Ten Theories of Human Nature

In this spirit, "Ten Theories of Human Nature" does not restrict its inquiry to five major thinkers of the Western Tradition (Plato, Kant, Marx, Freud and Sartre), but includes three ancient religious traditions (Confucianism, Hinduism, and Christianity) as well as two scientific thinkers (Skinner and Lorenz).

Each of the ten theories is examined under four aspects:

(1) what is its theory about the world?

(2) what is its theory of the nature of human beings?

(3) what is its diagnosis of what is wrong with us?

(4) how can we put it right?

The result is a concise, well-balanced textbook with useful suggestions for further reading. It shows how the focus of each theory on different aspects of human existence branches out into elaborate (sometimes, arcane) systems of thought. It also illustrates how the dominance of very comprehensive theories, especially religious ones, is replaced in time by more scientific, narrow theories which increase our knowledge about human behavior in very particular, small aspects but tend to lose sight of larger, "non-scientific" issues.

While the authors claim at the beginning of their book to present "rival" theories, the book is actually open-minded about the contributions of each theory to the understanding of the human condition: they are adding up, rather than canceling out.

Meeting the ideas of Sartre, Skinner and Lorenz in the context of the book was an interesting experience for me. Surprisingly, I found that Sartre's ideas about freedom and choice could well form the philosophical basis of the main-stream American self-help book - a thought that any self-respecting French intellectual would definitely hate.


A good one stop read   March 21, 2008
David L. Neidert (Indiana, USA)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful

I have used this book as an ethics instructor for six years. The book is useful in identifying the multiple influences upon our lives for how we make ethical decisions. Our religious perspectives and understanding of behavioral sciences find residence in our lives, whether we are aware or not. It is through these we are formed and make decisions. Stevenson and Haberman present overviews of Taoism, Hinduism, and Judaism, as well as behavorial sciences and philosophy by examining these theories' underlying philosophies and intellectual difficulties. While Judaism and Christianity are not separated by chapter [but combined into one], and Islam is not given a full discussion, the book is useful for understanding the complexity of global interaction and how we can relate to the millions of people who hold religious or philosophical premises unlike our own.


Insight on What Makes Us Human   December 13, 2008
Edgar Foster (United States)
3 out of 4 found this review helpful

Leslie Stevenson and David Haberman have produced a work that serves the undergraduate student of philosophy well since this work is accessible and conversational. Furthermore, the new fifth edition of Ten Theories of Human Nature contains some helpful improvements which include a new chapter on Buddhism, no chapter on Freud and a revised chapter on Darwinian theories of human nature. Stevenson's writing style is usually critical but he maintains a certain degree of scholarly distance from his subject matter. I've used this work in teaching classes on human nature and will continue to employ the fifth edition. I only have two quibbles with Stevenson, for the most part, besides his chapter on Darwin which I will not comment on now.

First, the chapter on the Bible is not written in an objective manner. Compare Haberman's approach to Hinduism or Confucianism with Stevenson's approach to the Bible (Hebrew and Christian): the chapters are as different as night and day. Now I am not saying that there is no legitimate place for critique in a discussion on the biblical religions. But the chapter on the Bible would be improved if Stevenson followed Haberman's lead since the chapters on Confucianism, Hinduism and now Buddhism reflect a sufficient degree of scholarly objectivity. When will the chapter on the Bible be treated similarly?

For example, in his attempt to analyze the Hebrew story of Abraham, Stevenson appears to equivocate in one part of his book (page 116). He asks, "Even if it [the command to kill Isaac] was only given as a 'test of faith,' what sort of God would play such a trick?" While Genesis 22:1 describes what happened in Abraham's case as a "test," it does not say that God (YHWH) tricked Abraham. I believe that Stevenson equivocates when he moves from "test" to "trick." The two words are not synonymous. The implication that God MIGHT have been "tricking" Abraham seems unfair to me, even if Stevenson does follow up this comment with the mention of another possible interpretation of the Abrahamic narrative. Then again, he also levels critical words at Martin Heidegger's writing style like "Heidegger's language is strange and difficult" (page 183). Maybe Stevenson is not partial in toto after all.

Finally, I have found a small technical error in Stevenson's book. On page 130, Stevenson quotes Augustine as saying, "I believe in order to understand" (CREDO UT INTELLIGAM); yet that is not what the ancient bishop said. The expression CREDO UT INTELLIGAM was uttered or written by Anselm of Canterbury (the so-called father of Medieval theology). Augustine actually said or wrote the words "CREDE, UT INTELLIGAS" (Believe, in order to understand). See Augustine's Sermon 43.7, 9 and Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, pages 85-86.