General Reactions To Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Having no prior experience with any of the philosophical concepts provides me with an unbiased perspective on pivotal debates within the discipline.  I have recognized a pattern emerging regarding widely debated fundamental origins and human actions (and while I hate to establish structure to ideals within philosophy; a discipline that enables for multiple concept debates) there is an undeniable resounding theme to resolve or unresolve differing opinions.  A compromise of sorts, in which a middle ground that encompasses facets of each extreme concept exists to balance human nature and actions.  The nature vs. nurture debate held true to this format.  I found the primary acceptance for this debate is "a little of each" exists in forming human psychology and stability. The extreme nurture debate of every person being a blank slate is marginally rejected as problematic.  The accepted components of nurture give rise to the idea of holistic interactionism.  Basing human interactions with specified people, in specified geographical locations, and owing psychological capacity to environmental factors formulates the main components from this concept.  The nature debate cites genes (and I found they loosely defined genes in the article, leaving grey area so uneducated readers have the ability to construe their own false meanings) as the solitary deciding factor in all psychological matters.  Nurture's respect to parenting attributes is replaced by heredity and genetic transfer of predisposed characteristics.   I thoroughly enjoyed reading about this debate, and find myself with the majority: What determines an individual's personality traits is a balance of nature and nurture, care and heredity, love and genes,  symbiotic with each other. I want to end with a quote I found particularly powerful for the argument that there exists a balance of nature vs. nurture.

"Two recent studies have identified single genes that are respectively associated with violence and depression, but have also shown that their effects are manifested only with particular histories of stressful experience"

Response Dom Cooper/ Determinism and the Legal Process

I really enjoyed the question posed by Dom Cooper in his post "Determinism and the Legal Process". He posed a very intriguing set of circumstances to debate.  Personally, I don't think considering a (hypothetical) correlation between morality and determinism would necessitate change in the legal system; however I do believe the arguments used to reach convictions may be causeless .  If an attorney has a guilty client- considering a determinist moral construct- what argument could be made to combat a universal truth founded that each individual is determined to carry out certain actions? If a man kills another man, determinist morality dictates that his beliefs intended for this to occur.  He would be certifiably guilty due to the structure of determinism and the idea that variances from "free will" and choices do not exist.  His deterministic actions will resound for his entire life- he will never repent for the actions he was determined to commit. 
We would have a world of convicts and murderers incapable of inhibitions or moral input.  I then ponder if the legal system would alter our treatment of the guilty  (ex. would extermination be allowed)

Defining Origins of Inborn Conservatism

I want to relate this post to the classroom discussion we had on Wednesday.  I want to examine the origins of our inborn conservatism on sensitive issues (such as abortion, gay marriage, womens' rights, etc.).  Is it due to an innate biological process of needing complete understanding and correlating evidence to validate the legitimacy of any idea? Or, considering that the constructs of "normal" are determined by society and cultural expectations, do we exclusively ascribe our conservatism on social pressures and accepted norms?  Is there a balance of these two in determining our natural selections?
When we are first born we begin as an intellectual blank slate (variances do occur in intellectual capacity and strength), however we can say undoubtedly that our familial or environmental influences contribute to our opinions concerning various topics.  "Inborn conservatism", to me, refers to individual natural born tendency to favor one argument, not accepting one universal truth. The "conservatism" we experience is a subjective scale  resulting from our personally accepted modes of technique.  Example: If I was born in the Southern states in 1760 I would have an inborn conservatism to support slavery, due to the components I rationalize from my biological opinion of race superiority and cultural influences.  Example 2: If I was from the 1980s during the AIDS scare, my natural opinion would be greatly swayed by the media and societal pressures.  Regardless of my acceptance of "free love", homosexual relations, or opinions that intravenous drug users partake in a dangerous occupation, my perspectives are impacted.  I was "born" to recognize individual freedoms and the right to carry out such liberties- but my notions are thus challenged by recent developments;   ultimately becoming altered.
In both of these instances, it equates a combination of natural desire for complete validation on any ideal (that varies from the opinion we have) in correlation with cultural influences determines our inborn conservatism.  Can we say then, that "inborn" only defines half the formula and forsakes the larger influence of social pressures?

