View Full Version : Human Nature

12-13-2002, 07:38 PM
i was talking with feral a while ago (okay, so i'm talking to him eright now as i type, but never mind) about a book called Lord of the Flies. now i haven't read this, but i'm sure some of you may ahve as it is a very good book (i hear). but it basically asks the question, is our human nature to go to a state of animal instincts and savagery. we started out as hunters and gatherers and slowley progressed (although in some senses, that was our downfall), but if all else failed and we were forced to live in circumstanses where we had nothing but maybe a desert island to call our own, what would we do, would we form a society, try to live in this place as best we could, or would we turn back to our old ways, killing for food and elialating (sp?) everything in site (basically what were doing now, but with corporate interest)

what kind of people is the human race?

12-13-2002, 08:22 PM
Humans are boring and weak creatures (Face it we got no cool weapons on our back or teeth or nothing, just skin) that use their brains to create things to dominate other animals and even other humans.
IMO, why can be good creatures but we also can be terrible.

Al-back from the BigWhoop
12-13-2002, 09:13 PM
i think it depends on the person. some might try to ajust their life into some known form of govt, and some might go for anarchy

12-14-2002, 12:15 PM
well, quite frankly, some may be hostile in different ways, as we have seen. take Julius Caesar, he was ruthless, a great warrior, but he had ways of manipulating people and making things turn out for the best for him. he will befriend enemies and lead them to their demise without them knowing it was him. hiw son, Octavius was worse and if anyone knows the story of antony and clepatra, they'll nkow what i'm talking about.

but basically, we are one of the most ruthless around. don't believ the story of the lion king, lions would not do that to each other, they do not kill for power or for fun, they only kill what the intend to eat, and they eat everything. but what do we do. we kill for sport, we never intend to eat foxes, we just kill them because it seems quite fun. and also, we wiped out the buffalo because we killed more than we would eat. this is how our mind works. our minds made us like this, our minds will eventually kill us. :(

12-14-2002, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Neil Joshi
our minds will eventually kill us. :(

We already are, war, murder, drugs.

12-14-2002, 12:48 PM
It may be helpful if you have some insight into Lord of the Flies first:

Lord of the Flies was copyrighted and first published in 1954. It was written by William Golding, who was, at the time, working as a schoolmaster at Bishop Wordsworth’s School in Salisbury. During the war, he had served in the Royal Navy.
The novel documents, in third-person perspective, the fictional tale of a group of boys who become stranded on an otherwise unpopulated tropical island in the Pacific Ocean. The island, which remains nameless throughout the course of the story, has on it everything that the boys could need or want to live well: fresh water, fruit, meat, even a pool of water suitable for bathing and swimming.
The boys themselves are no older than twelve or thirteen. At that age, particularly sixty years ago, they are below the age of sexual awareness. Golding did this in order to establish the idea that the boys are completely innocent and pure at the beginning of the story.

Part Bi: Ralph

Ralph is the eldest and tallest of the boys, and initially leads the boys. He is handsome, muscular and charismatic, and his hair has a golden hue to it. This would indicate chivalry and purity. He is a natural leader, and believes in things having an order. He is the boy who fishes the conch out of the bathing pool after Piggy points out that he would be able to call people to the beach by blowing into it. Ralph represents order, democracy, and civilised society.

Part Bii: Piggy

Piggy is the most intellectually gifted boy on the island, but is also amongst the most oppressed by Jack and his choir. This is not just because their opinions clash violently, but because of Piggy’s superficialities; he is only around the mid-range in height, and is drastically overweight. He suffers from extreme short-sightedness and requires thick spectacles to see, and has acute asthma. His representation of science is evident; he tells Ralph that the conch sounds when blown, he thinks about creating sundials to tell the time, and says on several occasions that he believes the world to work scientifically. Ironically, despite his physical short-sightedness, he has the greatest mental foresight of any of the characters, and can usually tell what is going to happen next…and when danger is about the rear it’s ugly head.

Part Biii - Jack

Jack is perhaps the most sadistic boy on the island, and is of a similar age to Ralph. When he is first introduced, he is known simply as “Merridew”, and is the clear leader of the choir. When he says that his name is Jack but would rather be known as Merridew (his surname), the narration changes and he is from that point referred to as Jack. He has bright red hair and, when clothed, is adorned by the black robes of the choir. The militaristic march that the choir adopts when they first arrive on the beach frightens Piggy, and the smart, rhythmic walking may lead the reader to think that Jack represents order in all things, this is not so. Instead, the march, like Jack, represents war, chaos, and, most would say, evil.

Part Biv: Roger

Roger is also one of the elder boys, but has authority over only the littluns. He uses this authority, too; or, rather, abuses it. He has a clear destructive streak within him that shows even before savagery takes over the island. He goes with Maurice to the beach at the beginning of Chapter 4 with the intent to destroy the littluns’ sand city. After completing this mission of malice, he kicks sand in the eyes of Percival, one of the youngest boys on the island. Whilst Maurice shows remorse for these actions, Roger just doesn’t care; in fact, he hides in the bushes and tries to scare Henry, another littlun, by throwing stones in his general direction. Roger aims to miss, as he still has ties to the world he formerly lived in, but his viciousness has been well and truly established.

