Nature v. Nurture: Philosophy Forums

Nature v. Nurture

Dante
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 17, 2002
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1

Posted 07/17/02 - 02:18 AM:	#1
I'm writing an Essay over the summer regarding Hitler as a leader, and how his past shaped him as a leader, and how the present status of Germany allowed him to be so persuasive. I was conversing with my mentor about the nature of Hitler, and he was explaining to me the fact that there are people who believe that Hitler was a man that was predestined to make a difference in the world, and that he couldn't avoid it, and that there are people who believe that he was a product of his environment and that Germany shaped Hitler to be powerful. It came down to a question of Nature v. Nurture. Whether man is predestined for his future, or whether he makes that for himself. Whether a man is born a certain way, or he is shaped by his surroundings. Whether a frog is born green no matter what, or is born green to compliment his surroundings. The question at hand is vague, but it raises some interesting ideas of the nature of free will and destiny. What do you think? Why?

STPsour_girl
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 17, 2002
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 07/17/02 - 02:42 AM:	#2
:idea: Hey..Mike, I believe that everybody has a predestined future. However, I think that it's up to us to determine how we reach our 'destination.' For example, if somebody was 'meant' to be a vegetarian..lame analagy, I know..they could become one in two ways. Either have it forced upon them by their parents, or kind of experiment a little and decide which foods they prefer. So, we all have a set path for life, but we're allowed to stray off course a little..we'll end up in the same place no matter what. So. Those are my thoughts on the subject. Dani.

Baron Max
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 01, 2002
Total Topics: 176
Total Posts: 4119

Posted 07/17/02 - 04:57 AM:	#3
At this point in scientific research and study, it seems that nothing is conclusive. It's been virtually impossible to test/study the SAME person in a "nurturing" versus a "natural" state. And unless it's precisely the SAME person, how can we ever know for sure? Identical twins have been studied, but that's only a very, very few people ... not conclusive at all. As to my opinion, I'd have to lean heavily to nurturing versus nature simply because I think a person's morality and ethical behavior is the more influential. I.e., a person might have natural tendencies, but their nurturing might prevent them from acting upon those tendencies. As to someone like Hitler, how well do you think he'd do in the USA right now? Do you think that somehow he could rise to total leadership? See? I just don't think so .... if nothing else, the media would "crucify" him/his ideas. And the media is PART of nurturing, right? And I'll point to another example, although NOT humans: wild animals, taken in infancy, will almost always die if allowed to return to the wild WITHOUT some training(nurturing?). Baron Max

Polemarchus
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 18, 2002
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 07/18/02 - 10:07 AM:	#4
Hi Dante, I'm currently reading an interesting book titled, Demonic Males; Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, by R. Wrangham and D. Peterson. The authors write at length about the "nature versus nurture" debate. They explain that Darwins' cousin, Francis Galton, having read Darwin's Origin in 1874, decided in a fit of enthusiasm that man is entirely a product of his nature. The debate seems to have taken flight from that moment. The authors of Demonic Males actually refer to one who comes down entirely on either side of the nature versus nurture debate as suffering from "Galton's Error" (poor Galton!). There's ample evidence that men are the product of both their genes and their enviroment. Since there's no compelling reason for us to have to choose between one or the other, I'm content to think that we're a product of both. I further suspect that men might be the result of nature, nurture, as well as some element of randomness, though such speculation rightfully belongs in another thread. Good luck with the essay. Michael

Aniket
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 22, 2002
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 184

Posted 07/19/02 - 03:00 AM:	#5
Nature or nurture? Its like asking whether grey is black or white.

Baron Max
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 01, 2002
Total Topics: 176
Total Posts: 4119

Posted 07/19/02 - 04:29 AM:	#6
Originally posted by Aniket Nature or nurture? Its like asking whether grey is black or white. Well, that's one way of making no comment at all ... which leads me to wonder why you DID make a comment? Or were you just trying to show that the topic and all who responded are just farting into the wind? I.e., you're above that sort of "farting into the wind"? Personally, I think most, if not all, discussions begin with just such questions/comments ... i.e., which is more important. In that implied question/comment, one is NOT asked whether grey "IS" black or white, but whether it's more CLOSELY RELATED to either black or white. ..and the discussion begins. To me, it's obvious that nature and nurture has SOME interconnected/interrelated influences, but it's still a valid, useful discussion. And, I might add, its been discussed for hundreds of years ... probably by people much more knowledgeable and intelligent than you or me. Baron Max

You don't have permission to post.