Essay
“Deeds more than understanding bring man closer to his true nature” by Nicolàs Gómez Dávila
The one-milllion-dollar question: Is our true nature valuable enough to stay close to it?
The first that came to my mind while reading this quote was how difficult this context between
deeds and understanding or to put it in other words actions and knowledge has always been over
centuries. Let’s start easily with the 50€ answer: Knowledge is principally passive, actions are active.
So far, so clear.
Does knowledge paralyze ones actions? Is acting more important than knowledge? I started to think
about all the state philosophers I know but then I stumbled over the the last two words of the quote
which first of all need much more attention.
True Nature of mankind.
This horrible expression that is either asscociated with an uncivilized monster looking like a Homo
errectus with a spear or with an innocent pale-looking angel who fell from heaven.
This is the point where you need to decide: Team Rousseau or Team Hobbes? No Telephone Jokers
available.
Dávila’s belief can only be understood appropriately by considering the two main different views on
the natural human condition. The origin of our morals. The idealistic idea of an uninfluenced human
being. My opinion switches sometimes daily from one smart man to the other. “The man is free but
society puts him into chains” said Monsieur Rousseau. I appreciate this sentence especially when I’ve
had an exhausting day feeling chained by my daily routine and duties questioning our freedom and
the corruption (Verdorbenheit) of society. Why did I quit being totally honest with people even when
they are authorities? I was told it’s called respect. And I understood. My inhibition level rose
exponentially with my age. Rouessau would have called these chains of society.
This influenced my deeds thus distancing myself from the three-year-old Stella acting without
knowledge or conscience asking disabled people on the street why they look so awkward but also
hugging homeless people without hesitation when they were nice to me. I don’t describe myself as
the true nature of mankind here but I definitely share the conviction that children carry less chains
on their shoulders being able to act more freely than adults. And being free is maybe the one
fundamental adjective we can agree on while talking about a true nature. At least I am going to
demand this as a premise in the following text.
Hobbes also fits to the quote. He argues that society made respectable civilized persons out of
violent, egoistic monsters and he certainly has a point there. Prisons, courts or mental institutions, all
of these common organs seem to have helped our mutual more peaceful existence on Earth. I
gracefully think of Hobbes when I hear stories about rehabilitated criminals who fit again into our
society after their time in prison under psychological attendance.
So we know now what both of them wanted to tell the world and why they are still significant today,
for us, for me and for this essay. I imagined talking to them about the Unzeitgemäßen Gedanken
from Nicolàs Gómez Dávila. Rousseau would have heard the quote, would have had much more
1
Essay
genius associations than I had and would have said with a grumpy voice that no matter if deeds or a
general understanding brings you to it, but the fact that you are closer to your true nature than
before is a condition that is worth striving for. Hobbes would have contradicted this. He would have
maybe tried to explain an immanent criticism by saying that theses vague concepts of deeds and
understanding in general are no justification for coming closer to the true nature. That this concept is
not the right basic assumption anyways. That unregulated actions lead to humans becoming reckless
animals again with no control.
And now it’s my turn. My personal One-Million-Dollar-Question: Do I want to stick to my true
nature? Do deeds and understanding correspond and interact with each other? Unfortunately there
is no A,B,C,D I can select from. And maybe no right answer at all.
One can’t separate these two words or even worse put both of them on different priority levels.
Each stands for itself having an own conncetion to the pure nature status. I always thought cognitive
interest is a premise for valuable deeds. A deep understanding based on justifiable knowledge must
be the fundamental concept before acting for any kind of improvement. I had developing countries in
mind where education seems to be the key for advance and prevention of war and diseases.
Working on a field as a farmer with tools which remind me of the Middle Ages is maybe an action
that is close to our evolutionary origin as Hunters and Collecters but is in the comparison to
education which implies the understanding of different cultures and better life conditions not one
aim anyone would willingly strive for. A life close to nature on a field is of course a very literal
interpretation of the true nature of mankind but it is possible.
This was my first interpretation of the quote. It maybe speaks for my character that I only thought of
reasonable, valuable actions like working in a job and only of a understanding free from value
judgements that leads to tolerance. One could easily contradict the Developing Country example by
saying how I would react if the actions would be working in Auschwitz killing Jews during the
Holocaust with the understanding that it is a senseless and cruel mass murdering that one does. Is
one then closer to his true nature since one works there because of fear or because of one’s desire
for power? Or is it even the true nature of mankind to rise above others for survival? Because in
stress situations we act more like animals, forget humanity and any kind of understanding to save
one’s own life.
