Human Nature and Aggressiveness₍₁₎

　Introduction

　The United Nations designated the year 1986 as the International Year of Peace. International events in various fields were held in relation to it, and one of the results was the "Seville Statement".₍₂₎ This is still accepted with a considerable authority by groups which engage in peace research as a statement concerning human violence.

The statement is composed of the following five items.

�@It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from animal ancestors.

�AIt is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behaviour is genetically programmed into our human nature.

�BIt is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour.

�CIt is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a 'violent brain.'

�DIt is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by 'instinct' or any single motivation.

After the Second World War, the situation of the cold war between east and west which had the U.S.-Soviet confrontation as an axis continued, and proxy wars occured in many places. On the other hand, the North-South problem, racial problems, and environmental problems also occured simultaneously and progressively, and became more serious as time passed. These problems led to the creation of the Seville Statement.

Soon afterwards, when the Soviet federation disintegrated, people thought that the age of ideological confrontation had ended, and had a faint expectation for peace.

However, it was just momentary. Various events which had been understood as derivative problems of the cold war came to be seen as major issues in world peace. People were made to recognize that there were many factors which obstruct peace besides the ideological problem.

It is a bias to think that the east and west confrontation and the obstruction of peace that it caused are solely ideological problems. This bias might have been unconsciously printed on men concerned in the modern age. Therefore, the North-South problem, racial problems, environmental problems and even the problem of the human nature, which is one of the themes of this report, have been handled within the framework of the east and west confrontational structure from the perspective of ideology. This is the reason why it seemed natural to reduce cold war confrontations to ideological issues. This aspect is exactly the feeling of "reality" in the 20th century and the 40 years after the Second World War. It was a flower that only gave an appearance of some existence that had in fact faded long before its prime.

In that sense, the Seville Statement which was framed during the cold war has been liberated from its spell. In other words, it became the guideline for seeking the factors that created the obstruction of the peace process not in the ideological confrontation of the cold war but in the human situation. This statement perhaps originates from an attitude that is trying to clarify the cause of peace obstruction scientifically, that is, a basis for peace research.

If the cold war had continued, in the scientific discussion such as whether we should adopt the "theory of instinct" or "nativism", or the theories of "environment or learning" about the human violence, this statement would have ended merely as an opinion from the latter side, and not been agitative as a so-called "statement". After the cold war, however, we have come to realize that the Seville Statement was declared for the global realization of peace.

Well, I, at present, am reserving my complete agreement to this statement. The reason why I can not completely agree to it is that I do not think that the theory of instinct or nativism immediately leads to the causes that obstruct peace. I also do not feel like assigning human violence to a category of so-called "vice".

As I state later, it is certain that the definite expression in this statement, "it is scientifically incorrect", does not sit comfortably with me. Still, I do not oppose this statement. It's an irrefutable fact that such a statement becomes an opportunity that leads to the creation of a "culture of peace" for the 21st century._（3）

On making this report, I would like to describe the response of my own way to reply to this statement. I am going to develop a theory of peace derived from the recent discussion about how so-called "human nature" is related to "aggression". Besides, this report is performed for a preliminary consideration which leads to the consideration of "whether man can take any action, especially violent action without any involvement in a conscious form of ideology".

　Section 1　 Of Human Nature

　First of all, we need to take notice that this Seville Statement began and ended in emphasizing that "it is scientifically incorrect". To the place where this kind of phrase is emphasized, while the need for a positivistic research of the obstruction factor of peace is being called for, we can catch a glimpse of our dilemma in this kind of emphasis, that no elucidation of the obstruction factor as its scientific result is made because of the twining of the prejudice against peace research and the speculation of man.

From the impression received at first, just like the excuse of the patient which insists that he is healthy even though he is already hospitalized, this statement is similar to the case of which the more strongly it is stated, the more one is reminded of the opposite. The intention included in this statement from the beginning is to notify that the human violence is not innate. It tells by itself that at least the violence in a creature which is called man depends on the human environment which was originally built up by man, so to speak, the culture formed by the age or the society that he　lives in. I can not help thinking that the expression, "it is scientifically incorrect", is stated from the consideration to the people who support "theory of instinct" or "nativism".