Section Focused Analysis Regarding "Culture Wars" Reading

I chose to blog about the first section of the reading titled "Culture Wars" by Thomas W. Clark. The section is appropriately titled "Irreconcilable Differences" and explores the contrasting fundamental beliefs of naturalists and super naturalists.  The copious amounts of topics for me to write about forced me to chose the section that ignited a fervor in me.  I was initially intrigued with the notion that this dichotomy has existed since either the big bang or God created mankind. There will never be a resolution and as Thomas Clark explains, " Such coexistence wouldn’t be problematic were it not for the evangelical desire, so common to the human heart, to universalize one’s beliefs, what we might call the totalitarian temptation.  We are not content to have our certainties – others must share them as well, since a plurality of worldviews raises doubts about our truth."  This is the common sentiment I have seen reflected by all religious people I have encountered.  This argument is not intended to question the validity of religion or cast judgment against those who adhere to its doctrines; I am simply relating my personal experiences to the observations outlined in the first paragraphs of Clark's essay.  Embracing a natural source for all living and non living objects encompasses the innate knowledge that we originated from and are composed of matter.  A person who seeks answers in faith yearns for an emotional, social, or intellectual connection in their lives.     I truly hope this post does not offend any religious followers- I am offering my opinions related to the text we read. 

 

Response Dom Cooper/My thoughts on moral thoughts

Response to Dom Cooper's post "Moral Versus Intellectual Virtue"
My initial intention was to agree with your thoughts, not providing much personal opinion.  The following passage from your post, however,  compelled me to explore further:  "Morality would not exist without action...morality is the endeavor of looking at whether our actions were right or wrong."
I became immediately intrigued with the issue of the connection between "moral" and "virtuous" actions and moral thoughts.  How do they relate to one another? Are they separate entities or  does it rely on a universally understood notion that all actions require either conscious or subconscious thought? Can a clear distinction be made that separates these two processes, or are they innately interconnected.  I would love to believe that by examining my actions I could establish a virtuous pattern of morality- however not every action we partake in exhibits reason and good. Imagine the life and purpose of a monk (please excuse my stereotypical reference, I am attempting to create a particular visual that is common to our limited cultural understanding and by utilizing a <possibly> false stereotype the desired image is conjured)- my actions of selfless commitment requires repetitious action and often conscious thought is intentionally forsaken.  Who would evaluate my actions were moral? Would Aristotle believe by containing oneself to their beliefs and not imposing on others that their actions embody morality? My elaboration may have digressed from your original post, I tend to do that. 

Elaborating on Prior Arguments

We have been extensively discussing in class about the concepts of compatibility and incompatibility in reference to the theories of determinism and free will.  The debate has remained a constant tug of war between differing viewpoints; each side citing hypothetical and actual experiences, concepts of humanity and the natural world, and the totality of human purpose and presence.  Does this debate impact the importance of individuals? Can we judge a person due to their opinion on this particular subject? If we are judging must we be for the opposing side?
Quite obviously there will be no definitive answer in the debate of determinism and free will- as each person formulates their opinion and acts accordingly. Is this our free will to choose or is it determined that we will decide one way?
 If I was a determinist I would make decisions believing that there was no alternate options- I was destined to choose accordingly and therefore all my questions and answers are justified.  If I believed in free will I would remove myself from conventional decisions and act (almost completely) on impulse. Therefore, I would be solely responsible for all my choices and actions- a responsibility that most avoid confronting.   I remain unbiased in this debate- tending to not accept either theory in absolute distinction- I am simply "determined" to be "free" in my decisions. 

It's About Time

I decided to blog about a particularly interesting topic we had in class discussion today. The issue of time intrigued me- how is it defined, what determines the expansions and limitations, is there a truly universal time register that all humans adhere to or have we become so accustomed and reliant on time to structure our thoughts/actions/and moods that without it our personal direction would be destroyed? 
I began to think about the origins of time.  The natural occurrences that happen after a certain allotted time (sun up, midday sun, sun setting, nightfall) undoubtedly formulated the concepts of time we now have. Would it be a better gauge of life if we forgo the conventional system of seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years etc. and focused "time" on the changes of all aspects of the world.  This is to say that what defines time would not be a numerical system but an individual perception of the physical and intellectual evolution of living beings and the natural and manual developments of objects.  Would this system crumble due to differing abilities of people (considering lack of senses i.e. blindness)- most likely.  Therefor the past would be recollected as personal memories removed from rigorous dates and focuses on the capacity for each individual to recognize their chronology.   Justifiably, it would never work; just an interesting concept I mulled over.