Augustine’s view of human nature is deeply pessimistic. Discuss. (40 marks)

“Augustine’s view of human nature is deeply pessimistic.” Discuss. (40 marks)

Augustine’s view of human nature is often portrayed as being pessimistic. This is because he was extremely obsessed with the idea of “original sin” and “the fall”. He constantly emphasised that no matter what we do, there is no way we can save ourselves; we can only be saved through the grace of God. The statement that the question makes is very bold and fails to consider the solution that Augustine contributes. In this essay, I will endeavour to show that although Augustine’s view on human nature can be described as pessimistic, it is more or so just realistic.  I will use scholars such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and Reinhold Niebuhr to support and contradict the question. I will also question the extent of our free will in accordance with concupiscence and akrasia; whether he was pessimistic or whether he just had a greater expectation of humanity due to his belief in ecclesia; the influence of Manichaeism and Neoplatonism on his views and his contributions to the Christian understanding of human nature.

Before we discuss the extent to which Augustine’s view of human nature was pessimistic, we must first take into account that his understanding of human kind comes from the creation story, because he took the genesis story to literally his views are very distorted and far from reality. Therefore, to ask whether his views on human nature was pessimistic is biased due to the fact that it was not intact with the reality of human kind. A much better question would be to ask whether his interpretation of human nature was deeply influenced by the sins of Adam and Eve in the creation story. His view of human nature was influenced by the dualistic thoughts of the Manichees and the Neoplatonic idea of reaching “the one” through deep self-reflection and “chiselling” away of the bad self. His idea of “The Divided Will” seems to accurately describe the struggle of doing what is actually good vs doing what is apparently good. He shows that although we have free will, we are deeply influenced and controlled by concupiscence and by the weakness of our will (akrasia). This makes us question if we are truly free or if we are imprisoned by our animalistic desires for money, sex and food.

Human Nature is often presented as a paradox. Many People with optimistic views state that humans only behave badly due to poor education or psychological disorders. Whereas others say humans are selfish and vicious as these biological features are required for survival. Thomas Hobbes explains that the natural state of human kind is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. Therefore, it is only through the power of reason we can agree to live with each other and make contracts not to kill or to steal but to create civilised, law obeying communities instead. This is supported by William Golding’s 'Lord of the Flies'. When the children are trapped alone in an island, they are unable to think rationally or to live peacefully, the children eventually become murderous savages and it results in the survival of the strongest. This is probably the most realistic description of true human nature. If this is true, Augustine was not pessimistic but rather accurate. However, due to the fact that human beings are emotionally complex we would probably act more civilised because of our morals. This means that we cannot extrapolate animal instincts and assume that the same happens to us. This is because although we are driven by animal desires, we are still capable of making rational decisions, sympathising and co-operating with each other; it is this tension between these characteristics which determines human nature. In contrast to Augustine and Hobbes, Rousseau believed that in their natural habitat human beings are fundamentally kind and meek creatures and only act in alternative ways when they must. He argued that, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”. For Rousseau the need for a society was to remove barriers that stand in the way of our freedom and for us to try and restore our natural state as cooperative, fair and social beings. 

Augustine claims that we can only be saved through the grace of God. On the other hand, Steven Pinker argues that Christianity has been responsible for a considerable amount of pain, suffering and degradation of humanity. He suggests that instead of religion, modern societies should be run based on the humanitarian principle. He makes the valid point that we should help each other and live in a blissful and harmonious society. He writes, “You and I ought to reach this moral understanding not just, so we can have a logically consistent conversation but because mutual unselfishness is the only way we can simultaneously pursue our interests. You and I are better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children when they get into trouble, and refrain from knifing each other than we would be if we hoarded our surpluses while they rotted, let each other’s children drown, and feuded incessantly.” Reinhold Niebuhr responded contrarily to Pinker’s humanist approach. He argued that while it may be outdated to talk about the Christian concept of sin, failure to understand it may lead to immense damage within society, especially by those in power. Niebuhr explains that the humanist principle has failed due to the fact that it is unachievable. He explains this further in his book “Moral Man and Immoral Society” when he says, “To the end of history the peace of the world, as Augustine observed, must be gained by strife. It will not be a perfect peace.” He boldly accused all leaders of ignorance if they think that the strength of rationality and faith in moral goodness is enough to bring about reasonable and equal societies. He argued that humans must accept their imperfections and defective nature and establish a relationship with God. Only then will they be able to reach perfection and full self-awareness. Niebuhr’s idea is quite similar to Augustine’s idea of only being saved by the grace of God.

