The nature versus vs. nurture debate or controversy
The nature vs nurture debate is one of the most enduring
in the field of psychology.
How far are human behaviors, ideas, and feelings, INNATE and
how far are they all LEARNED?
These issues are at the center of the
ongoing nature versus nurture debate or controversy.
In the 17th century the
French philosopher René Descartes set out views which held
that we all, as individual Human Beings, possess certain in-born ideas that underpin
our approach to the world.
The British philosophers Thomas
Hobbes and John Locke, on the other hand, emphasised the role of experience as fully contributing
to behavioral development.
Does human psychology start as a blank slate?
Locke set out the case that the human mind at birth is
a complete, but receptive, blank slate ( scraped tablet or tabula rasa ) upon which experience imprints
Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper void of all characters, without
any ideas. How comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store which the busy and boundless
fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge?
To this I answer, in one word, from EXPERIENCE.
John Locke : Essay Concerning Human Understanding : Hernnstein & Murray, 1994, p.311
In his work English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture, which discussed the influence of genetics and environment on a person's development
and which was originally published in 1874,
Francis Galton, a second or half-cousin to Charles Darwin stated: "[Nature and nurture are] a convenient jingle of words, for it separates under two distinct heads the innumerable
elements of which personality
is composed. Nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world; nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth."
Whilst Galton was specifically giving consideration to scientific genius, and concluded that it was to largely down to nature and was heritable,
since the days of Descates,
Hobbes, and Locke, the empirical
" nuture " approach has possibly tended to prevail in terms of the wider argument about how people relate to the world - but
the debate is far from being settled.
The nature vs nurture debate and our path-breaking discovery of a consensus which
Human Nature, not only exists ~
but also, ~
has three principal aspects.
General Human Nature?
Is "Human Being" more truly Metaphysical than Physical?
Plato was a pupil and friend of the greek philosopher Socrates. Amongst the many works attributed to Plato's authorship is his "The Republic"
wherein is set out a series of discourses that allegedly took place between Socrates and a number of other persons who variously arrived and
departed as the discussions continued.
It is in this record, made by Plato, of
"Socrates?" philosophising that most intriguing themes are developed in relation to the affairs of the Ancient World during the Golden Age of
Several, authoritative key insights,
...can we possibly refuse to admit that there exist in each of us the same generic parts and characteristics as are found in the state? For I presume the state has not received them
from any other source. It would be ridiculous to imagine that the presence of the spirited element in cities is not to be traced to individuals, wherever this character is imputed to the people, as it is to
the natives of Thrace, and Scythia, and generally speaking, of the northern countries; or the love of knowledge, which would be chiefly attributed to our own country; or the love of riches,
which people would especially connect with the Phoenicians and the Egyptians.
This then is a fact so far, and one which it is not difficult to apprehend.
No, it is not.
But here begins a difficulty. Are all our actions alike performed by the one predominant faculty, or are there three faculties operating severally in our different actions? Do we learn with one internal faculty, and become angry with another, and with a third feel desire for all the pleasures connected with eating and drinking, and the propagation of the species; or upon every impulse to action, do we perform these several actions with the whole soul.
Socrates à la Plato's Republic : Book 4
(from the Great Faiths, Plato, Socrates,
Pythagoras, Shakespeare and Modern Psychological Science!!!),
which are available on this site that give convincing support to such
a "Tripartite" view of Human Nature!!!
We must surely pay close attention any demonstrable consensus
between historically accepted sources of this caliber and modern science!!!
A consensus that can be thought of as tending to suggest that, if the Human Mind or Psyche is originally a 'blank slate', it is nevertheless, in the majority of individual cases,
extensively prepared to be foundational to the
development and emergence of richly "Human" lives.
Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that:-
"...man is a bundle of relations, a knot of roots,
whose flower and fruitage is the world..."
~ Should this be true it would follow that Human Societies often tend to arise out of the Human Condition as directly influenced by Human Nature!
A Societal "Human Tripartism"
This view suggests that "Non-Doctrinaire" Societies themselves!!!
often have a Tripartite character.
According to the seriously influential philosopher Immanuel Kant, in his brief work entitled "Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View" :-
"Whatever concept one may hold, from a metaphysical point of view, concerning the freedom of the will, certainly its appearances,
which are human actions, like every other natural event, are determined by universal laws. However obscure their causes, history,
which is concerned with narrating these appearances, permits us to hope that if we attend to the play of freedom of the human will
in the large, we may be able to discern a regular movement in it, and that what seems complex and chaotic in the single individual
may be seen from the standpoint of the human race as a whole to be a steady and progressive though slow evolution of its original endowment."
Or to quote Emerson, from his famous Essay ~ History
"In old Rome the public roads beginning at the Forum
proceeded north, south, east, west, to the centre of every
province of the empire, making each market-town of Persia, Spain,
and Britain pervious to the soldiers of the capital: so out of
the human heart go, as it were, highways to the heart of every
object in nature, to reduce it under the dominion of man. A man
is a bundle of relations, a knot of roots, whose flower and
fruitage is the world. His faculties refer to natures out of him,
and predict the world he is to inhabit, as the fins of the fish
foreshow that water exists, or the wings of an eagle in the egg
presuppose air. He cannot live without a world."
This passage is also to be found in Ralph Waldo Emerson's
Essay ~ History:-
"There is one mind common to all individual men....
....Of the works of this mind history is the record. Man is explicable by nothing
less than all his history. All the facts of history pre-exist as laws. Each
law in turn is made by circumstances predominant. The creation of
a thousand forests is in one acorn, and Egypt, Greece, Rome, Gaul, Britain,
America, lie folded already in the first man. Epoch after epoch, camp, kingdom,
empire, republic, democracy, are merely the application of this manifold spirit
to the manifold world."