I for one refuse to believe that men are simply results of either concept.
There must be something absolute about a man.
Man simply the result of these concepts? Just bringing in these two notions, nature and nurture, complicates matters greatly–that is why the debate about these continues. Maybe, just maybe, looking for an absolute in man is not a philosophically and scientifically viable endeavor.
Sorry i did not intend to pm you, But who would like to be a culmination of events or genes.
Nature, nurture and circumstance. I don’t think there are many people who are habitual cannibals, but if you were say in the Donner party…
Okay. Great. So what is it, in specific, that you believe to be absolute about man? 
I too, agree that man has some “absolute characteristics/attributes/etc.”, but I am curious as to what attribute of man you think are absolute". Thanks. 
Why? Would it somehow be a blow to your ego?
Why?
I don’t think man could ever be absolute because then he wouldn’t be defined by his environment and could easily define himself or give himself definition, in which case, he’d be able to create and sustain and dissolve himself at his own command or wish without affecting the environment. I don’t believe that ‘he’s the result of a concept’ or idea either. I don’t know who man is. Well, I think I do. Man is an extension of God but he’s not perfect and lacks power because of that I think. You know what? I don’t really know who man is, I’m confused.
Of course man has absolute qualities. But they are simply the basic instincts we are born with. We could not grow into intellectual beings if we were not exposed to any environment. Learning would not occur. Our mind would be blank. Consider the following scenario: A child is born into space. It spends its entire life living in space, full of nothingness.(Assume the child can grow, even though without nurishment this is impossible.) The child would have no thought, for to be able to create thought one must have language.
Oh yeah, and without nature, the biological component, man wouldnt exist. Everyone is connected biologically. We are all the same species. Without the biological transference of genes, life couldnt even continue.
Hey illativemindindeed,
I disagree with this idea that thought requires language. Thought itself precedes language. We can think without words, but we cannot communicate our thoughts without some kind of medium, such as language. Space Child cannot share his thoughts with others, but he can think all day long. Feral children who have been found do not lack the ability to think when they lack a language.
When we think of word in our head, we are usually preparing the thought so that we can express is to somebody else. We are preparing the idea to be shared with another.
Pure inspiration does not hit us as a series of words. It is a pure thought that we have to figure out how to translate into language. The poet moved by his experience does not get his poem in one chunk but must carefully try to express his experience in clumsy and inexact words. So he must rely on metaphors to convey the endless green echoes forever reverberating in the secret heart of the ancient woods.
xanderman wrote:
Thank you for your thoughts. Thoroughly exhaled through the lovely language which flies across ears of corn in the gardens while spruced up as trees in your ancient woods. Metaphors are derived from association, which also requires the knowledge of what one thing is. I agree with you on the thought situation, but only on one degree. The child can have thought, but it would be visual. Only those things of what he has seen can be pondered upon, as is his brain is my brain, therefore he would be able to make associations just as I, but would be unable to convey them. He can only make sense of them as it relates to his world. Having noone to tell him otherwise. He eventually creates his own language. And his own means of expression.
You forgot to add in “both” as a category.
Most psychologists would agree that the personality of an individual is created both biologically and socially. By altering either a person’s mind physically or socially, the individual will change. One major difference however, is that socially altering a person’s way of thinking is slightly more complicated compared the quick result of ablation of the brain or drug therapy… although these will most probably create adverse side effects and draw in ethical questions. 
Your space child seems rather emperetical. Perhaps we are as well? Does it seem so absurd when you single it out to that?
I think you in-coherently defended the idea.
If we are emperetical then circumstance, society, surroundings; they have lot to do with us.
I do, however, believe we as human have one basic instinct. Just one, preservation of the self. Thats it.
Peter the Philosopher wrote:
I would really like to understand exactly what you are saying here. Emperetical? What is that? Do you mean Empirical?
Yes, that is what I meant.
I do not think many people would accept either. In any case, niether is a tenable position; it would be trivial to think of an example that breaks the rule in either case.
Most social scientists accept a measure of both nature and nurture to explain behavior, and have for quite some time.
Here are a few responses to this question, which I have spent much time investigating:
Behavioural research has shown this to be largely untrue. First and foremost, it must be understood that the term “instinct” is vastly different than appetite. Instinct is the inborne response to stimuli. Behaviourism, however, has shown that most all responses in human beings are capable of being manipulated and changed.
The responses to such stimuli are widely accepted to come from biochemical signals within the nervous system. Therefore, to this question, the “how” is easily explainable through science.
Though responses may be changed, it is evident that ethical and moral systems remain largely unchanged by conditioning. Those who adhere to systems—even when radical and harmful to the creature—will continue their thought processes despite negative reinforcement. The “why” therefore leads back to personal approaches on the meaning of life, as individuals will formulate belief systems and apply them to their given situations, thus altering conditioning.
I wouldn’t say it’s even (scientists and philosophers would argue tooth-and-nail about it) between nature and nurture, but both play a vastly different role.
See:
Victor Frankl, “Man’s Search For Meaning”
Mark R. Rosenzweig, “Biological Psychology: An Introduction to Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience”
[/i]
xanderman said, “We can think without words, but we cannot communicate our thoughts without some kind of medium, such as language.”
My dear xanderman, just thinking is also communicating because we communicate with ourselves. Therefore you cannot say that we cannot communicate without a medium or language, yes we can! Animals communicate without a language which I believe is through mind waves but is not really a medium that exists. So, communication can be there without a medium. How do you think the Holy books got here? What medium did God use to communicate with the Prophets? Certainly not language, it was just a thought that got transferred without a medium to another. That my dear is communication without a medium, so you cannot say that we cannot communicate without a medium. By the way if we could not communicate without a medium, then we could not THINK AT ALL! But the fact that we think, means that yes we can communicate without a medium.
There is no clear answer to this question, nature vs. nuture, though clearly, both play a part in the making of an individual. Which of the two plays a greater role may be a better question to ask.
Can you see my difficulties?
Homo Mysticus
intheinterlude wrote:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait. Did you just contradict yourself? Yes, I think you did. You say that behavioural research has proved what I said to be untrue. What about it is untrue? Man has absolute qualities I said, we call these qualities instincts. You said instinct is an inborne response to stimuli. Okay now explain to me where I am mixed up. Whether a response can change or not, every man is born with these instincts. It is absolute.