Another psychologist is Freud. He was an atheist who argued that God was a psychological construction based on an infant need for a powerful father-figure. This may have been essential in prehistoric time when we had no medicine and gathering food was dangerous, but now it could easily be replaced with reason and science. If it is true that God is just socially constructed, then Augustine will surely be wrong since he bases his theory on Genesis – which would automatically lose its sense if God does not exist. Although Freud did not believe in God he agreed with Augustine that the sexual drive and the drive towards pleasure was an essential quality of human behavior and shaped us deeply. But, Freud disagreed that what was needed was guilt and atonement for these urges. In fact, unfulfilled desires could lead to mental illness and neurosis in later life. This shows us the negative influence of Augustine. Because he was against pleasure, he told people to deprive themselves and because of this the concept of sex became shameful and a taboo whereas in reality it is just a part of life which is naturally enjoyable.

Before we question Augustine’s view on human nature we must first establish what human nature is and whether human beings are good or evil in their natural forms. some philosophers argue that human nature is too unpredictable and frequently changing making it hard to define. The Pelagians, who often challenged Augustine, believed that we were born “tubla raza” and that we are thought how to think and act, therefore a distinct human nature does not exist. Foucault further explains this idea by stating, “Human nature, like any other quality, is taught to us. We are socialised and educated to think and behave in a particular way and what is considered to be “human nature” often happens to be exactly what the rulers of a society want from their citizens.” This shows that we are the product of our society and free will. A good example would be looking at the actions of a murderer such as Anders Breivik and a good man such as Maximillian Kolbe. Breivik’s reason for killing 77 people was to cleanse Europe of non-European factors such as Islam, cultural Marxism and multiculturalism. On the other hand, Kolbe was a Catholic priest who gave up his life in the hopes that another man could possibly see his family again. These two men portray the complete opposites of human nature. It is clearly obvious that the two men were socialised completely differently. One was raised to hate those who are different whereas the other was raised to give up everything for the sake of another human. So how can we talk of a distinct human nature when both good and evil sides are vividly shown throughout the world? Except for our ability to reason, what makes us so different from animals? Can we ever overcome our flaws or are they a part of our nature? Augustine’s aim was to answer these questions by using examples such as “original sin” from the Bible. He explained that human nature has been flawed since the “original sin” and from that moment, human beings lost their ability to develop strong friendships (Concordia); the only way we can be saved is through the sacrifice of Jesus. Although he is giving us the cause and the solution, Augustine can come off as being deeply pessimistic. This is because he is telling us that regardless of our efforts, we cannot save ourselves. He also implies that only Christians can be saved since you can only be saved if you believe in Jesus Christ. However, this might inspire individuals to try and build a relationship with God and to follow Jesus’ teaching so that they can be saved.

The problem with acting to be saved is that it is not right. Richard Dawkins argues that acting morally just to be rewarded by God or in heaven is not ethical. This is because although we are doing what is good we have intentions that will benefit us in the long term. Therefore, we are not doing our duty for the sake of doing it but rather to get a reward from it. Instead of acting morally right for a potential reward people should decide to do the right thing because they believe it to be so even if it does not benefit them. Richard Dawkins also disagrees with Augustine because he disapproves with the idea of “original sin”. In his book “The God Delusion” he writes, “What kind of ethical philosophy is it that condemns every child even before it is born, to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor?” This is a perfectly valid point because it makes no sense for an omnibenevolent God to punish us for the sins of our distant ancestors. He also points out that if evolution is true, humans ascended from much less sophisticated mammals that lacked the kind of consciousness needed to make moral choices. Therefore, logically speaking, “original sin” could not have occurred. This makes the Genesis story a dangerous and an unrealistic idea. For the sake of this argument, let’s suppose that “original sin” did occur, does it sound morally right that God restores human nature by killing his own son. If so, it only shows that God is sadomasochistic and irrational. This shows that Augustine is pessimistic but not by his own disposition but rather with the disposition of the church and Christianity as a whole. Dawkins was also right about Christianity being “obsessed” with “sin, guilt, violence and sexuality” as it is seen in most of Augustine’s work, especially in “Confessions”.

In conclusion, Augustine was a gifted man who was way ahead of his time. He contributed a lot to Christian though and development. This is shown throughout his work, especially his ideas of the psychological impact of sex, and although he misinterpreted it, he was the first to talk about it. Even though he came up with answers to explain why we act and think the way that we do, his writing was very pessimistic as he takes the Genesis story to be a literal event which occurred. This meant that his ideas were based on myths rather than reality. Christopher Hitchens explains that the problem with taking moral lessons from stories like the “Garden of Eden” is that they are unreliable because they are “all too human”. In other words, the moral lessons that are taken from stories such as these only apply to the society of the time and are no longer applicable to us and our societies. In contrast to Augustine, Carl Marx argues that “there is no such thing as human nature. Humans have to work and create to guarantee their survival, everything else they do is just a product of their environment. For example, business people will argue that humans are selfish and greedy because this is the behaviour that is rewarded in a capitalist society”, this view completely changes the argument. This is because human nature is socially constructed and not an innate substance meaning that there are many variations. Finally, Augustine’s views are just realistic and not pessimistic. This is because they provide an optimistic solution – to be save by the grace of God. Nothing that a human being does can ever be perfect neither can we live in a perfect society without the help of God. To admit this is not to be pessimistic but to accept reality.