One question I asked myself in the beginning of my essay was if understanding could paralyze our
ways of acting and reacting. I am blessed with having a great education knowing e.g . Bentham’s
Principle of Utility. It is interesting to consider this measure as a criteria for different decisions in life.
From shall I wear High Heels tonight to really significant questions about violent attacks on the IS in
Syria. The argument to always act in a way that brings the majority of people happiness is a sufficient
condition. A very rational one which increases the distance from our true nature and changes our
conscience.
It is nevertheless an empirical fact that the process of thinking and evaluating brings us first of all in a
passive position. It is necessary and once one started one won’t stop doing it. One simple example is
the fact that most of us learned to read sometime. The experiment which shows words printed in
different colours letting people say the colours instead of the word under time pressure shows how
difficult the immunization from such fundamental forms of understanding is.
A True Nature does not know numbers or words. What is natural then?
2
Essay
Emotions. And actions led by emotions are the most authentic ones we have. Since they are
unreflected and immediate. But in some cases also fatal because of this.
One could write another ten pages about the problem in how far we are anyways emotionalized in
our decisions but this is not the point I would like to stress here.
To overcome our true nature means letting emotions as well as justifiable knowledge which is
unnaturarlly, artificially build up in our society influence our thinking. And we all know the causal
relationship: What you think is what you say and what you say influences who you are.
Philosophers will never save the world with their words. They are caught in their thoughts and often
genius but idle. Descartes tried to get mentally rid of his own body during his philosophical
Mediations. I think this is the best example to show the distance one gets to reality while doubting
radically searching for the proof of God.
But if (Over-)thinking does not bring the ultimative solution, do simple deeds offer a better option? I
often discuss with people and I actually hate the ones saying: “While discussing this we could have
done this and that already twice.” Unfortunately they don’t get the point. But I have to agree that
they are sometimes right with their pragmatism. Sometimes.
To stand with both feet in life, being able to repair your bike instead of understanding Kant or driving
the car instead of boycotting Co2 Emissions and our environmental politics makes life easier. This is
may be also one point that Dávila had in mind while mentioning this.
Pragmatism helps to stay active and realistic. And it sometimes makes happy to set off all chains, to
live with no burden. When we used to go on holiday with my family I always had to carry a lot of
luggage to the hotel. I often angrily asked my dad who only carried a little bag “Why don’t you carry
anything?” And he smiled at me saying “I carry the responsibilty”. Looking back I understand that this
was probably much heavier than all my towel and clothes in the rucksack. But I was the innocent girl
not knowing about annything important in life and thus being happy after I could put down the
luggage.
Hemmingway said it already: “Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know”. They tend
to overthink which is to a certain point not capable anymore. And this is neither the point of our true
nature nor the real use of your potential.
No one cares if you can say the PQ-Formel by heart. But actions demand to be heard.
They are direct and more irrefutable than some thoughts or sentences on the paper. They show how
persons put philosophical life advise or morals into practice. Even when they did not have the chance
for a high education it is possible to impress someone with your actions. This is what equals us.
I actually do not appreciate the expression true nature because it is still so vague to me and can be
missunderstood easily but the essence that no carreer or philosophical thought differentiates us
from every other human being when it comes to the desire of love, comprehension, acceptance and
meaning is a universal fact. If this can be supported by strict laws of society or anarchy is the
question.
3
Essay
The recipe is not to stay the person you were with three or with 18. The True Nature cannot be felt
by us and we should accept the fact that all we have is our opportunity to overcome this
uncontrolled feelings distancing ourselves from the world of instincts. The only stable factor in life is
the change itself. The luck of being blessed with intelligence and offered education implies the
responsibilty to react to it.
Actions speak louder than words. If one can’t follow one’s own dogmatism then one should stop
putting it up. Independent actions which are based on your conviction e.g. demonstrations or social
work shows this conncetion between your awareness of important topics and your desire for change
are only two examples. Intelligence without a reACTION to it does not deserve to be truly respected
and can be compared to a treasure which is locked away.
Nice to have and to look at from the outside but actually useless.
The golden mean to become a genius is to mix up your intellectual potential with your emotional
abilities which exist since one was born. I don’t care if one is then closer to his true nature or one
level higher on the evolutionary ladder. It is however the only capable solution we have for our
furture. The little application problem is that no one ever found this mix and is able to put this into
practice.
Well, challenge accepted.
Stella Lueneberg
Cecilien Gymnasium
4