NationStates Jolt Archive

This is probably a rather central question.

Why are you the way you are?

Most people would now say:
My environment. The people that I grew up with, the world I live in, the experiences I made.
Maybe with a little bit of genetic predisposition towards being especially aggressive or something like that.

Does that mean that you, had you been born in ancient Egypt, would be someone completely different?
Or that you, if you had lived the life of Osama Bin Laden, would think flying planes into buildings is a good idea?

And does this...well..mild determinism mean that the individual as the ultimate and final (atomic is the word perhaps) part of society is itself only a product of society?
And does that make any sense to you?

Woa.... That's deep man:eek:

I believe that as well as the environment, the self comes from within as well. It is possible for one to formulate oneself and one's philosophies with no seeming dependency on the environment - and I'm not talking about "rebellion".

I know that some of my… traits… don't seem to be environmentally influenced, whichever way I look at them.

[EDIT/] Yes, I probably DO have it in me to fly planes into buildings. Be thankful I haven't gone that way!

I know that some of my… traits… don't seem to be environmentally influenced, whichever way I look at them.
Say you were a communist, and nothing in your environment could likely have made you into one.
Does that mean that you would have been a communist in the 15th century too? Or would you have a completely different character, and make completely different lifestyle choices?

Say you were a communist, and nothing in your environment could likely have made you into one.
Does that mean that you would have been a communist in the 15th century too? Or would you have a completely different character, and make completely different lifestyle choices? I didn't say that environment had nothing to do with it. Environment has a great deal to do with it. I'm not talking about things like Communism which are a reflection of your character. I mean your actual character, what is "you".

Basically I'm talking about the idea that people aren't totally products of their environment - that they can make their own choices BASED on the input of their environment.

This is probably a rather central question.

Why are you the way you are?

Most people would now say:
My environment. The people that I grew up with, the world I live in, the experiences I made.
Maybe with a little bit of genetic predisposition towards being especially aggressive or something like that.

Does that mean that you, had you been born in ancient Egypt, would be someone completely different?
Or that you, if you had lived the life of Osama Bin Laden, would think flying planes into buildings is a good idea?

And does this...well..mild determinism mean that the individual as the ultimate and final (atomic is the word perhaps) part of society is itself only a product of society?
And does that make any sense to you?
Everything from genetics to uterine environment to post-natal environment to random chance encounters will shape a human's "identity."

This is probably a rather central question.

Why are you the way you are?

Most people would now say:
My environment. The people that I grew up with, the world I live in, the experiences I made.
Maybe with a little bit of genetic predisposition towards being especially aggressive or something like that.

Does that mean that you, had you been born in ancient Egypt, would be someone completely different?
Or that you, if you had lived the life of Osama Bin Laden, would think flying planes into buildings is a good idea?

And does this...well..mild determinism mean that the individual as the ultimate and final (atomic is the word perhaps) part of society is itself only a product of society?
And does that make any sense to you?


duh

Everything from genetics to uterine environment to post-natal environment to random chance encounters will shape a human's "identity."
So how can the individual be the paramount unit of society, if it itself is nothing but a product of that society?

How can Nazism be oppression if people growing up in Nazism would never have a problem with the system, for they are a product of it and never knew differently?

I say the way i grew up i grew up in a very backstabbing family except for my dad the teached me not to trust anybody my mum brokeup with my dad and went threw 2 other realtionships similar this made me very carefull about who i have feeling for. Also after other events i came to expect very little from people and usally see people as not being worth my time not because my a arsehole but because they seemed to never givin me much time in the past but now im all interesting apparently they do after all. tho i will say before you think im some evil bastards that trust me things are getting better.

So how can the individual be the paramount unit of society, if it itself is nothing but a product of that society?

How can Nazism be oppression if people growing up in Nazism would never have a problem with the system, for they are a product of it and never knew differently?

Nazism is oppression to the minorities, not to the masses.

Nazism is oppression to the minorities, not to the masses.
:p
Insert whatever you regard as oppression.

:p
Insert whatever you regard as oppression.

