the everlasting question w/ no answer

[Blade]

What two historical events or two characters from history or literature best represent the best and the worst of human nature???:cool:

[Jay]

Very difficult one to ask Blade... and even more difficult to answer I'm afraid. You really mean a character with best human nature? Does it even exist (the character I mean)? Maybe fairytales' brave knights in shining armors on white horses...

[IWilKikU]

If you're talking about historical, its almost impossible to say that one person's nature is better than another's. In literature, good literature, it depends if you are talking about a good represtention of human nature, or the literary character with the best human nature. Because the ones with the best human nature, or flawless, are just not realistic. I think that the best examples of human nature are in various Shakespeare plays. Particularly Hamlet and Macbeth.

[Blade]

the question is meant to me directed towards your own personal opinion, if you could choose two people/events to represent good/bad who or what would they be...personal opinion

[nicholasburrus]

Who is better
CZAR Nicholas
-or-
Adolf Hitler

[imthefoolonthehill]

The two main Characters in One flew over the cukoo's nest are pretty good examples...

The head nurse and Macduff... wait... not Macduff... uh... the big red-haired guy who is the gamblin fool.

[fayefaye]

From the three musketeers series:
Worst-Milady [she's pure evil]
Best-Athos (aka The Comte de la Fere. He was also a historical person.)

[Blade]

hmm...

[Dick Diver]

Frankenstein's creature - for both.

[Blade]

frankenstien is a strong argument, well done

[sam1]

Levine and Kitty from Anna Karenina are, for good.

for historical, try the Bible.

[subterranean]

There are some short stories by Tolstoy which I think can depict the two sides of human characters. Like the story about the two pilgrims, they both have the same intention, which is to visit the holy city Jerusalem. They might have the same goal, but one performs the idealist type of humanity and the other present the opposite

[crisaor]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Easy one. I'm too lazy to think of another :)

[Hephzibah]

the question is meant to me directed towards your own personal opinion, if you could choose two people/events to represent good/bad who or what would they be...personal opinion

I would say in reality that Mother Teresa has my vote for best person...both with action and intent.

The worst would be, I would have to say...Hitler.

Good thought provoking question.

[earth]

Brothers Karamazov.

All of them. As a whole they represent both all that is pure and good in our society, but also all that is corrupt and evil.

[ravana]

Simon Bolivar
Stalin

The best human nature: Mc.Gregor by J.Oldrige (Diplomat); A.Pankratov by A.Ribakov (Arbat's kids)

The worst: Tamilla's father by Ferdinand Dushen (Tamila)

[poehee99]

How about gandhi for best person and for worst: it must be either hitler or stalin, I'm inclined to say hitler, but stalin has more deaths on his name. so if you take deathtoll as an argument to choose it must be stalin.

[seeker]

What two historical events or two characters from history or literature best represent the best and the worst of human nature???:cool:

The Best:
Jesus and Gandhi
(or perhaps Dr. King instead of Gandhi, Gandhi didnt fight the caste system)

The Worst:
The Crusades, esopecially the one that made it to Jerusalem; to quote one of the soldiers, " The paths of the temple ran waist deep with the blood of woman and children". This quote came from a church history book I studied in school but have since lost, my apologies for not having its text.

I suppose the other worse would be slavery, modern, past and sexual. Unfortuanatly sexual slavery is still a common trade in places like India and some South American countries.

[Miranda]

I'm inclined to agree with Hephzibah about Mother Theresa and also with Pohee, voting Ghandi.. but a suggestion of my own from recent times would be President Sadat of Israel cos he was a true peacemaker I think. Worst..I think a person called Fred West and his wife Rosemary who lured teenagers to their house, tortured them, then killed and hid their bodies in various places in their house and garden. Their house was demolished afterwards No one would ever want to live in such a place.

[Lizzie]

In Literature, because historicaly we would have to discuss the human nature, both good and bad; the choise that we all have to do everyday and each people heart.
In Literature The Litlle Prince represents the good in human nature, the capability to give ourselfes to others without any boundries and to accept others in the same way. The bad part of human nature we can find in every pety, selfish character, incapable to think of others and capable of everything to achieve their objectives with no regard what so ever for other people's lifes or feelings. Those characters that lie, cheat, black mail,etc. An exemple? In Dicken's "Our Mutual Friend", "Mr Wegg", that in a vitorian way we could describe as "a vil man".

