human nature: opposing viewpoints

I'd happened to stumble upon a thin book that goes by the name of "Opposing Views of Human Nature";
different authors and their views on human nature, some said there is none, some said there was,
what stood out the most to me that i found appealing were 2 views, one by Eric Fromm who said, "Human nature is drive by society & there is no fixed human nature": unfortunately i do agree with this view to a certain pont, i look the celebrities, styles, music we have and that only further proves his view to be more truthful (hmm...)

Mortimer Adler, only states that "us humans are different and there is a defined human nature"...(ok sure; however what he said is already known, so it wasn't that wowy)

the other viewpoint was made by Edward Wilson, he says "it's genetically shaped"...(i don't know what to say to that)

the one that i liked most was George Morgan's claim, "human nature is free & complex"- now that i can definitely agree with, but his reasonings for it are more complex and odd...

so im curious to know, what's your viewpoin, ro do you agree with these old-heads about human nature...

all i know is, it's quite complex, and some of them have it...

I'd probably agree with Erich Fromm, the very astute philosopher/psychiatrist with there being nothing 'natural' about human behaviour. The general biological nature of organisms is thrown out the window with the fact that humans don't always strive to survive, there's martyrdom which contradicts this common biological nature that an organism will work as hard as possible to live. Also as Fromm says the only thing that causes the illusion of human nature is cultural relativity.

Liberalism and socialism are two other main positions on human nature. Liberalism being that people naturally have an individual focus, are rational and self-interested. Socialism being that people mainly have a communal focus, and only find worth in the collective.

The problem is the governing of society demands practices which are based upon one a theory of human nature. Either you have a free-market where there's belief that people will act as individuals and this may result in the 'best ' society, or you have a centralised economy where people receive as needed and live for the sake of the community.

but don't we strive to get we desire/want at times,
or need in other cases...

we've even made human nature too compicated to explain/define,
see how confusing we are already?! lol

we're different, difficult beings who strive to accomplish and acheive and do whatever...

lost somewhere in space right now...

HUMANS have four essence one of them is nature what controls our breathing and growth like that of hairs and nails what we don't will to do
after the nature it is the deisre what is our second essence what we will to do like eating and talking
third essence is our mind that reasons and calculates fourth essence is our soul what gives us our god consciousness

Interesting hierarchy of 'human essences'. Is this a theory put forward by anyone in particular or of your own reasoning? I could imagine such a theory having more than a paragraph written about it.
The first two don't seem well differentiated through, there's breathing in the first and eating in the second. Surely there are better goals and actions which make up these stages.

We cannot observe human nature, because human nature as it was intended to be no longer exists. We have fallen, and what we have is a nature that is both crippled and deranged.

As has been alluded Maslow defined several layers of human need/nature. You have mentioned two to start. Physical and Social. So I would say at least.

"We have fallen, and what we have is a nature that is both crippled and deranged."

whoa, harsh man,
yes we're crippled, random, and no longer as subtle as we were,
but deranged?
I think it's based on 2 things, needs, & desires/goals,
it drives, we work,

I refer, of course, to Adam's unfallen, glorious state.