Part Bv: Simon

Simon is a quiet, thoughtful boy, similar in age and height to Piggy. He is a member of the choir, but doesn’t really fit in with them. They see him as somewhat pathetic, as he tends to wander off and is prone to fainting spells, but they have misjudged him. He can see more than anyone how civilisation is breaking down on the island, more than even Piggy. Unlike Piggy, however, nobody listens to him, not even Ralph. He says that the Beast doesn’t really exist, that it’s all in their heads, and he is right. Shortly before he is killed by the boys, he “speaks” to the “Lord of the Flies”, a dead pig’s head left as an offering to the Beast that the flies have gathered around to feast. The Lord of the Flies (whose name is a literal translation of Beelzebub, a high-level demon that many believe to be the devil himself) tells Simon that the boys have turned into savages, that the beast does indeed live within them, and that he cannot escape the evil of the boys. The Lord of the Flies obviously cannot really talk, demonstrating that Simon, on at least a sub-conscious level, knows that savagery has taken it’s wretched grip on the boys and that danger is lurking nearby.

Part Ci: Political lies

In Chapter 2, Jack says “We’ve got to have rules and obey them. After all, we're not savages.”
This is extraordinarily similar to Ralph’s way of looking at things. However, the quote has been taken out of context; Jack is just saying that to endear himself to the fans of Ralph before the election. He knows he will already have the votes from the choir (if not, he shall surely let them know about his feelings on the matter later), but that this is not enough to get him elected as leader. He saw that Ralph was doing well with his “rules” policy, so he copied this tactic. Sadly for Jack, it doesn’t quite work, and Ralph is elected as leader of the boys.

Part Cii: The Power Struggle

The theme of Order vs Savagery is continues throughout the book, with Ralph representing Order, or Civilisation, and Jack representing Savagery, or Chaos.
It begins with the election. Jack, as addressed in part Bi, puts up a false front of being in favour of law and order in an attempt to get votes. Ralph, on the other hand, really does believe that rules are there to be kept. At this early stage in the power struggle, Ralph wins by majority vote. However, he decrees that Ralph and his choir shall be the official hunters on the island, thus foolishly granting Jack some power.
The next key moment in the battle of society vs incivility is a major turning point for the story. Ralph had put the hunters in charge of keeping the fire on the mountaintop alight, so that any passing ships would see the smoke rising up from the flames. However, Jack had neglected this duty and gone off into the woods to hunt. His hunters had gone with him and left the fire unattended. In a bizarre coincidence, a ship went past the island at that very time. Rushing up to the mountain, Ralph found that the fire had gone out and the ship had sailed out of view. Jack returned with a dead pig and an attitude of “Who cares about the fire? We’ve got meat!”
The boys were not best pleased with this; Jack had spoilt their first chance of rescue. However, the glamour of the hunt appealed to several of the non-hunters, and the taste of the pork endeared the boys to Jack’s tribe and made them forget, to a certain degree, about the ship. All in all, Jack had won this round.
Many boys began to favour Jack not long after a meeting was called to discuss the existence of the beast. Ralph makes the error of essentially saying “The beast is something to fear”. Conversely, Jack’s message is “We’re going to kill the beast”. Obviously, the boys sided with Jack on this one; everyone wanted the beast dead, and Jack was promising that. Jack had won again.
The final nail in Ralph’s coffin was when Samneric saw a dead parachutist, who had become tangled on a rock after ejecting from a plane after an air battle high above the island, and mistook him for the Beast. This injected a new degree of fear into the boys, a fear that would drive the boys away from the mountain and the fire. When Ralph called a meeting, he kept going on about keeping fire going to keep at least the smallest chance of rescue, whereas Jack continued to glamorise hunting. All of the boys except for Piggy, Simon, Samneric and some of the littluns had joined Jack’s tribe on Castle Rock. Jack had won the power struggle.
Jack would then go on to abuse his powers, stealing Piggy’s glasses to make fire, and tying up littluns to administer unprovoked, unnecessary torture and cruelty. Roger - under Jack’s command - set up a lethal, lever-operated boulder hurler, which would prove fatal when used on Piggy at the end of the book. He started the fire that ultimately destroyed everything on the island with the pure, evil intention of killing Ralph. The only good to come out of Jacks reign of terror was that the aforementioned fire attracted the attention of a naval ship passing by and led to the boys being rescued, but the fire that Ralph wanted would have heralded the same results, but with less death and destruction.
The fight between order and savagery had ended with two deaths (Simon and Piggy) and the complete destruction of the island. If Ralph had been kept as leader, they would have been rescued before the deaths had even taken place, the island would have been kept habitable, and littluns would never have been tortured. The “beast” that Samneric discovered wouldn’t have been found, so the boys would have had a happy time on the island. But the boys reverted to savagery, a savagery that some believe is humankind’s natural state.

12-14-2002, 01:03 PM
Or copy and paste the whole book :eek:

12-14-2002, 04:10 PM
Nah, that's just a few pages of my essay

12-14-2002, 07:22 PM
Posted by The Feral Chicken

It may be helpful if you have some insight into Lord of the Flies first:

Lord of the Flies was copyrighted and first published in 1954. It was written by William Golding, who was, at the time, working as a schoolmaster at Bishop Wordsworth’s School in Salisbury. During the war, he had served in the Royal Navy.


The “beast” that Samneric discovered wouldn’t have been found, so the boys would have had a happy time on the island. But the boys reverted to savagery, a savagery that some believe is humankind’s natural state.
Impressive analysis... I think I shall have to go and read the book for myself now :D

12-15-2002, 01:20 PM
convinced me. :D

12-16-2002, 12:13 AM
That book was crap. I truly loved the demise of Piggy though. And Simon's demise was somewhat stupidity on his part. Oops, I've said too much. Anyways, don't waste your time reading that crap of a book.

Please don't spoil the book for others who might want to read it. Feral.

12-16-2002, 10:58 AM
I disagree; I thought the book wasvery interesting and said a lot about the way humans operate.

Al-back from the BigWhoop
12-16-2002, 07:39 PM
i agree with feral, the book is quite good. except for some parts with nonsense, its a pretty good analysis of the human nature

btw- "lion king" does happen in nature, animals do fight and kill each others for mating and stuff