Liz

[elibennet]

Scrooge, before and after

[elibennet]

How about gandhi for best person and for worst: it must be either hitler or stalin, I'm inclined to say hitler, but stalin has more deaths on his name. so if you take deathtoll as an argument to choose it must be stalin.

I wonder whether mentally deranged people (Stalin, Hitler) count. Or is it that all these monsters were really nuts? Would that be an easy justification for what they did? I have no answers...

[bjortan]

Hmmm... wouldn't Prince Mushkin (or however he's spelled in English) of "The Idiot" be the ultimate "good" literary person? So good he's unable to function in society?

[atreides]

Kurtz in Heart of Darkness
Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind

[bjortan]

Having thought a bit more about it: the problem with finding purely "good" or "evil" characters in literature is that there are so few PURE examples of either. I guess part of the reason is that an absolute pure goodie-goodie or demonically evil person would usually be incredibly boring, literature-wise. But also that in the context of a plot, even the most evil character often serves an ultimately good purpose; viz Satan and his cohorts in "Master And Margarita", for instance. Or even the devil tempting Jesus in the new testament. They're evil, yet they are needed to bring out what is good. I'd say the antithesis (still speaking only about literature, not real life) of someone who's absolutely good would be someone who is 100% amoral; someone like Patrick Bateman in "American Psycho", perhaps.

[Lizzie]

An exemple of a pure hearted character is Winston Goom's Forrest Gump. And the reason why he is so pure is because he ignores the meaning of falsehood and deceiveness. He's true to himself and to others.
He sees the world through innocent eyes, almost through the eyes of a child, and like a child he's honest, always saying what he feels and feeling what he says.
He can be resumed in a simple quote from the Christian Doctrine: "Blessed are the simple minded because they will own the Heavenly Kingdom"-- I'm sorry for the bad translation. I hope everybody understands the quotation.
So, Bjortan, it´s true that is very rare to find really pure characters in literature but they exist and aren't always boring. I find Forrest Gump a very interesting and aimable character. People like him, without malice or second intentions, are what this world needs. He's a good exemple of the kind of humanity we should all show one another. Pity that nowadays no one is simple or innocent neither could be, even if they wanted to, because people are mean and deceivefull.
"BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD." Mahatma Gandhi.

Liz

[amuse]

i have never seen my older brother behave in a mean or deceitful manner. he is a happy 27-year old man who has good values and yes, he does live in this world. he simply doesn't embrace the baser side of it.

[bjortan]

Lizzie: good point. Haven't read the book, but I saw the movie :-)

I did say "usually". Gump always seemed to me to be some kind of modern-day Mushkin, anyway - someone who is good not out of a conscious choice, but because they are unable to even consider acting in an evil way. It's simply not an option to them.

From a literary point of view, of course, the problem is to create a person that good or evil without having him/her become totally one-dimensional. Any depth in a character usually - usually - demands some sort of conflict within them.

[snapplepeaches]

I believe that one of the characters that demonstrates the best and worse nature is Dr. Jekyll. Dr. Jekyll was a good and caring man who invented a potion that brought out his worse human nature. At the end of the novel, he has to kill himself because he could not killed what he brought out in himself. Robert Louis Stevenson is an astounding storyteller, and he brought out huge issue of human beings and how we all have a good side and a dark side.

[Lizzie]

It's true Bjortan, he's so simply minded, so innocent, that he does not know how to do harm, and is that innocence what moves me in this character. To be able to live in this world incorruptible by all it's malice...!
Authors who wish to portrait more realistic characters understand that no human being is just good or just bad. We are more complex than that, engaged on a dayly battle with ourselves, constantly choosing between doing what's morally and ethically right, and taking an easier way where such mental restraints don't existe to limitate our actions. I guess R.L. Stevenson's "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" is a good exemple taken to exaggeration of the human nature's duality and man's constant struggle to overcome is darkest side.
By being more realistic about human nature, a writer is already given depth to a character. It's more interesting because it's more real to the reader,he can revise his own dilemas in the character. But a character like "Forrest Gump", by being the way he is, achieves to bring up the best in others, showing us that good can only bring more good and that's deep!

Liz