The Hegelian Dialectic asserts that a proposed thesis is countered by an antithesis, only to be reconciled through a synthesis, propelling the dialectical argument towards enlightenment.

‘Aufheben’ was the German word Hegel utilized to denote the synthesis. An English translation of ‘aufheben’ is indicative of a ‘lifting up’, ‘abolishment’ and ‘sublation’ of both the thesis and antithesis. In this sense, aspects of both the thesis and antithesis are stored, discarded and transformed in the development and emergence of a synthesis.

In many ways, these verbs accurately reflect the actions of consciousness in that sensations and perceptions of the external environment are acquired, consolidated, learned and forgotten through the actions of a conscious being.

Moreover, the physiology of any biological nervous system is fundamentally reducible to a complex balance between excitation and inhibition of neurons, further elaborated in the last dialectic.

In order to interpret historical phenomenon, physical, or material artifacts and substrates must be examined in addition to the progression of metaphysical or nonphysical ideas, knowledge and social conventionality.

Hegel classically interpreted history as motivated by the fundamental progression of ideas or knowledge. Whereas a young Hegelian, Karl Marx, famously stated he ‘turned Hegel on his head’ by interpreting natural history through the progression and innovation of material changes within the modes of production.

These methodological traditions, Historical Idealism and Historical Materialism, must not be exclusive. Rather, an empirical analysis of natural history must dialectically include and appreciate both.

Ultimately, there are two factors that determine human nature; the Regulation of Biology and the Manipulation of Culture. Both biology and culture are comprised of distinct and variable factors with observable and foreseeable effects on human behavior; which is, in the end, derived from synthetic action of the brain.

The dominant model of human nature, found primarily in contemporary economics, conceptualizes human behavior as rational and utility maximizing. Unfortunately, this model overlooks some of our most powerful and uniquely human traits. Specifically, it ignores the influence of affect on cognition and behavior. The notion that emotional states can significantly affect rational thought is far from old, but the explicit incorporation of emotionality into models of human nature has just begun to take empirical interest. In this sense, human beings are both rational, in the Enlightenment sense, and subjectively emotional, in the Romantic tradition.

Just like any other animal on this planet, human beings are biological organisms. Effectively, the emergence of uniquely human capacities occurs shortly after birth. A human child is born “eye’s wide-open” into a complex matrix of social interaction and exchange, commonly referred to as culture. Benefiting from millions of years of human experience, contemporary cultures socialize children with language and behavioral guidelines or expectations that fundamentally structure the framework of consciousness. Psychologists and sociologists know this process of ontogenetic development as Enculturation.

Moreover, the conventionally misguided debate over the influence of nature or nurture on human cognition and behavior is alleviated in this model by explicitly joining aspects of both culture and biology with dialectic logic. In other words, the Dialectical Model of Human Nature poses that human nature is not a matter of nature or nurture, but rather a matter of influence between and within nature and nurture.