I think your mistake is in assuming that the result is always to conform to the environment. Actually, the opposite can often be the case. Take a Palestinian born under Israeli occupation. Does that person accept the status quo because it is all they have known? Obviously that is not what happens. The environment shapes the way you are, but it doesnt shape you automatically into conformity.

Genetics and personal experience, that is all.

So how can the individual be the paramount unit of society, if it itself is nothing but a product of that society?

How can a lion be an integral part of the savanna ecosystem when it is itself a product of that ecosystem?

How can Nazism be oppression if people growing up in Nazism would never have a problem with the system, for they are a product of it and never knew differently?
People growing up in Nazism quite often have a problem with that system. People growing up in capitalism quite often have a problem with capitalism. People growing up in poverty quite often have a problem with poverty.

My entire point was that external, post-natal environment is NOT the exclusive force shaping our "self." Think of a single family, for instance; two children, who probably share close genetic relationship, growing up in the same environment, yet you often will see radically different personalities and life paths. Expand that to a society level and you can see how the added complexity will clearly give rise to different "selves" without a problem.

I think your mistake is in assuming that the result is always to conform to the environment. Actually, the opposite can often be the case. Take a Palestinian born under Israeli occupation. Does that person accept the status quo because it is all they have known? Obviously that is not what happens. The environment shapes the way you are, but it doesnt shape you automatically into conformity.
Of course, the Palestinian gets to learn of an alternative.
But if a person was born into medieval Europe, would that person ever question authority? Would that person start a marxist revolution or something like that?

How creative is the individual in just completely ignoring the existing value system and creating a new one out of thin air? I don't think people really can.

There have been exceptions in history, but for example Martin Luther's rejection of the pope can be traced to things he learned about the old church and about ancient Greek philosophy - he didn't just make it up himself. Indeed, he was a man of his time still (he absolutely despised all Jews for example).

I don´t know, but I think someone think, she knows it....:D

Of course, the Palestinian gets to learn of an alternative.
But if a person was born into medieval Europe, would that person ever question authority? Would that person start a marxist revolution or something like that?

How creative is the individual in just completely ignoring the existing value system and creating a new one out of thin air? I don't think people really can.

I think the great geniuses of history do precisely that. How do you think discovery occurs? People generate new theories, new inventions, new paths of investigation, and this isn't limited to science and math. When it comes to politics, social issues, and other similar areas, people take known information they are presented with and synthesize novel material from it. Sure, there are plenty of people who CHOOSE not to do this, probably because conformity is made a much more comfortable option than non-conformity, but there are always people prepared to buck the tide and introduce new ways of thinking.


There have been exceptions in history, but for example Martin Luther's rejection of the pope can be traced to things he learned about the old church and about ancient Greek philosophy - he didn't just make it up himself. Indeed, he was a man of his time still (he absolutely despised all Jews for example).
Of course nobody can be completely independent from their environment. But that doesn't mean they will be innately confined to all the limitations of that environment; if that were the case, we'd never have gotten out of the Dark Ages.

How can a lion be an integral part of the savanna ecosystem when it is itself a product of that ecosystem?
I think the individual is just a little more central to modern political philosophy than the lion is to the Savanna.

People growing up in Nazism quite often have a problem with that system. People growing up in capitalism quite often have a problem with capitalism. People growing up in poverty quite often have a problem with poverty.
But again, in all these cases the people learn of something different. If they couldn't, I would argue they wouldn't have a problem with it. A little like in "1984".

My entire point was that external, post-natal environment is NOT the exclusive force shaping our "self." Think of a single family, for instance; two children, who probably share close genetic relationship, growing up in the same environment, yet you often will see radically different personalities and life paths. Expand that to a society level and you can see how the added complexity will clearly give rise to different "selves" without a problem.
So would you say then that if you had been born as John F. Kennedy, and you lived JFKs life, you would have been a different person?
I said in the very beginning that I think genetics have some sort of rudimentary influence on our character as far as aggression, fear and the like is concerned. Simple "natural" traits like that. But surely not much more than that?

I think the great geniuses of history do precisely that. How do you think discovery occurs?
Standing on the shoulders of giants, as someone once said...

I would actually say that anyone would have been any genius in history, had they lived that life, been born as that person.
Perhaps it is the ultimate consequence of my belief that all people are of equal worth.

