Is human being defined by design of nature, or by imprinting of society?
Over the course of the centuries human being has given himself a blanket to cover his definition that inevitably would have become too short: eventually, the baby grew and we would need a new one. Ancient Greeks needed philosophy to explain human restless nature. Christians religion, to explain his wonder and destiny.
Church Counter reform, Renaissance and Enlightenment introduced, each in different ways, reason and nature as a major definition: We got secularism. “God is dead” as Nietzsche said. Science explains human nature by genes, by DNA. Neuroscience tells us that we’re all about neurons and chemical mechanistic reactions. Sociology, psychology and psychoanalysis, at the turn of the last century, imposed the heavy hand of culture and society’s legacy upon us.
But somehow, all these answers always provide with fulfilling but temporary definitions, until the next one comes up. Nowadays, globalization provides new cognitive elements for the mind to define their psyche: Internet and media convergence provide a cognitive platform for the brain to work on an horizontal level, rather than on a “vertical” one, an in-depth analysis belonging to the “Guttenberg” era: we “surf” on Internet. we work by links. The same show can be watched on different platforms, like Internet, cells, TV, i pods, video games. Kids’ attention, as well TV audience’s attention spam, remarkably shrinks in light of a growing brain’s ability to juggle multitasks activities as we simultaneously text, listening to the i-pod, while downloading a video from youtube.
Do children grow up with a different use of the brain? How does this affect our definition of human being ?
With such boost of secularism made of technology and science, human being is able to find lots of brand new answers to ancient and atavic existential questions. Nevertheless, contextually, such a sudden boost of technology scares us, paradoxically bringing us to look for comforting answers away from reality. Like religion.
In the US, president Bush won the second term election because of the so called bible belt’s vote.
In the Middle East, terrorism (too often, with the aid and support of heads of state) exploits and speculates on Muslim religion to leverage poor people to attack western countries, whereas, in reality, Muslim religion is a peaceful one.
In any case, whether for political or existential reasons, religion seems to have a major come back. If you look up on IMDB.com, amidst the overall top 10 rank in movies, ” The passion” is the only actual movie about a real fact. All the rests are mostly cartoons, like Shrek. People feel lost, unsettle within a scary and confusing reality and in need of a shelter, something that doesn’t make them think. Unless it’s religion.
After political ideologies definitely died after the Berlin wall fall, after Fukuyama’s “end of history”, the pope, regardless of your religion, or appreciation for him, is objectively the only “ideological leader” capable to gather thousands of people.
So my question is, how do we redefine human being in the wake of such a golden age of post- secularism, where, on one hand, technology and science have improved human life and discovered the apparent real nature of human behavior and design, and on the other hand, God may have not been dead, but actually “resuscitated”, because of the paradoxical people’s sense of confusion and fear about current modern high tech society?
PMpTue, 13 Nov 2007 20:23:54 +000023Tuesday,25,2007 at 12:25 pm11
I will comment further on what you have written, but I would like to briefly acknowledge a few things about it first.
Your question is one that has troubled me for a very long time. Ultimately, I think it boils down to a dichotomy in which nature vs. nurture are at stake. Are some people evil because of their upbringing? Or did they inherit a gene that predisposed them to become an evil person? Is intelligence genetic or derived from experience? Each time I ask myself these questions and others like them, I inevitably come to the same conclusion – that our behavior is a result of the two combined. The combination could be as specific as a scientific equation and yield a measurable and graphable result, yet on the other hand it could be a random mixture of both nature and nurture that is impossible to predict based on historical evidence.
You also bring up the very interesting and heated topic of religion vs. secularism.
Yet another topic you touch upon is technology vs. nature and a slew of other highly controversial areas that we could spend hours exploring, citing evidence from a vast collection of literature, films, works of art and music.
Shall we start with the dichotomy of nature vs. nurture then? I will most certainly revisit this in greater detail when I have more time and resources available. Thank-you for challenging us. This is something the world needs more of.
AMpWed, 14 Nov 2007 00:00:25 +000000Wednesday,25,2007 at 12:25 am11
We can absolutely start from nature vs nurturing.
On Tuesday’s New York Times the most popular article was”Studies on Pupils say bad behaviour is not dooming”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/health/13kids.html?ex=1352696400&en=28dad190857f443a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalinkr
Apparently, two new studies show that children affected with attention disorder and disruptive behaviour don’t jeopardize their accademic results and learning process as they grow older.
