't believe in a dualistic world, and I don't believe there are unchangeable Forms.
2) Christianity also lays itself open to scientific challenge. Only a religious whacko would believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent super-being who sent his only son into the world to be killed at a specific point in time in a specific place in order to expiate the world of its sins. It's totally implausible. However my dislike of Christianity goes much deeper. Christianity is founded on a belief in original sin, that man is inherently evil. Evidence from history shows it has caused the deaths of so many good people over the ages. I have no faith in Christianity.
3) Marxism, like Christianity, is another ideology which explains away any evidence that is contradictory (for example, the inevitability of the Communist revolution in advanced economies, and the inability of capitalism to continually increase economic growth - both proved false) and this is suspicious. Marx made some highly interesting philosophical points. Humans are basically social; they need to be productive; their socio-economic conditions determine what they do; their socio-economic position largely influences their consciousness. Any theory based on generalizations, any top-down theory, will inevitably be flawed because the facts within the subject matter have to be squeezed into the theory, and when the theory tries to predict the future, it will come unstuck. We are dealing with social science here, not pure and applied science. Marxism in practice has produced very different consequences than Marx intended.
4) Freud is also open to criticism for the impossibility of falsifying his theories - for example, his interpretation of dreams (which is more like literary criticism) or his division of the mind into id, ego and superego (no physiological basis) - are not open to scientific analysis, except by matching qualitative results against observed quantifiable evidence and that is a very subjective approach. The most interesting point for me is the nature of the sub-conscious. Undoubtedly there are medical cases of conditional amnesia where memories are repressed. I am still trying to reconcile the idea that part of the mind can act as agent to suppress another part of the mind. I prefer the idea that there are levels of consciousness and it is the current focus of our experience that determines our consciousness. When we are asleep, our consciousness is not stimulated by outside experience and our consciousness changes to a different level.
5) Sartre's existentialism is the easiest of these theories to understand because it deals solely with individual consciousness. To sum it all up - our existence is accidental, existence precedes essence, we have no prior God-given purpose, any purpose we create for ourselves, we are not things - we can change our being whenever we want, doing nothing is not an option, this leads to angst in deciding what to do. We can pretend we have no choice - it's the situation, we are programmed, we have a job, we have a particular character, but this is just a cop-out - or "bad faith". We are responsible for everything, whether we like it or not. We are ultimately in control of our free-will, our consciousness, and our emotions.
That's all very good, but it doesn't allow for our own weakness and the influence of our society on us. Often we can't control our emotions (why not?), and we are not isolated beings and society's influence on us is very great and cannot be played down. Sartre said that we should be "authentic"beings and take responsibility for ourselves and that we should aim towards a society which maximises our individual freedom and our personal responsibility, Somewhat contradictorily he eventually discarded existentialism and accepted Marx's analysis and became an advocate of social justice for the masses.
6) Skinner put even greater emphasis on society than Freud or Marx and he said that our behavior is entirely conditioned by our present and past experiences. The flaw in this behaviouralist approach is that it does not allow much room for man's free-will and contrariness. People can be taught to respond to particular stimuli, but they are quite capable of doing unpredictable things despite years of conditioning. A man may give up smoking after 30 years. Or the opposite, he may start smoking again having stopped for 30 years. A strict behavioural approach to human nature doesn't work. It doesn't match the observable evidence.
7) Lorenz is another scientist who explained human nature in terms of the four dominant drives - feeding, reproduction, aggression and flight. This reduces man to an animal, and leaves little room for the higher human activities - reading, writing, creating, playing games, solving problems, telling stories, and so on.
What I would like to do is create a grid with headings at the top such as importance of knowledge, existence of a dualistic mind, influence of society, free-will vs determinism, evaluative vs normative, role of consciousness, because each of these theories emphasises a particular concept.
August 10, 2025
Leslie está demasiado sesgado como para que me tome en serio lo que dice
December 31, 2011
Quite interesting book to overfly some different philosofer point of views along the history.
Libro bastante interesante para ver de pasada diferentes puntos de vista de ciertos filósofos a lo largo de la historia.
Libro bastante interesante para ver de pasada diferentes puntos de vista de ciertos filósofos a lo largo de la historia.
August 13, 2010
An interesting, thought-provoking read.
July 15, 2013
Good, but it's hard to imagine anyone reading outside a college-level class. Reads like a very long, very basic essay.
January 28, 2023
Syv Teorier Om Menneskets Natur - oversatt av Trond Berg Erikson:
«Hva kan vi vite? Hvordan bør vi handle? Hva kan vi håpe på?» Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
«Maktviljen eller seksualiteten ble til sannheten om mennesket! Menneskets vesen er ikke lenger å finne i logikken, men i lidenskapene.»