Of course, the Palestinian gets to learn of an alternative.
But if a person was born into medieval Europe, would that person ever question authority? Would that person start a marxist revolution or something like that?

How creative is the individual in just completely ignoring the existing value system and creating a new one out of thin air? I don't think people really can.

There have been exceptions in history, but for example Martin Luther's rejection of the pope can be traced to things he learned about the old church and about ancient Greek philosophy - he didn't just make it up himself. Indeed, he was a man of his time still (he absolutely despised all Jews for example).

Yes, individuals often do question authority and the value system of their society. In fact, the example you cite as impossible did actually occur. In the Peasant's Revolt of 1381 (Tyler's Rebellion), peasants actually took up arms and demanded an end to Feudalism. This was, by definition a Marxist revolution although the term did not yet exist.

I think the individual is just a little more central to modern political philosophy than the lion is to the Savanna.
*Sigh* Ok, let me try again. Humans exist within a particular social system, but that doesn't mean we are unable to shape that system. Think of a river digging a canyon; the river is sitting in the canyon, and its course is in some ways limited by the canyon, yet its passage shapes the walls that rise around it.


But again, in all these cases the people learn of something different. If they couldn't, I would argue they wouldn't have a problem with it. A little like in "1984".

There are plenty of cases of individuals who were never "taught any better" leaving systems of that sort. One recent example that comes to mind is the case of a Mormon girl who was reared in complete isolation from the rest of the world, completely isolated from any alternative cultures, yet who still rejected her birth-culture and left it.

A good thing to keep in mind is that if a given situation is unable to meet an individual's needs (whether they be physical or "mental") that individual will often seek a way to satisfy their needs even if doing so requires rejection of the culture. It's a basic primate drive, but it can have impressive and complex human results.


So would you say then that if you had been born as John F. Kennedy, and you lived JFKs life, you would have been a different person?

If "I" had been born as JFK (in other words, if the baby that would receive the name John F Kennedy happend to have my genes) then I most certainly would have been a different person. For one thing, I'm female.

If "I" had possessed JFK's DNA, had developed in the exact same womb environment as JFK, had lived exactly his same life and received exactly the same stimuli, then "I" would be JFK.


I said in the very beginning that I think genetics have some sort of rudimentary influence on our character as far as aggression, fear and the like is concerned. Simple "natural" traits like that. But surely not much more than that?
Sure it does. Hell, even the rate and manner in which your personality forms is influenced greatly by genetic factors that regulate your brain development. Remember that the human brain is NOT finished developing the day you're born, and there can be huge implications for this. The rate of development of various neural pathways largely determines how we will respond to any given environmental cue, and the rate of development of neural pathways is largely determined by genetic factors.

Yes, individuals often do question authority and the value system of their society. In fact, the example you cite as impossible did actually occur. In the Peasant's Revolt of 1381 (Tyler's Rebellion), peasants actually took up arms and demanded an end to Feudalism. This was, by definition a Marxist revolution although the term did not yet exist.
But this too was not something borne out of the genetic disposition of the peasants.
Their leaders had come into contact with various scholastics that were using the Bible in combination with ancient writings and told the peasants about it.

Again their actions are a product of their life and little, if anything, more.

Standing on the shoulders of giants, as someone once said...

I would actually say that anyone would have been any genius in history, had they lived that life, been born as that person.
Perhaps it is the ultimate consequence of my belief that all people are of equal worth.
How do you account for identical twins reared together, then? They typically "live the same life" for their entire childhood, yet they will often become vastly different people.

But this too was not something borne out of the genetic disposition of the peasants.
Their leaders had come into contact with various scholastics that were using the Bible in combination with ancient writings and told the peasants about it.

Again their actions are a product of their life and little, if anything, more.


Not at all. Their actions were a product of their decisions and little, if anything, more. If they had lived the same exact life but chosen not to risk taking those actions, nothing would have happened. Their environment, prior knowledge, and genetics made them feel a certain way about the situation, but it was still up to them if they would do anything about those feelings. I never claimed it was genetics, environment obviously had to do with it. But your original claim that Nazism cannot be termed oppressive because people would be comfortable with the situation had they been born in it, has been thoroughly trounced.

