My Theory of Human Nature (an addition to my other two posts for this week)

My current theory of human nature is all about finding balance. I like to think of each person’s personality/choices in the way Plato describes them: in terms of having a rational side and an emotional side, only my theory suggests that everyone needs to balance the two equally to maintain the “good life.” This could be looked at from a scientific perspective in terms of humans being left-brained versus right-brained, but overall I don’t believe that my theory can be explained from a scientific perspective (a possible downfall.) We need to be practical for survival purposes, and to keep society running smoothly, but I think that satisfying emotional inklings is equally important. We can’t have one in the absence of the other. After all, if we don’t enjoy and appreciate the life we are given, what is its purpose? This aspect of my theory of human nature was somewhat taken from the chapter we read on existentialism. We all, inevitably are going to die, and there is nothing we can do about it, therefore we must enjoy what we have now. My theory of human nature does not directly address the questions of afterlife or fate vs. freewill (another possible fault,) but instead requests that we accept that these questions will forever (in this life) remain unanswered. It does not deny, or encourage, the choosing of a particular religion since there is no evidence to prove or deny the existence of a God/ greater power/afterlife one way or another. Though, my theory of human nature does support the idea of something like a soul, that enables us to reflect independently on our choices, follow unique paths, have unique personalities/interests, and be attracted to different people/lifestyles. What happens to this “soul” after death is a complete mystery. All that we can be sure of is that we exist, because we are conscious, so we must do the most we can with what we have, and what we are sure of, but not without morals. I believe that by being privileged with the potential to live a good life comes with the notion that others are equally deserving of this opportunity. Not only should we strive for emotional/rational well being, but we should help others, or at least be respectful of others’ decision to do the same, as you would have them do for you. This leads to the debate over whether we, as humans, are innately good or evil. In my opinion, we are born neutral, and evil comes from the disrespecting of others’ desires to have a good life unless those desires happen to harm others or their moral goals etc. It seems that very few people do evil simply for the sake of being evil, but rather to fulfill selfish desires. I believe that this comes from our being animals, we are inclined to put ourselves before others for survival reasons, as this was probably necessary in earlier times.

Q:What is your opinion on this? What are some other faults to my theory? Are there any other things you would like me to address?