However, because the desire for peace was strong, the fact that peace was obstructed after the cold war became sufficient material for judging that human violence might be something inbred, even if it could be concluded that "it is scientifically incorrect". Then, concerning the statement "it is scientifically incorrect", I can also suppose the counter statement "it(man's instictive violence) is scientifically correct" may be accepted, as long as it is not made from a certain kind of value judgement or ignorance. Besides, the more likely my supposition is, the more difficult it gets to suppress my insistence that there is nothing wrong with admitting the action which is taken by believing that "it is scientifically correct", until it is proven to be "scientically wrong" to assume that human violence is innate.

This may cause the irenologists worry that the impact of the "Statement" for realizing peace would be smaller. I stick to this supposition a little, because I try to take the stand that human violence is not necessarily vicious even if it is innate, and believe that man has an ability to confront it. It is this ability that makes us human. Certainly, Freud and Lorenz are the typical thinkers who insist on the nativism of aggressiveness (instinct theory, strictly speaking). However, this idea concerning the nativism of violence has no relationship to those who opposed or used them. Actually, they were considering the situation nativism brings upon human condition.

If I should say without dreading misunderstanding, I would rather think that human action is to consider how to prepare for the tendency to obstruct peace, which is predicted to be caused inevitably from situating man as a violent existence, and countercheck for it. I also think that is the very attitude which should be taken to talk about a future peace theory.(However, I would like to avoid the conception of "an eye for an eye".)

Actually, I think that whether human violence is innate or not is just one of the discussions about "what man is". "What man is" always means "what human nature is". Though my opinion about this theme has already been stated in my book "Homo Sapiens and Peace", if I paraphrase "nature" and "human nature" in relation to this report, it goes as follows. ₍₄₎

"Nature(honsei)" is now being used　as "innate character" in Japanese, a synonym of "tensei" or "saga". This word originally has a close relation to the word "jinen". The word "nature(sijen)" seems to indicate a certain kind of condition like "natural" in a Japanese sense of use, but I would like to regard it here as an "essence" which was intentionally extracted and valued by man's ability of ideation. The essence is also an indispensable "condition" of the approval of existence as it is.

Speaking of "human nature", this is often used as a word which usually indicates "an instinctive character to man" or "an innate character to man". After all, in my opinion, it is a word to indicate that the behavior performed by man with living body is "human" at each occasion.

In man's case "nature" and "condition" may similarly be treated. Man with a living body, who can act on his own, does not live without judging facts and values simultaneously. In other words, human life is nothing but a chaotic accumulation of them. It is man's "ability of ideation" that allows him to set in order this chaos. Because this "ability of ideation" is situation-related, and is situated each time to secure the area of existence for the self. "Nature", therefore, and "condition" too can not help becoming changeable. That is the reason why "nature" is always "something considered to be nature".

The modern thinker who argued "what man is" by the use of the word "human nature" was D.Hume, and therefore he became a man of merit who constructed the "science of man". He argued human nature in his "A Treatise of Human Nature" that is "an attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects". What he treated there as human nature were "Understanding" in the volume 1, "Passion" in the volume 2, and "Moral Sense" in the volume 3. Each of them has mental activities which are peculiar to man. In other words, they are functions of mind. Therefore, people since then, especially men of the Anglo-American conception, came to think that there are exact contents called human nature.

Hume's "A Treatise of Human Nature" became a herald of the psychological study about what is called "human nature", but I think it is also the factor that has created the mind control of man.　He pointed out the peculiarity of human activity, using terms such as "Perception" in volume 1 and "Sympathy" in volume 3, and there was no problem in giving a modern meaning to these terms. However, it seems to me that the book led people to believe such various passions as pride and humility, or love and hatred which were treated in volume 2 to be human nature. Moreover, it was easier to tie human nature with passions because they were consented as unilateral sufferings of man beyond human understanding.