*Sigh* Ok, let me try again. Humans exist within a particular social system, but that doesn't mean we are unable to shape that system.
The question I was asking myself is about libertarian or anarchistic forms of society. There the individual is placed above all else, "society" as such simply rejected.
That doesn't make sense if the individual is itself a product of society.

There are plenty of cases of individuals who were never "taught any better" leaving systems of that sort. One recent example that comes to mind is the case of a Mormon girl who was reared in complete isolation from the rest of the world, completely isolated from any alternative cultures, yet who still rejected her birth-culture and left it.
And she didn't know that there was a world outside her parents' house?

A good thing to keep in mind is that if a given situation is unable to meet an individual's needs (whether they be physical or "mental") that individual will often seek a way to satisfy their needs even if doing so requires rejection of the culture. It's a basic primate drive, but it can have impressive and complex human results.
But no matter what decisions you make, you're still subject to the constraints that you can't simply invent something new. Unless there is some stimulus that would tell you "there is something better", you'd maximise your well-being in your situation, but you wouldn't change the situation itself fundamentally.

The rate of development of various neural pathways largely determines how we will respond to any given environmental cue, and the rate of development of neural pathways is largely determined by genetic factors.
That I didn't really think of, and it is very true.
Yet I still don't think this fairly minor difference between babies and children would affect your further life all that much, relative to environmental factors which affect your life a lot more.

Not at all. Their actions were a product of their decisions and little, if anything, more. If they had lived the same exact life but chosen not to risk taking those actions, nothing would have happened.
And do you think that's a realistic option?
I don't think you could find any sort of genetical or otherwise predisposition that would allow a person not to take a chance like this. Every and any individual would react the same way had it been exposed to the same inputs.
Or so goes my theory.

But your original claim that Nazism cannot be termed oppressive because people would be comfortable with the situation had they been born in it, has been thoroughly trounced.
Have you read 1984?
It's all a matter of perfecting a system, so to speak. If an individual does not know any different, it can do nothing to act against it. You can feel terrible, but it is beyond anyone to actually break out of it without some sort of outside push.

How do you account for identical twins reared together, then? They typically "live the same life" for their entire childhood, yet they will often become vastly different people.
They do?

I would've thought you would've used the various studies indicating that identical twins which are brought up apart still end up similar people - but again I'm not saying genetics has no influence on it.

All I say is that a person's character and a person's views and opinions are first and foremost a product of that person's environment, ie society.

And do you think that's a realistic option?
I don't think you could find any sort of genetical or otherwise predisposition that would allow a person not to take a chance like this. Every and any individual would react the same way had it been exposed to the same inputs.
Or so goes my theory.


But you present no evidence that your theory holds true while evidence abounds in the real world pointing to it being incorrect. People make decisions all the time and it is those choices that lead to results.


Have you read 1984?
It's all a matter of perfecting a system, so to speak. If an individual does not know any different, it can do nothing to act against it. You can feel terrible, but it is beyond anyone to actually break out of it without some sort of outside push.

After that statement I am forced to ask you if you have read it. First of all, 1984 is classified as fiction because it is entirely made up. Second of all, if we are going to pretend that 1984 is accurate, it still proves you wrong. How do you explain the existence of Winston and other rebels?

People make decisions all the time and it is those choices that lead to results.
Of course they do - but how can you argue that these people would always make those decisions, regardless of their past or their environment?
But you're right, it is impossible to prove it one way or another, given that we live in the world we live in, and we don't have the means to do experiments on it.

After that statement I am forced to ask you if you have read it. First of all, 1984 is classified as fiction because it is entirely made up. Second of all, if we are going to pretend that 1984 is accurate, it still proves you wrong. How do you explain the existence of Winston and other rebels?
I would've thought it's the perfect illustration:
Winston is unhappy, yet he does nothing. Then he comes into contact with the underground, and only that makes him take action and change his life.
Meanwhile everyone around him does not, for they didn't have contact with the rebels.
What about the Parsons-kids? Do they not make independent, individual decisions? Yet they are not oppressed, nor are they unhappy. They act as their environment has programmed them to - out of their own free will.