«For hver gang vi hever røsten og hevder et syn på hva mennesket er, sier vi alltid også noe om våre egne erfaringer, hvilke forhåpninger vi har og hvilke normer eller verdier vi venter at menneskene skal forholde seg til.»
«Om en eller annen sier at homoseksualitet er unaturlig, kan det innvendes mot påstanden at det finnes visst innslag av homoseksualitet i nesten alle de samfunn man kjenner.»
«Hva kan vi vite? Hvordan bør vi handle? Hva kan vi håpe på?» Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
«Maktviljen eller seksualiteten ble til sannheten om mennesket! Menneskets vesen er ikke lenger å finne i logikken, men i lidenskapene.»
«For hver gang vi hever røsten og hevder et syn på hva mennesket er, sier vi alltid også noe om våre egne erfaringer, hvilke forhåpninger vi har og hvilke normer eller verdier vi venter at menneskene skal forholde seg til.»
«Om en eller annen sier at homoseksualitet er unaturlig, kan det innvendes mot påstanden at det finnes visst innslag av homoseksualitet i nesten alle de samfunn man kjenner.»
May 15, 2025
i read this while half asleep on a coach to london about a year and a half ago so frankly i dont have the most reliable or in depth thoughts on the book
it's pretty interesting, gives a surprisingly comprehensive overview of the seven ideas it covers. includes some limited critique on behalf of the author, which i never think is particularly warranted in short, introductory books. if you're interested in philosophy or psychology at all, it's a short and well-organised book so probably a worthwhile read if you happen across a copy.
it's pretty interesting, gives a surprisingly comprehensive overview of the seven ideas it covers. includes some limited critique on behalf of the author, which i never think is particularly warranted in short, introductory books. if you're interested in philosophy or psychology at all, it's a short and well-organised book so probably a worthwhile read if you happen across a copy.
August 16, 2018
A nice and short little introduction to some notable (and varied) theories on human nature. Although it lacks a bit of context within some of the theories, the author did a good job summarizing some of the foundational ideas and critiques of the theories. Fortunately, for the reader, the author was kind enough to suggest furthering readings (both underlying and undermining the theory) for each section.
September 16, 2020
Overall I enjoyed the book as a jumping off point for 6 of the 7 topics covered in the book. Although I found Stevenson's work on Marx to be lackluster.
Their assuption that because worldwide society has not shifted towards Communism that Marx is wrong, this is not only a bastardization of a slipper slope fallacy, but is plain wrong.
Their assuption that because worldwide society has not shifted towards Communism that Marx is wrong, this is not only a bastardization of a slipper slope fallacy, but is plain wrong.
December 29, 2020
This is an OK introduction to the thought of Plato, Christianity, Marx, Freud, Sartre, Skinner and Lorenz by looking at each in turn under the following structure: 1. General theory of the nature of the universe, 2. the nature of man, 3. diagnosis for what is wrong with man, 4. prescription for putting things right.
Lacking in detail which I guess is to be expected in a short introductory text.
Also a little bit dated in its comments on Marxism (written in the 70s), and showing age regarding Darwinism.
Lacking in detail which I guess is to be expected in a short introductory text.
Also a little bit dated in its comments on Marxism (written in the 70s), and showing age regarding Darwinism.
February 24, 2023
Comparing the vastly different theories and ideologies by applying a simple pattern is a nice introduction to philosophy and theories on life.
The lack of criticism towards the only author mentioned that was an employee in the race theory department in the German Nazi party and influenced eugenics for generations to come is ... interesting
The lack of criticism towards the only author mentioned that was an employee in the race theory department in the German Nazi party and influenced eugenics for generations to come is ... interesting
March 14, 2020
En este opúsculo, Stevenson nos presenta un análisis de las visiones interdisciplinarias de la naturaleza humana. Reúne las miradas de la filosofía, la sociología, la psicología, la biología, la etología y la antropología, entre otras. Una excelente lectura.
April 18, 2020
Noe kort, men gir en variert innføring i filosofiske og psykologiske perspektiver på hva som (ikke) driver et individ, hva som er sant, og individets søken etter ulike ideologiske dogmer i mangel på individuell mestring. Anbefales!
April 25, 2023
An excellent introduction to philosophy. I liked how it was chronological and comparative in such a small amount of text. Definitely piques the interest to pursue the original texts in greater detail.
August 21, 2019
This is one of my favorite books. It is an simple introductory book that will stimulate your mind. Read it for the first time in 2007.