In addition, in the age when Hume lived, people who had grown to declare independence voluntarily (or had become arrogant in my opinion) did not feel moralistic pain to fulfill their own desires. They easily introduced the idea that there was the activity of passion, which actuated human actions, in a central part of the mental activities, because they supposed that the meaning of living was in the fulfillment of desire.

Hume did not recognize that man's various passions were due to social factors, and those who came later, too, did not notice so. Therefore, the idea that passion itself was human nature which conditioned man was not easily denied to today, because it was backed up by a view of modern humanity. However, I think that this idea became the grounds of the modern pattern of thought that recognized man as a biological existence.

Man's life as moralistic life has been talked about by Kant etc. since Hume. It is true that a tendency to treat the so-called human nature as a twicer which "is reluctant to yield controll and resists under the yoke" (borrowing J.Dewey's words) has appeared in a modern form. As being admitted through the creation account of the Bible and the Christian doctrine in the Middle Ages, the idea which considered human nature to be originally vicious was originated in the religious view on humanity from old times, which pointed out that animals were inferior to man and those with an animal nature (bestiality) formed human nature. However, as a scientific approach of man's physical activities advanced, the situation under which we could not talk about human nature while disregarding a biological mechanism in human existence came to appear gradually.

Needless to say, evolutionism advocated by Darwin etc. in the 19th century gave this opportunity. (It may be called an evolution biology. )Evolutionism did not only show the continuousness with man and living things other than man, but also had an impact on all the views of man so far which were originated in the creation myth of the Bible in order to clarify the evolutional factor scientifically.

Though evolutionism, at first, did not go out of the region of the ancestor search of man to seek for the missing link, man and the creature which man had hated as a germ (actually a more primitive creature)were clarified to continuity by the elucidation of DNA in the latter half of the 20th century. Beyond the range in which we can not talk about man, disregarding the biological mechanism, it seems like we can only talk about man as a biological existence.

In order to make the details clearer, let me introduce three theories which were influenced by and derived from this evolutionism. The first is "social evolutionism" advocated by Spencer from the latter half of the 19th century to the beginning of 20th century. It did not have such positivistic intention as biological evolution had, and was actually irrelevant to the natural sciences. It was true that social evolutionism assumed the pose of trying to find a prototype of the style of existence for man, human actions or human society in animals, that is, man's ancestors, but it only showed a methodology for man (especially for the victor who acquired survival by being the fittest), which was based on the view of animals conveniently constructed for man.

The second is "sociobiology" advocated by E.O.Wilson. After the structure of DNA was found, molecular biology developed, and what was highlighted in the ideas which resulted under its influence was "sociobiology". This second theory was "the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior" according to his definition. Its attitude, certainly, was consistently trying to see man and creature as social animals in the same rank. It was not anthoropocentric like "social evolutionism". It seemed at the time to be the right point of view to elucidate human nature.

According to G. Breuer, Wilson even thinks that "all scientific disciplines dealing with man and his activities ought to be considered as branches of biology." However, he could not gain support from humanists and social scientists. Actually, Wilson does not directly adress the problem of man's consciousness, that is, self-consciousness, so that he is not able to destroy the stronghold of anthoropocentrism which assumes that only man is special.₍₅₎

Towards the end of the 20th century, the movements trying to explain man's intentionality in his biological existence became active. The third is "noobiology" advocated by W.J. Ong, which might be derived from them. He intended to take "anthoropology" into "biology" by clarifying "the biological underpinning of human mental or intellectual activity." Then, some natural scientists including the discoverer of DNA F.Crick have come to think that the structure of human consciousness will shortly be explained.

These three theories might have been free from subjective value judgements. The reason why they still cause discussion and are not received by all researchers of human nature is that they are considered to be reductive and simple in their view of man. Generally, these are enumerated as examples of the harm caused by "biological determinism". However, it seems to me that we must not disregard the fact that many of their critics are still shadowed by biblical creationism.

It can not be said that emphasizing man's biological existence is wrong. However, I would caution against the following "convictions" which are based on misunderstanding and prejudice in the understanding of biological existence. The first conviction is that biological existence is an inferior part of human existence. The second is that it is not possible to change the biological existence because it is innate. The third is that biological existence equals aggressiveness and violence (in other words, destructiveness).

These three are exactly the convictions which come out inevitably if we stand on the side of creationism. In other words, because of these convictions some people do not want to admit evolutionism. It might be admitted as hypotheses which can be proven if they were seen individually. However, when these three are seen simultaneously, it was necessary to treat "nature " as a twicer more than the necessity in order to defend the view of "man" based on creationism. Literally, by one set of these three convictions, human nature has been regarded as an "inner beast", as J. Claymer says, and has been dragging the "myth" of vice to the present.

Originally, a discussion about whether human nature is bad or good has been repeated throughout history. I will not ask metaphysically what is good and what is bad now. It is, however, important that we notice there is a common pattern in man's thinking, that tries to adress the moral question of human nature.

For instance, I will mention "the view of human nature as fundamentally depraved". Hsuntzu and Hobbes are well-known adovocators of this viewpoint. The historical reason why they came to have such a viewpoint is obvious. Hsuntzu's view was formulated during the Warring States Period, and Hobbes's view the Puritan Revolution.(Likewise an individual derives the view of human nature as fundamentally depraved from the bad environment around him.) In short, "human nature is vicious" is a phrase which is heard when a society falls into disorder and it is not possible for man to confide in his mate. Therefore, the view that "human nature as fundamentally depraved" does not arise when a society is peaceful and interpersonal relationship is excellent. In such a situation, the view of "human nature as fundamentally good" becomes influential. ₍₆₎

I do not know whether human nature is bad or good, and do not intend on labelling it in either way. This question is a peculiar technique for an intellectual man who tries to divide something into two opposing parts and to choose one of them on the assumption that it is valuable. Actually, human nature itself is neither bad nor good. It may be only considered to be bad or good. I think that the controversy on whether human nature is bad or good is trivial because I am near a functionalist or a relativist in the idea. I think that we should pay attention to the flexibility of man that takes measures to adress human nature even if it is considered to be bad. Actually, it is known to everybody that those who advocate the view of human nature as fundamentally depraved do not simply leave it as such. It was just natural that Hsuntzu preached the necessity of manners and Hobbes advocated the maintenance of order by an absolute authority.

　Section�U　Of Aggressiveness in Man

　　Now consider the question "Is human nature aggressive or violent?" First of all, touch on the relation between this question and the question "Is human nature vicious?" These questions demand two different judgments. The former is on the fact of human nature, and the latter is on the value of human nature. However, it is not possible to leave them out of consideration on the assumption that they are completely different. That is, they are related to each other because they are each other's grounds. In other words, the former supposes an idea that man is aggressive or violent because human nature is vicious, and the latter another idea that human nature is vicious because man is aggressive or violent. Though this problem seems to be a chicken-or-egg discussion, it is important here to simply keep it mind without letting it interfer with the following discussion.

By definition, aggression is a vital reaction which occurs in all creatures. Violence is a type of aggression which occurs in man. (There is violence which lies between man and nature, but I omit it here.) The reason why agrression or violence is simply assumed to be vicious is that it is based on the recognition that the reaction always damages the other creature. However, the matter is not so simple. Speaking of violence, the damage is not necessarily physical, but there is something mental about it, though measuring something mental is not so easy as something physical. Moreover, even if violence results in physical damage, if an authority permits it, it is allowed. Authority and violence are in conflict as H. Arendt says. Therefore, capital punishment is permitted in the country where the law of it is enacted. Furthermore, if people consider violence with ideas of justice, order and so-on, the bad impression which the word "violence" gives will disappear, and even an adjective such as "good" or "admirable" will come to be applied. It is as if a homicide act by a soldier in enemy's country is praised at wartime.

Adding a remark, from an academic viewpoint, violence strongly tends to be treated mainly as a problem of social science, and it is very recent that it has come to be approached psychologically. On the other hand, aggression is related to not only an area of natural science but even also an area of humanities in addition to the area of the social science. It might be investigated by all of individual sciences concerning living things. In that sense, aggression is a phenomenon which should be treated as a subject of "integrated science". In my book "Homo Sapiens and Peace", I divided aggression into three categories, that is, preying aggression or for survival, aggression directed at other species and aggression directed at one's own kind. I regarded the third aggression as a considerably real one, and did a comparitive research on aggression seen in animals and man. Because aggressiveness in man is the theme in this report, I am going to apply and classify the focus.

It is a well-known fact that the word "man's aggression" is used polysemously. Therefore, it has not been an academic subject until recently. If many of the points of view are synthesized, I think it has been used in three different cases.

In the first case aggresion is a reaction to others for the purpose of making and defending the profit of an individual or group, while it is in a competing relation to which observance of a certain kind of rule is required. There is no sound of a moralistic criticism in the daily world, though the stronger the reaction is, the more it is said to be "aggressive".

In the second one it is a reflex or defensive reaction to a situation caused by others unilaterally. If it is said that counterattack is not an aggression, then let us forget it. But as a result, it can become a harmful act, so I put it in a category of aggression here.

In the third one it is a reaction which relates oneself with others unilaterally and intentionally for the purpose of harming others.₍₇₎

The third one among them is visualized as an image of "aggression", and it is made to be a target of moralistic criticism. Usually, it is not an exaggeration to say that this third case is assumed in a discussion on whether aggressiveness in man, that is, violence, is innate. Because violent behavior is often related to an anti-social action, criminal's case is often treated as an example of nativism especially in this case. Then, if I enumerate what remains in history from ideas which seem to support nativism, there is, for exsample, an idea such as Lomblozo's theory which advocates that a criminal has a peculiar figure to the criminal, or an idea that there are a lot of XYY people who are assumed to have one extra Y chromosome among criminals and psychotic people. Furthermore, there are some ideas that man's aggression originates from the low degree of numerical value of IQ test or from violence genes though it has not been specified yet. However, such theories that sympathize with nativism have been entirely denied recently, and some of them have become a joke.

And yet, though nativism is easily related to a problem of inheritance, it can be said that their brutal violence such as murders is restricted to their individual stages in all cases. C.Wilson says as follows. "Crime is not self-perpetuating, as human creativity is.…Newton learns from Kepler and in turn inspires Einstein. But Jack the Ripper and Al Capone leave no progency. Their 'achievements' is negative and dies with them." In addition, he says, "That is why, in spite of three thousand years of cruelty and slaughter, there is still hope for the human race."

Man's violence, though it is not innate, in some ways, is confirmed to depend on an area which relates to aggression in the brain, hormones such as testosterones, and minerals such as calciums. The function of these materials is exactly a biological base. However, it is currently uncertain how these minerals work on man and lead him to a violent behavior though it is clarified only that they are related to the violence in man. Accordingly, the sentence "it is scientifically incorrect" may be declared because it is impossible to make it's causation clear.

And these problems are not so simple. To begin with, these materials which become substantially biological basic are not related to the third aggression form (violence) alone, but are equally related to all the above-mentioned aggression forms. To be metaphorical, these materials can work for good or bad. Conversely, if they try to suppress badness, they also suppress goodness. Lobotomy operations taught us a lesson of having eliminated even original appearance of a psychiatric patient though they succeeded in suppressing his brutality.

This means that the mechanism of aggression which leads to forms of violence has not been found at present even if it is possible to classify them into three. In other words, aggressiveness can not be sorted so easily according to good or bad even if cholesterol can be sorted according to good or bad indeed.

What is troublesome next is that these three categories of aggression can not be originally irrelevant to each other. Actually, these are complicated. Moreover, for instance, the third form pretends to be the first or the second. Or even the first form is looked upon as the third one. These cases might apply to animals, and more skillfully to man.

It can be said that man does not only try to explain aggression as a physical phenomenon, but also to admit to the reality of mental aggression, and purposely give a meaning to it, and make a cause of his own aggression go back without putting the brakes on a justification of it or an evasion of responsibility. For instance, it worries us how an aggression that reacts by getting provoked mentally or physically should be classified. If I go so far as to say without being afraid of misunderstandings, it can be said that aggressions are classified in considering how you get by without receiving a moralistic criticism, or how much moralistic criticism you give to a stranger.

To tell the truth, most of these were caused in the process by which man tried to secure original dimensions of existence in various environments. Then, a close examination of human dimensions which bring aggression form becomes very necessary more than aggressiveness in man.

　
　Section�V Of Human Dimensions

　Now, in this context, my disccussion on human aggression can be said to be in line with "Environment theory" or "Learning theory" which is supported by many researchers as well as advocators of the Seville Statement. Of course, it neither means that only the environment or learning causes human aggression, nor that the aggression is recognized only according to the "manual" that is presented by the environment or the learning (in other words, cultural activities). As I mentioned before, aggression itself is not grounded in moral value.

In other words, the aggression only shows an ideal way of making contact with others and approaching them. (Moreover, others are not necessarily men in my conception. ) Human aggression is a part of life activities led by an ability of ideation. Therefore, it is a normal state of man. In man's case, what form of aggression a man will take with a moralistic criticism in consideration is relative to the environment and learning.

In a sense, human aggression can be called innate.(I would like to arouse attention here. The word "innate" is not an adjective for man to emphasize that man is violent enough to damage others ceaselessly). Strictly speaking, I admit that human aggression has a peculiar feature as a pattern so that he may exist as "human being", as other creatures have so.

From the beginning, I think that man needs a peculiar view of the world to lead himself into his own action. A view of the world is an ideology, that is, a signpost of human dimensions which man recognizes or creates in the process of living. The ideology is, in my opinion, a view of man which is provided so that a "man who can have a correspondence of life only by ideation" may act. It is something like an action agenda which is presented by "something assumed to be human nature". The received view is that from around the age of two a child has the ability of ideation that regulates human nature, and continues to use it all through life according to human dimensions which are formed at each stage. Meanwhile, aggression in man has been embodied by ideology.

From this viewpoint, there can be no end of ideological ages, and ideologies will continue to exit, changing like a magical night bird as long as the human race continues. Therefore, I think that the peace obstruction after the cold was only a confrontation of views of the world based on mutually different ideologies, and showed that an ideology which brought the situation of the cold war between east and west became ineffective. For instance, a real appearance of ethnic conflicts is not a collision of inherited characteristics of wisdom that oppose each other, but is an ideological conflict that occured in the process to which a nation or a community is established.

The word "ideology" has a sound which often causes misunderstanding as well as the word "aggression". Especially after the cold war, it strongly seems that the word "ideology" is used to be treated as a twicer by embossing its irrationalsm or illogicality. However, it is a fact that "when people meet an individual who says he is set free from all of ideologies, they have a considerable distrust in him" as A.Kauffmann says, because it is necessary for man not only to recognize his own situation to live, but also to act in it(and hence to create something). In that sense, an individual who says he neither has a specific ideology nor is not possessed by it might be said to be exactly a machinelike man or an adversely enthusiastic believer of a certain kind of ideology .

To tell the truth, I hesitate whether I may declare that man is a creature to behave only on on the basis of ideology. It is an indispensable tool for an action of a creature which has the ability of ideation. In a sense, for a creature with the ability of ideation, it can be understood that it is biologically determined to act under the influence of ideology. I emphasize this point, and worry that the biological determinism which originates in evolution theory is quite capable of realistically being connected to a justification of violent behavior as well as racial discrimination and an acceptance of peace obstruction.

In the book "The Mismeasure of Man" S.J. Gould criticizes the IQ test which determines man by quantifying intelligence, as an manifestation of biological determinism. . He considers that the "depth and insidiousness" of biological determinism have come from the relations with "philosophy", and enumerates the following four examples.

The first one of them is a reductionism which is "the desire to explain irreducibly complex phenomena by deterministic behavior of smallest constituent parts". The second one is a reification which is "the propensity to convert an abstract concept into a hard entity". The third one is a dichotomization which is "the desire to parse complex and continuous reality into divisions by two". The fourth one is a hierarchy which is "the inclination to order items by ranking them in a linear series of increasing worth".

Gould asserts that man, with these, explains an intellectual function according to the amount to which a main element is inherited, makes intelligence an element of the brain, divides people into clever ones and foolish ones, and classifies innate intelligence.

Gould's four examples are easely perceived negatively as leading to discrimination in man. However, I again do not consider them to be negative. The problem is that each of them -whether a reductionism, an exteriorization, a dichotomy or a hierarchy- is inevitably brought about by the function of ideation(that is, the function of intelligence). In other words, we humans can not get rid of them by mere wish or tendency, and I even regard them as indispensable techniques of knowing, understanding, and handling objects all the times.

All of us can do nothing but become biological determinists if biological determinism is applied in this area (that is, if we suppose that man's living with intelligence is already a biological activity). Then, after going around the various arguments, we only come to agree that human aggression is innate(however, in a broader meaning).

Originally, for me, ability of ideation is only a biological function which supplements the incompleteness of physical ability or a mechanism which is caused by relations with an environment, and the species called homo sapiens were born just because they were able to work it regularly. It is said that such acts of amends make homo sapiens adopt a philosophical method of the biological determinism which Gould says, secure human dimensions, and force them to act by an ideology.

However, according to this opinion, while man is living just as the ability of ideation works, human violence becomes inevitable. Strictly speaking, it means that there is always a possibility of occurrence of a violent act by man, because the ability of ideation (intellect) is, so to speak, a defect product of nature. Even if it is excellent to process an object, it is imperfect for self-supervision. It does not understand about its own self though it understands about others. It tries to monopolizes an exploit, but lay the blame on others for an indecency. Therefore, it does not understand an altruistic act though it understands a selfish act. It can not see the self in others because it distinguishes the self from others.

"Depth and insidiousnesss" by a function of ideation originate from imminence of man who can not live without compensating for physical weakness of himself as a biological existence, and from a talent with which he can treat biological existence as a twicer. If I use a current vogue language, they originate from a limitation that man does not reach a logical space where "homo sapiens" and "human being" live together.

Therefore, dangerousness in man is always conceived. For a recent example, it became a topic when a young man seriously asked the question "why is it wrong to kill people?" on a TV debate program concerning the "boy A" homicide.₍₈₎ There is also the fact that there are self-proclaimed final emancipated person who preache that "killing an individual becomes a pious act for himself" and apprentices who see a truth there. The reason why man can say "indeed, now you come to mention it, we can safely say so" concerning these cases is that his peculiar human dimensions are formed by a certain function of ideation.

In that sense, for example, research into the reason why a confrontation of views in the world caused by ideologies inevitably arouse acts of human violence and research into the way not to lead man to the violent acts should be concentrated on now. At the same time, we should not only rely on the ability of ideation but also pay attention to the workings of "imagination" and "sympathy" in man as an existence with "sensibilities".

　 Notes

(1) This report is a translation from my own report in Japanese which is collected to the reports of the research (theme: an ethical research into conditions of realizing peace -past, present, and future-)by the Ministry of Education Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research . I am grateful to Timothy Kern, assistant professor at the of International Research Center for Japanese Studies(Kyoto), for his advice about the content and the expression in English.

(2) This statement was completed under a leadership of a psychologist D. Adams at an international academy held at Seville University in Spain in 1986.

(3) In addition, the United Nations designated the year 2000 as the "International Year of the Culture of Peace", and ten years thereafter as "International Ten years of Culture of Peace".

(4) Refer to the chapter 1 of my book "Homo Sapiens and Peace" (Osaka Kyouiku Tosyo, 1998) for "human nature".　Moreover, adding an explanation of the word "nature" which is extremely polysemous with reference to this report, it means "a situation as what is born to oneself" as originally seen as phisis in Greek and tzujan in Chinese. Therefore, whatever form it has, its character has nothing to do with all artifications. In modern times, in my opinion, this word came to be mainly used with three meanings.

The first is as an inorganic nature which is external to human existence and just waits for an addition of human works after it was objected by the human mind. This is a major use of it.

The second is as an "essence" of things (as it was classified and enumerated by Aristotle). This is a philosophical usage, and if anything, it was adopted in my book "Homo Sapiens and Peace".

The third is as a peculiar essence to creatures to which things have been applied. However, circumstances were a little different for "nature" in the creature. The idea that nature is regarded as something essential equipped in a creature which "moves voluntarily" has also come out because it originally has a character that "moves voluntarily". In that case, considering that artifications do not lie in the creature, we come to apply adjectives such as "instinctive" or "innate" for its behavior as a result. In addition, man's substituting nature for condition seems to me a manifestation of feelings to leave a possibility of his operating human nature.

(5) Even Wilson has come to handle a problem of soul as the fourth stage of evolution later in cooperation with Ramsden.

(6) Advocators of the view of human nature as fundamentally good are weak with a rebuttal "The world is actually falling into disorder". Still, it is their common attitude to try to take an artificial and educational measures for enlightment by supposing the situation to be "not awoken yet" .

(7) What I treated in "Homo Sapiens and Peace" was the third meaning. I pointed out three characteristics of aggression within homo sapiens, as follows.

�@ It comes from a situation of neoteny.

�A It is significantly defined by ability of ideation.

�B It is accompanied with cruelty and destruction.

If I can explain these a little, these do not mean an innate character of human aggression but rather mean a common aggression form performed by ability of ideation. (However, cruelty and destruction in�B are not always accompanying in aggression within homo sapiens. )

(8) In 1997, a 17 year old boy murdered an elementary school boy and placed the severed head by the gate of the school attended by his victim. This cased a media sensation and criticizing the state of education and social fabric of Japan.

References

Aristotle's Metaphysics. Green Lion Press, 1999.
Wilson, Edward O. Sociobiology:The New Synthesis. Havard University Press, 1975.
Ong, Walter J. Fighting for Life. University of Massachusetts Press, 1989.
F.Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995.
Klama, John. Aggression:Conflict in Animals and Humans Reconsidered. Longman Group　UK Limited, 1988.
G. Bleuer, Sociobiology and the human dimension. Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press, 1975.
Dewey, John. Human Nature and Conduct. The Modern Library Book, 1950.
Lumsden, Charles J. & Wilson, Edward O. Promethean Fire: Reflections on the Origin of　Mind.　Harvard University Press,Cambridge, 1983.
Arendt, Hanna. The Origin of Totalitarianism. Harvest Books, 1973.
Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. Sheil Land Associates Ltd., 1993.
Wilson, Colin. The Mammoth Book of True Crime 2. Robinson Publishing, 1990.
BBC video library. WOT U LOOKIN AT, CDI.
Kesey, Ken. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. New American Library, 1989.
Kauffmann, Arthur. Gerechtigkeit-der vergessene Weg zum Frieden. Munchen, 1986.
Gould, Stephan J. The Mismeasure of Man. Norton & Co. Ltd., 1996.
栗原康『共生の生態学』、岩波新書、1998