Human nature is a concept that has interested scholars throughout history. Many have debated what human nature is – that is, the distinctive characteristics that are naturally unique to human beings – while others have mused that the answer to the question “what is human nature?” it may be unattainable or simply not worth pursuing. Shakespeare explores the question of human nature in his tragedy King Lear. In his play, he attempts to portray that human nature is either entirely good or entirely evil. It seems to suggest, however, that it is not impossible to move from one end of the spectrum of human nature to the other, as multiple characters go through some sort of metamorphosis in which their nature is changed. In this article I analyze and present Shakespeare's account of human nature in King Lear in comparison to other authors we have read during our year in the Aquinas program. Let's start by looking more closely at the role of human nature in King Lear. It is clear from the beginning of King Lear that Cordelia has an entirely good nature, she remains constant throughout the play, never wavering in her morals. The play begins with Lear deciding that he will make his daughters compete for the division of his kingdoms based on which of them can impress him the most with their declarations of love. Cordelia, however, cannot express her love for her father in words, and refuses to deceive him into doing otherwise, stating that she is "sure that [her] love is richer than [his] tongue" (1.1.78-80 ). She realizes that by holding her tongue she is infuriating her father, but her nature cannot allow her to do otherwise. When King Lear asks her what she has to say, she states "Nothing, my lord" (1.1.86). To......middle of paper......and political animals, show me a man or woman raised by wolves and I will show you something that is not human. That said, Aristotle's argument for reason has suffered some academic blows. Science has now demonstrated that there are actually other animals capable of reasoning, such as monkeys and dolphins. To what extent these beings can reason, however, has yet to be seen. In conclusion, it remains that, even after being around for over 2000 years, Aristotle's philosophy on human nature remains one of the most accurate questions to the eternal question of human nature. “What is human nature?” In the end it may not turn out to be the correct answer to the question, in fact, it may very well be possible that there is no definitive answer. But until scholars and students of programs like ours find an adequate replacement, his analysis will remain superior to all others.