What exactly does the question mean? Is it referring to human nature, as in the general behaviours of humanity as a whole? Apparently not, as none of the proposed solutions fit such a question. Then, what exactly is it asking? I think the question is about what humans, in essence, really are. What defines us as human? When looking into each of these philosophers, they indeed have dramatically varying views. Each of the theories of human nature have things I agree with, but none that I exclusively endorse. Locke’s focus on experience and memory well explains much of human behaviour, but does not, I think, work comprehensively. The reasons for Aquinas’ conclusion of consciousness defining human nature encompass a separate, but arguably equally important part of life. When fully conscious, the consistency of reality is something we rely greatly on. Closely related to the topic of human nature is the theory of reality. I agree most with Locke and his philosophy of realism. I discount idealism due to its reliance on a faith in a god, a subject discussed later in philosophical questions. Materialism is another prominent candidate for what I think the nature of reality actually is. As far as we’ve discovered, materialism has been the most accurate description of reality, but I do have objections to an entirely materialist perspective. …show more content…
I think that Plato’s “justice” is too abstract to be relied upon exclusively, but is still important in a system. The idea of justice relies on some concept of universally applicably true justice, when this isn’t the case. Rousseau’s concept of “the State” strays from the best decision by failing to accommodate for variable circumstances. I believe that we should focus primarily on liberty and social issues, because these are the two things that most directly relate to happiness. However, liberty should be used with an awareness of