As for the rebel movement, if it existed, it's a relic of ages past. It's not something people came up with spontaneously either.

Of course they do - but how can you argue that these people would always make those decisions, regardless of their past or their environment?


I havent attempted to argue that they would. All of those things should influence a decision, of course, but ultimately it is still up to the person.

This is probably a rather central question.

Why are you the way you are?

Most people would now say: My environment. The people that I grew up with, the world I live in, the experiences I made. Maybe with a little bit of genetic predisposition towards being especially aggressive or something like that. Does that mean that you, had you been born in ancient Egypt, would be someone completely different? Or that you, if you had lived the life of Osama Bin Laden, would think flying planes into buildings is a good idea?

And does this...well..mild determinism mean that the individual as the ultimate and final (atomic is the word perhaps) part of society is itself only a product of society? And does that make any sense to you?
It's fairly well-established now that many, if not all, personality traits have a genetic component, a range ( if you will ) within which behaviors relating to that particular trait will fall depending upon "nurture." Genetic inheritance sets the tendency and nurture sets the particulars.

Therefore, the individual is not a product of his society, except insofar as society has inculcated specific behaviors. Let's say that you're a deeply religious person who prays regularly and attends church services. In the Southern US, this might mean that you're a fundamentalist Christian. Had you been born into a Muslim family in Quatar, for example, you would most likely be a fundamentalist Muslim who prays regularly and attends mosque at every opportunity. The range of behaviors in both instances is genetically determined, but the specific behaviors are inculcated.

I like this question. I've thought about it a lot and still don't know.

First off I believe in the human soul. So I think some of what makes me is that. But I also believe we are strongly affected by genetics and environment.

As a Christian I think that in any environment God would find me so that I would live moraly regardless of what is going on around me (though I probably wouldn't always listen). I do question the existance of God sometimes and wonder that in a different environment would I simply take up that religion. I don't follow religion blindly so if I was in an environment where a religous leader told me to support some atrocity I don't think I am likely to.

I often worry that if I was around during slavery would I support it. If I lived in NAZI Germany would I stand up against the goverment.

I've always been skeptical of authority and of our culture and have never been afraid to have unpopular opinions. Because of this I think I am less influenced by environment then most. Did something from my environment cause me to become like this? Not that I can remember but it's possible. I guess it could be genetic. But because of this I think I would stand up against the government if I were in NAZI Germany and I would be against slavery. Seeing as I am lazy maybe I wouldn't be all that vocal about it.

I can also see myself having some influence from environment. If I grew up being taught to be racist then maybe I would a little. But I can see myself questioning that and being able to abandon it some. Like my environment might say that blacks are no better then animals, but I could see myself going away from that and thinking they were fellow humans. At the same time, however, that environment might influence me enough to make me opposed to mixing races (though I sure hope not). Same thing in NAZI Germany, living in that environment maybe they could manage to convince me that the Arian race is superior, but I doubt they would be able to convince me that this justified murder.

...The range of behaviors in both instances is genetically determined, but the specific behaviors are inculcated.
Your religiousness is part of your genes?
Where was that established, which is our "religiousness-gene"?

my cynicism makes me me, i am actually so cynical i am cycnical of my own cynicism ;) and my sense of humour

Form is Emptiness;
Emptiness is form;
Emptiness is not other than Form;
Form is not other than Emptiness.
-Heart Sutra

Our lives are given life from the midst of nothingness. Existing where there is nothing is the meaning of the phrase, "Form is emptiness." That all things are provided for by emptiness is the meaning of the phrase, "Emptiness is form." One should not think that these are two separate things.
-Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo

The word gen means "illusion" or "apparition". In India, a man who uses conjury is called genjutsushi ["a master of illusion technique"]. Everything in this world is but a marionette show. Thus we use the word gen.
-Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo

A person is not earth, not water,
Not fire, not wind, not space,
Not consciousness, and not all of them.
What person is there other than these?
-Nagarjuna's Precious Garland

Form is Emptiness;
Emptiness is form;
Emptiness is not other than Form;
Form is not other than Emptiness.
-Heart Sutra

