Nature vs. Nurture

Are nature and nurture of equal influence and importance, or is one ultimately more influential or important than the other? Objectively I have no idea how to go about determining the answer to this question, but personally I've always been partial to nurture carrying more weight. Our nature doesn't necessarily determine our actions, personality, character, class, status, etc. However, nurture is incredibly influential in that sense. How we grow up, who we grow up with, where we grow up, when (what time period) we grow up in, what culture we grow up in, and how we are socialized have a lasting impact on who we become as individuals in a society. The kind of environment we are in, at any and every point in our lives, is what makes the biggest impact on us. Your nature can be radically altered by how you are nurtured, and which innate qualities are encouraged or discouraged. It has always seemed quite obvious to me that nurture overpowers nature more easily than nature could overpower nurture. What do you think? 

Predetermined Nature

If our nature is predetermined and fixed, does that mean that all of our actions are determined? If humans are, for example, innately aggressive, can we be held responsible for acting aggressively?  How does this impact morality? After our discussion in class today, I agree that even if our nature is determined, our actions are not. We may be more disposed to act in a certain way, but in the end we still have control over our actions. Furthermore, humans are not, by nature, only one thing. Humans are obviously very complex beings who may innately hold many different characteristics. For example, humans could be innately aggressive, cooperative, rational, social, competitive, etc. Therefore, even if humans were innately aggressive, there is no reason to suggest that another innate quality, such as rationality, could not overrule that quality. In other words, a person is most certainly responsible for their actions, even acting aggressively. 

Condemned to be Free?

Sartre maintains that we are condemned to be free. This kind of freedom is radical in nature because we are free to do anything except to cease being free. One might think that such freedom would be a good thing, especially compared to the alternative, but Sartre begs to differ. My question is, is being radically free better or worse than being radically determined? I always assumed that complete, or radical, freedom is what all people truly desire, but Sartre believes that radical freedom causes such anguish that what people truly desire is freedom from choice at all. Whenever I personally try to imagine such a world I find it perfectly horrid. Freedom is something that people have been fighting and dyeing for since the beginning of time, isn't freedom of choice one of the most valued things in this world? Yes, having freedom of choice might mean that you are responsible for your actions, and it might mean that you cannot necessarily justify your actions, but isn't that better still than not being able to choose for yourself any actions at all? No matter how difficult it might seem to make ones' own choices, I firmly believe that it is still better than someone, or something, else having complete control over one's choices. What does anyone else think? 

Limitations of Freedom

I was wondering what are, if any, the limitations of being free? For example, how does a person's socioeconomic standing affect their personal freedom? Are there not structural problems affecting ones ability to get out of a bad economic situation, such as poverty? Are all career opportunities equal for all people? Do racism, sexism, ageism, etc. have no affect on whether or not someone can 'get ahead'? Do people honestly have complete free will in deciding what their social roles in society will be? What about physical or mental illnesses or handicaps? Can they not affect someones ability to be 'truly' free? And what about biology? Are not some things biologically predetermined? I mean, of course, beyond things like hair, eye or skin color, because no rational person could argue that these things chosen for oneself, but is there nothing else predetermined? And what about instincts and impulses, are we to imagine that we are in complete control of such things? Do we really have the power to choose our sexuality, the situations we are in, what kinds of relationships we have, and our own character? Do we honestly have the freedom to choose how we feel? And if so, then why do all people, at least occasionally, feel negative emotions? Surely no one but a masochist would willingly choose to make him or herself miserable, and surely not all people are masochistic. It is a good thing that Sartre eventually put some limitations on his original idea of radical freedom, because that simply cannot be the case. 'Pure' freedom cannot exist; freedom always comes with some limitations and restrictions. 

Pros and Cons of Capitalism

Obviously, Marx found more cons with capitalism than pros. In his view, capitalism is a necessary stage of government development, but eventually needs to be surpassed. The lack of community and the struggle between classes is too great. Workers are both alienated and exploited. They are alienated because the workers don't work for themselves but for some other capitalist, and they often cannot enjoy the things they produce. The workers are exploited for their labor and often work in very poor and sometimes dangerous conditions. Furthermore, the capitalist system only grants rewards of property, land, and other general freedoms to a select few. If you are not one of the lucky ones, capitalism has no problem with letting you starve on the street. Of course, capitalism is very efficient and profitable, at least to some, and working conditions and regulations have improved over time. But even knowing that, I am now beginning to question if the capitalist system is as good as I originally thought...

Pros and Cons of Communism

In theory, communism resolves the "problem" of capitalism. It nationalizes banks, factories, transport, and land reduces alienation. It creates a strong sense of community and treats people as more than just an economic end. The creation of communism brings about the education of the proletariat and a raise in general consciousness. Communism also seeks to get rid of private property, however, which is a more controversial issue. And although it might at first seem to bring perfect equality, it hardly seems fair to have some people work harder than others be be rewarded financially in the same way. Another problem is the unrealistic expectation of altruism from the citizens who are already receiving great financial rewards, because why would they ever want to lower their standards of wealth? In theory, a lot of different things could happen with communism. I wonder what it would look like if it were ever actually put properly in to action?

Faith & Reason: Part 2

We were talking about faith and reason in regard to the Bible and Christianity this week, but I also wondered about other religions and religious texts. Do the roles of faith and reason alter in different religions, or is the relationship between those two things the same in all religions? From my point of view, it seems obvious that the Bible is full of contradictions. I am not acquainted with any other religious texts, and do not know if there are any other texts as contradictory as the Bible, or even more so. And I think that's what it all comes down to. Most religions, that I know of at least, are not intrinsically contradictory. It would appear that the contradiction lies in the words of a text assigned to a particular religion, and that is the further cause for the contradiction between faith and reason. Does that mean that the relationship between faith and reason shift for individuals depending on the religious text they believe in? Does this imply that some religions may be more reasonable than others, depending upon the amount of contradictions found in the text of that religion?