through
faith, and the probationary character of life on earth. In striking
contrast with the pessimistic attitude of theologians toward human
nature, social revolutionists like Rousseau have condemned social
institutions as inherently vicious and optimistically placed reliance
upon human nature as innately good.

In all these treatises the assumptions about human nature are either
preconceptions or rationalizations from experience incidental to the
legal, moral, religious, or political system of thought. There is in
these treatises consequently little or no analysis or detailed
description of the traits attributed to men. Certainly, there is no
evidence of an effort to arrive at an understanding of human behavior
from an objective study of its nature.

Historic assumptions in regard to human nature, no matter how fantastic
or unscientific, have exerted, nevertheless, a far-reaching influence
upon group action. Periods of social revolution are ushered in by
theorists who perceive only the evil in institutions and the good in
human nature. On the other hand, the "guardians of society," distrustful
of the impulses of human nature, place their reliance upon conventions
and upon existing forms of social organization. Communistic societies
have been organized upon certain ideas of human nature and have survived
as long as these beliefs which inspired them controlled the behavior of
members of the group.

Philosophers from the time of Socrates have invariably sought to justify
their moral and political theories upon a conception, if not a
definition, of the nature of man. Aristotle, in his _Politics_ and
Hobbes in his _Leviathan_, to refer to two classics, offer widely
divergent interpretations of human nature. Aristotle emphasized man's
altruistic traits, Hobbes stressed his egoistic disposition. These
opposite conceptions of human behavior are explicit and in each case
presented with a display of evidence. Yet students soon realize that
neither philosopher, in fashioning his conception, is entirely without
animus or ulterior motive. When these definitions are considered in the
context in which they occur, they seem less an outgrowth of an analysis
of human nature, than formulas devised in the interest of a political
theory. Aristotle was describing the ideal state; Hobbes was interested
in the security of an existing social order.

Still, the contribution made by social and political philosophers has
been real. Their