August 4, 2021
prijatno
November 22, 2023
Un libro poco conocido y no por su calidad, al contrario. Una pequeña introducción a los autores y corrientes filosóficas. Muy recomendable para el que le interese la filosofía para empezar.
May 9, 2025
Although this is classic philosophy, I was left flat because too much of the book focused on worldly aspects of human nature without the grounding influence of spiritual belief.
May 4, 2020
A mí, me ha servido. Pero no niego que me resultó pretencioso. Es un libro con un lenguaje complejo para los recién iniciados, y flojo para los más habituados a las teorías que se introducen. Casi parece que la introducción a las teorías es una escusa para el apartado crítico que el autor dedica a cada una de ellas, que por lo general es tan extenso como el propio desarrollo de las ideas de cada escuela de pensamiento. Condensar la explicación del marxismo y el cristianismo en una decena de páginas, y realizar una crítica voraz y a posteriori de ellas, puede servir como ejercicio crítico del lector, pero también como un acto que distorsiona unas ideas que no se han llegado ni a comprender todavía.
August 18, 2024
El trabajo detrás de este libro es profundamente admirable. Y me alegro mucho de haber encontrado esta pequeña bibliografía tan útil a la hora de elegir estas siete (tan bien seleccionadas) visiones sobre la naturaleza humana. De nuevo, el trabajo de construcción de esta guía, con una selección de textos, citas y libros, es magnífica y altamente pertinente para cualquiera que quiera adentrarse en un tema tan determinante en la historia del pensamiento filosófico (incluso científico)
Sin embargo, alguno de los análisis de ciertas obras y autores pueden ser cuestionados. Por ejemplo el de Marx, donde (en un libro escrito en plena Guerra Fría) se puede vislumbrar la crítica (acertada) a los regímenes dictatoriales comunistas. Pero en los textos de Marx no aparece esa visión de trascendencia espiritual del marxismo, que el propio Engels comenzó al intentar darle un vuelco metafísico a la dialéctica histórica y de clase y que la tradición marxista se creyó. Lo mismo con la cuestión del autoritarismo, que parece ligado al pensamiento marxista, pero nada más lejos de la realidad. Lo que ha ocurrido en la historia del siglo XX es que todos los intentos socialistas han sido destruidos (con golpes de estados, guerras e invasiones imperialistas) por lo que solamente han resistido aquellas dictaduras en nombre del pueblo (oxímoron donde los haya). Pero igualmente, esto no le quita validez al libro y a algunas de las tesis presentadas. Muy recomendable.
Sin embargo, alguno de los análisis de ciertas obras y autores pueden ser cuestionados. Por ejemplo el de Marx, donde (en un libro escrito en plena Guerra Fría) se puede vislumbrar la crítica (acertada) a los regímenes dictatoriales comunistas. Pero en los textos de Marx no aparece esa visión de trascendencia espiritual del marxismo, que el propio Engels comenzó al intentar darle un vuelco metafísico a la dialéctica histórica y de clase y que la tradición marxista se creyó. Lo mismo con la cuestión del autoritarismo, que parece ligado al pensamiento marxista, pero nada más lejos de la realidad. Lo que ha ocurrido en la historia del siglo XX es que todos los intentos socialistas han sido destruidos (con golpes de estados, guerras e invasiones imperialistas) por lo que solamente han resistido aquellas dictaduras en nombre del pueblo (oxímoron donde los haya). Pero igualmente, esto no le quita validez al libro y a algunas de las tesis presentadas. Muy recomendable.
July 22, 2012
I thought this introductory book by Leslie Stevenson was insightful and descriptive in discussing the philosophers and their philosophical beliefs. He doesn't delve too deep into the the doctrines and prefers giving the reader a brief( Regularly giving the reader his opinion on the topics), I feel this works in a great way as it keeps new people interested in the subject wanting more instead of forcing them to become perplexed with Philosophy terminology. Great read I enjoyed it, wished it hadn't have been so short though.
September 15, 2009
Although Plato mentions God, or the gods, at various places, it is not clear how seriously he takes them, whether singular or plural.
July 22, 2010
As a starter on sociological theory its alright, though 143 pages is hardly enough space to get into too great a depth.
September 13, 2014
I read this at uni. An interesting read.
Read
April 11, 2013GRATE
March 5, 2020
Have you ever wanted a simple, general framework for thinking about approaches to human nature? Here it is: from what? To what? By what method?
August 13, 2010
read it 22 years ago. re-reading it.
January 22, 2013
Great read
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews