Human Nature The Traditional Western view of human nature has its roots in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, both of whom espoused the primacy of reason over passion. Those views in turn impacted the Judeo-Christian belief systems. Among the harshest critics of the Traditional Western view of human nature are feminists, who feel that "the rationalist view, and the Judeo-Christian religious view based on it, are sexist," (101). This accusation is primarily based on the commonly-held belief in the association of males with reason, females with emotions. Underlying this connection is an assumption that reason is inherently superior to emotions; hence men are considered to be superior to women. They are farther removed from the "lower," animal life forms, whereas because women embody passions and bodily pleasures, they are closer in nature to the animal kingdom. The feminist critique of the Traditional Western view is twofold: one, reason is not necessarily superior to emotions; and two, even if reason were superior to emotions, men and women both share the faculty of reason equally.

The Traditional Western view also assumes the existence of an incorporeal self, or soul, that exists separate from the body and which is usually deemed superior to it. Many Traditional Western philosophies espouse the view that the body and soul are not just distinct from one another, but are also antagonistic. The pleasures of the flesh are seen as obstacles to spirituality and rationality. Therefore, the body is mistrusted, its desires denigrated. By denigrating the needs and pleasures of the body, Traditional Western philosophers also denigrate women because of the fundamental connection between women and corporeal passions. This association is so ingrained into Western consciousness that it seems almost impossible to change. Unfortunately, the result is a "profound lack of respect for basic aspects of human nature: the body, the appetites, and the emotions," (102). This is one...

Within a feminist framework, the bodily appetites and reason coexist and are of equal significance, just as males and females coexist and are of equal significance.
Because traditional philosophers have also associated the faculty of reason with men and delegate emotionality and bodily pleasure to women, the sexes are viewed as distinct creatures with unique strengths and weaknesses. A feminist reconstruction of the Traditional Western view of human nature would be to even the playing field: men and women are equally subject to sense pleasures and also equally capable of reason and rationality. Furthermore, because reason is valued more than emotion, the Traditional Western view essentially asserts that men are more evolved, higher beings than women are: "the rationalist view allows only men to be fully human because only men are fully rational," (102). As reason is generally considered to be what distinguishes human beings from other animals, the Traditional view holds that women are essentially more like animals than men. Thus, feminist philosophers challenge the Traditional Western view of human nature on the grounds that it is inherently sexist.

The Traditional View also holds that rationality is preferable to bodily desires or emotions: "reason must rule," (102). Feminists critique this judgment, either by elevating the status of bodily pleasures or by claiming that both men and women are "fully human," capable of change and subject to both reason and passion. A feminist view of human nature attempts to erase the dualism that plagues Western philosophy. This dualism pits reason against emotion, body against soul, and man against woman. While there are definite differences between reason and emotion as well as between men and women, there is nevertheless no need to resort to erroneous, potentially harmful value…