“...are not on that account barbarians or savages...”
D’s is a peculiar sort of egalitarian rationalism [clumsy term]. It sounds Humean in places (“...it is custom and example that persuade us, rather than any certain knowledge”) in its appeal to custom and habit as shaping our use of reason. This goes right down to the national differences he presumes:
“I thought, too, how the same man, with the same mind, if brought up from infancy among the French or Germans, develops otherwise than he would if he had always lived among the Chinese or cannibals...”
Of course this is offensive, but part of what I find interesting is the theory of mind he is beginning to sketch. What would it mean to speak of “the same mind” in radically different environments? What makes a mind what it is? D is so fascinating to read, I think, because he wanders fearlessly into such classic debates as that between nature and nurture. And if we bring in the offensive anthropology about the Chinese being cannibalistic, the civilized and the barbarian, we can ask the (now-dated) question: is a barbarian a barbarian because by their nature, or by how they were nurtured? How about a civilized person? The non-offensive version: to what extent are the commonly recognized ethnic and quasi-ethnic groups (Latin, black, white, Asian, etc.) determined by anything natural, and to what extent are they shaped by environmental factors?
Most generally: is there any human nature?
About Me
- Stephen Lester Thompson, PhD
- New York City
- Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Philosophy, Director, The Laboratory for Research in the Logical Sciences, William Paterson University of New Jersey
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Blogs I'm Reading
-
-
Alphabetical Cartogram2 days ago
-
-
-
My Passover press release1 week ago
-
Agent-Based Models (Part 8)2 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
iRashida: A Tour3 years ago
-
-
-
-
Keenan & I on witnesses7 years ago
-
Welcome to logic.rforge!11 years ago
-
Steve Jobs remembered12 years ago
Course Blogs
-
-
-
Trifecta7 years ago
-
-
3 comments:
It seems Descartes believed it was nurture more so than nature. But the nature vs. nurture debate is so intrigueing. I guess it is a little bit of both that effects the way we behave. The clothes we wear and how we appear to others is pretty much nurture. We learn from others how to look and dress. If we did not at least somehow conform to some group than we would be in total isolation and no human likes isolation. Descartes even mentioned about how the way we dress now, ten years from now may seem ridiculous and that is so true. However, when it comes to traits of a person it becomes more difficult to determine if it is more so nature or nurture that is affecting one's personality. Like being depressed, is that due to nature (an insufficiency of serotonin in the brain) primarily or nurture. It is interesting because when I read this paragraph before reading your post I did not think about this debate, but now I see how Descartes hinted at this controversial debate.
It’s weird to think how much different a mindset you could have and how different you could be as a person simply depending on where and how you were raised. I think the whole controversy of Nature vs. Nurture is really interesting. Reading Descartes, I would have to say that he definitely seems to be agreeing with the thought of Nurture. I mean, if a person is born with every skill and ability that he will need then there wouldn’t really be anything left for him to learn, right? Besides, even if a person is born with knowledge and abilities, wouldn’t their knowledge and skills need to be relevant to where they are living? I have to agree with Descartes in that how we are raised definitely determines how we act and who we become in later years.
Aristotle was not only a philosopher but a political scientist as well. In my political science text it explains that Aristotle referred to man as "Man is by nature a political/social animal." "Biologically, they need each other for sustenance and survival. It is also natural that they array themselves into ranks of leaders and led, like all herd animals." "Humans are imperfectly social animals." So going back to the original question in the blog, to what extent are they shaped by environmental factors? Humans are social beings so they tend to follow the herd meaning that two minds of different environments are alike but differ based upon their surroundings.
Post a Comment