This isn't really connected to this weeks class discussions but I have been thinking about human nature and its connection to psychology. Human nature, by definition, is the disposition and traits of humans. I found it interesting that in this class as well as my psych class we will attempt to understand the nature of human nature. What interests me is the ways in which the subject of human nature can be thought about, the philosophers approach versus the psychologists. Since psychology for the most part came from ideas and thoughts from past philosophers it is curious as to which group is more qualified to "figure out" the nature of human nature.

So I guess the question is...who is more qualified to figure out the nature of human nature? The psychologists or the philosophers? More so, are the two groups so closely linked that it would matter?

In Response to Misty's Question

I believe that the world wouldn't be any better if everybody told the truth one hundred percent of the time. Though it would be ideal, the perfect world where nobody ever lies, it is unlikely. Similar to what was discussed in class, I believe that absolute truth would be a double-edged sword. On the one side it would eliminate the distrust that comes with lying but it would also lead to harsh opinions about people and respective things. The only plausible way I could see absolute truth work would be if every person in the world was politically correct, and we all know that will never happen.

So, a question...is it possible that lying from time to time can be good for people and their relationships?