The other day, I was visiting a friend who recently had a baby, and she showed me some pictures. First of all, as one without children, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to get from looking at baby pictures but I’m old enough to know the acceptable response. Yet, as I looked at the pictures, my thoughts went to the theory of tabula rasa – the idea that babies are born as a clean slate, with nothing inherent programmed in their brains. Aristotle suggested this idea, providing the name. Today, we call this the nurture theory. As I looked at the baby, I wondered.
There are several other philosophers in line with Aristotle on this concept. English philosopher John Locke suggested the idea of a "blank slate" brain was in conjunction with the person's ability with free will, with no other notion impeding on the mind. Therefore, with nothing previously engrained, a person is free to choose based on his own volition and experiences without any inherent tendencies. Locke said there were no “innate ideas.” Thomas Aquinas held to the idea as well, suggesting that tabula rasa was a state of the mind upon which nothing has been impressed.
Some parents disagree and point to their children with different personalities in the same environment as evidence that something exists prior to the child being born. First of all, parents raise their children differently, accounting for learning experiences and trial and error with the first one. It could account for the differences. Secondly, what is personality? Does that require an impression or an innate mental capacity or is personality the sum of how we respond to things and nothing more? If it is true that we have free will, as the theologians suggest, then could not a baby choose one reaction over another without any mental functions but simply as a reflex?
Others who disagree with the notion point to talent, be it athletic or mental, as evidence of ingrained or inherent abilities. To be athletically talented is a product of training and not something with which one is born. The mental talents of a person are a bit trickier to explain from the tabula rasa point of view. However, if mental talents such as ability in foreign language or mathematics are the product of mental training combined with aptitude, can the brain really possess such ability prior to training? If not, then what exists in the brain?
Despite my musings above, I believe that we are the product of something within and we often achieve happiness or success despite our surroundings and environment. There are plenty of stories that suggest a strictly nurture point of view. I think of Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers. His thesis is that while nature plays a role, it is the environment and the nurturing that makes or breaks a potential or inherent talent. I believe that for every Steve Jobs that benefited from the perfect storm of emerging industries, magnificent teachers and the perfect set of parents and friends, there are another ten students who had the potential for the same and had similar support but did not become what they could have. The difference is what lay within Steve Jobs. When I look at my students, some have risen from horrible circumstances – risen above. Others are wallowing in luxury and privilege. Both are capable but both are not equally driven. It speaks to something intrinsic.
And so, I look at the baby again and I wonder. It is said that the great thing about considering babies is that one is considering a multitude of possibilities. Perhaps, that is not the case. Either I’m looking at a child whose internal drive will be the determining factor of their happiness or not. It is interesting to ponder.
No comments:
Post a Comment