In this case it seems as nature doesn’t really affect nurturing and cultural learning.
But then, I read again one of your questions: “Are some people evil because of their upbringing? Or did they inherit a gene that predisposed them to become an evil person? Is intelligence genetic or derived from experience? ”
That made me think of another article I read awhile ago on the LA Times about a convicted man, charged with three murderers, that paints with lots of pastel and vivid colors made out of M&Ms melted in coffee.
So, your question made me think of how it is possible that the emotional outcome of a murdering existence is surprisingly decoded and projected onto a canvas with nuances of M&M’s pastel colors? I mean, there is a strong dichotomy between the outer expected and surrendering social pattern behavior of that inmate, nothing more than a mere society’s trash, and the actual unexpected response of his inner resource.
Obviously, we can’t explain the macrocosm of the universe and the microcosm of the human being solely with mechanistic and deterministic theories of causes and effects.
You can find more about it and more also on http://etrangehistoire.com/
AMpWed, 14 Nov 2007 04:58:03 +000058Wednesday,25,2007 at 12:25 am11
In the study of the children whose attention disorder and disruptive behavior did not appear to impact their academic performance, I think that the question is not necessarily one of upbringing vs. genetics. The goal of this study was to derail a supposition that has become a societal standard – that “good” kids perform better in school. If we were to superimpose the dichotomy of nature vs. nurture on this study, we should start by investigating why children have these so-called “disorders” in the first place. Are their disorders rooted in the way they were treated as children? Perhaps they watched too much television and did not get outside enough. Maybe their parents didn’t read to them. I, for one, could never have become the person I am without my daily dose of Shel Silverstein. Suppose their environment as children was hostile and caused them to become anti-social or shy. The opposing argument would be that these children are lacking in some kind of brain function, or have underdeveloped sections of their brain that causes them to behave the way they do.
Therein lies the problem. How can we ever resolve the conflict when nurture is composed of so many forces that are constantly at work? And on the other hand, we can look at nature and genetics as being very abstract and “untouchable.” There is no way to actually visualize the results of genetics, except to see them as a mathematical structure with little personality. How can something with so little personality create beings as unique, unpredictable and creative as humans? I think that it is an unarguable fact that both nature and nurture are at work. Which leads me to the problem that has truly been eating away at me for so many years – at what point does nature give way to nurture, and vice versa? In order to fully understand my question – let’s take a look at a case in point.
We have a brother and sister, only two years apart in age, who are now fully grown. We can assume that since they are two years apart, they experienced a fairly similar upbringing, certainly their home environment appeared to be the same. Yet they are almost polar opposite creatures. The brother (the older sibling), is aggressive and driven, with very high aspirations both academically and financially. He has always been in the top 5% of his peers, in college and now in the workplace. He loves to learn, and has taught himself two languages. He is self-confident and friendly, yet assertive at the same time. He moved out of his house at age 18 and has relied on his parents very rarely since that time. He is 25 years old.
Then we have his younger sister. She is less sharp, but nonetheless very opinionated and always has a view that opposes that of her brother. She is also outspoken, but in a less-confident way. Though she expresses her opinions with strength and force, they are usually unfounded and simply exist in order to create conflict. She does not have ambition, but instead chooses to rely heavily on her parents for support, while pretending to live a full and independent life. One looks at her situation and fearfully wonders if she will ever leave her parents’ home. They still do her dishes, cook her dinner, and clean her room for her. She is 23 years old.
In this situation, there is the obvious problem of the hierarchical relationship between the oldest and youngest siblings in a family. Studies have shown that there are specific traits that appear in siblings, depending on their position in the family. So here, again, we have nurture, in this case hierarchy, causing two otherwise similar situations to diverge.
I could go on in this very Socratic way for hours, days even, with new questions being born endlessly. But in conclusion, I think that nurture is a more powerful force because of its ubiquity. It is a vine with countless tendrils, each one with the ability to sprout yet another and another, so that we have no choice but to relinquish all assumption and accept the fact that we will never truly be able to define and delineate the mind of a human being, nor should we try. For how can you use the same formula for Picasso’s mind as you would for Oscar Wilde? There is simply no point in doing anything but admire and study it. I think we can agree that it would be wise to give up trying to solve it, though I often ask myself these questions, perhaps more as a distraction and mind exercise than as a quest for a definitive answer.