Is human nature fundamentally aspirational, capable of growth and deserving of reward, or is it inherently flawed, prone to deceit and destined to repeat its mistakes?

Callahan asks whether human nature leans toward aspiration or deceit, toward growth or repetition. I say it leans toward whichever receives more cultivation. Are the people encouraged toward virtue, or rewarded for clever self-service? I traveled among the states for years, seeking a ruler who desired good counsel. They all desired advantage. Fine words and an insinuating appearance are seldom associated with true virtue, I have said. The promise of an open door for those who seek is hollow if the seeker only desires more for himself. The youth, when at home, should be filial, and, abroad, respectful to his elders. Only when that is established can we speak of aspiration. Without it, we enable folly, as Callahan says.

Whether human nature is fundamentally aspirational or inherently flawed? Well, that's like asking if the Mississippi runs north or south – depends on where you're standing, doesn’t it? I’ve seen folks reach for the stars and end up grabbing a fistful of mud more times than I care to count. Remember the Paige typesetter? A glorious contraption, meant to revolutionize the world! Ended up costing me a fortune and proving only that ingenuity doesn't always equal sense. But I also wrote about a boy who chose hell over turning in a friend. Huck Finn, bless his heart, knew what was right even when society told him it was wrong. So, flawed? Certainly. Hopeless? Not quite. Human nature’s a mixed bag, and the trick is figuring out which side of the bag you’re holding.