Is Human Nature Evil? | David Hume “Of the Dignity or Meanness of Human Nature”

David Hume’s essay entitled “Of the Dignity or Meanness of Human Nature” offers some considerations on human nature rather than offering a full blown manifesto on the matter. These considerations focus on the debate between a positive view of human nature versus a negative view. Ultimately, Hume mainly aims his critiques at the negative view of human nature.
He starts by acknowledging a pragmatic possibility that a person with a positive view of human nature would want to adhere to that view by acting virtuously. Next, he notices how much of the debate relies on methods of comparison. Hume, however, doesn’t like many of these comparisons but does prefer to compare good motives within people against negative motives.
This leads to a discussion on self-love and how self-love inspiring virtuous acts is not a bad thing. #philosophy #humannature #hume
Instagram: philosophytoonsyt
kofi: ko-fi.com/philosophytoons
Business Email: [e-mail]
Music by Lukembro

[@elishashmalo3731]

I really enjoined Hume’s enquiry considering human understanding. I feel like he writes/argues in a very balanced way and he really desires his readers to think for themselves a bit. Didn’t know there was such a big collection of his essays. Will deff look into that.

[@PhilosophyToons]

If you can deal with his writing in the Enquiry then the essays come highly recommended

[@StrangeCornersOfThought]

Hume-an Nature. I've never subbed harder.

[@PhilosophyToons]

Thanks mate!

[@profkg6613]

Thanks, very informative while bing entertaining. Is there a collection of his essays in book form you recommend?

[@TheMjsanty]

This may be my favorite video on this channel.
And, possibly no surprise, I recently moved Hume up to be one of my favorite philosophers.

[@tobymartin2137]

As well as methods of comparison, I find what warps the negative view of human nature is just, well, the tendency in us to accentuate the negative. What goes wrong sticks in your mind, even when what's right is right in front of you. It's something I notice a lot in (online, admittedly) comments on animal welfare - some horrendous cruelty is done to an animal or animals, which is definitely vile and showing the worst sides of us, but people will be quick to denounce how awful we all are collectively, in spite of the fact that other humans are putting years of their life into conservation efforts, and caring for the animals in their charge the way no other species does. I'd say we're very quick to denounce our species because we have very high standards, which we tend to fall short of, but the fact that we even have those standards in the first place is a testament to us. So, I think I agree that it's perfectly possible that someone with a negative view of human nature can be exceptionally moral, because they see immorality plainly.

[@Benjumanjo]

I choose to look at human nature with neutrality and an absence of judgement. It is only considered in relation to its impact on my ability to achieve my goals.

[@mileskeller5244]

Appreciate you man. You can see here where Kant and Hume bump heads over whether or not admiring the virtous person should be praised.

[@KN-ml2gp]

Many thanks! Hume-an Nature was indeed awesome!

[@PhilosophyToons]

Thanks yo!

[@johnharris8872]

Briliant, Hume is the GOAT philosopher..

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

Rather than Good versus Evil, i prefer Good versus Bad.
Bad: inadequate, unsatisfactory, worthless.
Evil in itself is a valid philosophy that permits power and success and as such is not to be belitteled, and someone that is Good can also be mistaken just as someone that is Evil can be virtuos and right (thus be worthy)!
Evil according to me is the philosophy where one has knowledge and applies knowledge with virtue to obtain a result. Its a philosopy of power that can give excellent succeses.
Good can make mistakes as well - the defining element is MORALS. Morals: to do the right thing, whether it be good or evil.
Goodness can do the wrong thing and thus can give a not wanted BAD result.
Evil can do the RIGHT thing thus can give a worthy, fulfilling result.
It is Morals which define the success of Goodness or Evil.
Due to ignorance Man tends to make the morally wrong choice, simply because man in a certain circumstance does not know what to do - thus for that reason, since man, due to his ignorance makes morally wrong choices, I say man is BAD.
If anyone is interested in the definition of goodness let me know!

[@jthewei]

everything is relative

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

Concepts are absolute truths, for that reason they can be defined. If they where relative they would not be defineable and communication would not be possible.

[@iiilofi]

@@lorenzocapitani8666rule one in philosophy is that there are no absolute truths: anywhere

[@iiilofi]

@@lorenzocapitani8666concepts are simply ideas, they can have structure, but they certainly are not absolute truths, because absolute truths dont exist, and philosophy is about personal truth, not absolute truth, or there would be no room for opposing discussion

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

@@iiilofi is that an absolute truth?

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

@@iiilofi ignorance clouds the definition of a truth which is the reason for debate there where one seeks the truth.

[@deangajraj]

Historically it seems like civilization would've benefited more from political action rather than philosophical, like the punic wars

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

. . . . but it is philosophy that permits to define morals - to determine what is the right thing to do - Politics without morals and ethics (defined by philosophy) will simple make the wrong choices giving a BAD result. It is why policy, in order to give good results requires Good Philosophers.