Our lives are given life from the midst of nothingness. Existing where there is nothing is the meaning of the phrase, "Form is emptiness." That all things are provided for by emptiness is the meaning of the phrase, "Emptiness is form." One should not think that these are two separate things.
-Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo

The word gen means "illusion" or "apparition". In India, a man who uses conjury is called genjutsushi ["a master of illusion technique"]. Everything in this world is but a marionette show. Thus we use the word gen.
-Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo

A person is not earth, not water,
Not fire, not wind, not space,
Not consciousness, and not all of them.
What person is there other than these?
-Nagarjuna's Precious Garland

:eek: nice

I agree that we are a product of society fortunately this society is varied so we should remain different and even if civilization does go down the road of everyone being the same it will take allot of time)

I have no self. Everything that I am is a composition of that which I encounter and experience. I am a parasite; draining personality from existence and using it to power my progression through life. I am a thief of character, a borrower of spirit and a pirate of reality.

For that is what it is to be human.

What makes you "you"?
About ten shots of whiskey and a shotgun.

The question I was asking myself is about libertarian or anarchistic forms of society. There the individual is placed above all else, "society" as such simply rejected.
That doesn't make sense if the individual is itself a product of society.

Why not? A sulpture is the product of tools, material, and effort, yet we tend to value the product more than the individual components. A delicious meal is valued more than the raw ingredients sitting around (just compare prices at a 5-star restaurant to grocery shopping!). Can the whole not be more than a sum of its parts?


And she didn't know that there was a world outside her parents' house?

Nope.


But no matter what decisions you make, you're still subject to the constraints that you can't simply invent something new.

Huh? People invent something new all the time. Hell, in my own lab we've invented three totally novel things in the last 6 months.


Unless there is some stimulus that would tell you "there is something better", you'd maximise your well-being in your situation, but you wouldn't change the situation itself fundamentally.

In many cases, your situation as a whole isn't the problem, there's just something about it that sucks. For instance, if you're standing out in the rain, you might not want to change your whole situation (i.e. you probably don't want to cease to exist, which is what you would have to do to totally change your situation) but you might want to change one aspect of the situation...say, by putting up an umbrella. Most invention is much like that; we don't particularly WANT to change our whole situation, but we do want to change parts of it.

That said, there are plenty of people (myself included) who are curious and inventive even when there's no stimulus telling me "there's something better." Some people are curious for the sake of curiosity. Some people just want to see if something impossible can actually be done. Those people have contributed some of the most amazing discoveries and horrific disasters in human history.


That I didn't really think of, and it is very true.
Yet I still don't think this fairly minor difference between babies and children would affect your further life all that much, relative to environmental factors which affect your life a lot more.
"Fairly minor"?! Forgive me, but as a neuroscientist that is just unbelievable to me. The differences between the human brain at 6 months old and at 2 years old are greater than the differences in a human brain between ages 25 and 40 (barring accidents or disease, of course). Research has shown, time and again, that there are many "critical periods" in our development, and that what we experience before these periods will permanently shape our future selves. This is not to say your life is written by age 5, because of course that's not the case, but you should NOT discount the importance of early post-natal development.

Can the whole not be more than a sum of its parts?
Of course it can, but I would think the relationship here is a little different than that.
The Libertarian etc starts with the free-willed individual. Everything else follows from that. Yet when there is something that creates that individual and the way its free will manifest itself, then that is not the whole story.
That was all I wanted to say in this thread - that we maybe don't have a free will as such, if both genetics and experience shape it a certain way.
How big the percentages are is really besides the point a little, I think. :p

So the question is "Do we have a free will?" and is that free will shaped by physical things like genetics or society?

Huh? People invent something new all the time. Hell, in my own lab we've invented three totally novel things in the last 6 months.
And you didn't build your research on something else?
My theory is that any person who would have been in your situation would have put two (provided earlier) and two (same) together and made four.

Research has shown, time and again, that there are many "critical periods" in our development, and that what we experience before these periods will permanently shape our future selves.
That's interesting.
How does it shape us? Is it just general character things (like being shy for example), or rather specific perceptions and views we have of the world.

southern hemisphere of the brain?