Tabula Rasa

[GeorgeLondon]

The idea of Tabula Rasa, proposed by John Locke, which literally means "blank slate" is the idea that a child learns and acts how he was treated or what he learned from his experiences. The child is literally a blank slate and what happens to him is what fills the slate and that is what he becomes.

Does anyone agree that this is correct?

If not, lets take a look at Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley. The monster created by Dr. Frankenstein is abandoned and left to learn and develop on his own. He is treated with violence and hostility by those that he helps or cares for. For example, the monster saves a young girl from drowning, only to be shot by her father. The family he watches and cuts wood for is horrified to see the monster conversing with the blind father.

The monster is treated horribly, and in my opinion this is unwarranted. If Dr. Frankenstein had only stayed and taught the monster caring and kindness, then the monster would have turned out much differently. Instead, the monster's 'slate' if you will causes him to kill and cause pain to Frankenstein, his family, and his friends.

It is this example I am using to illustrate the idea of Tabula Rasa. Does anyone agree?

 

[Sin666]

Leave your english class at school. The concept of Tabula Rasa cannot be argued by a novel that actively sought to portray it.

The debate of Nature vs. Nurture has been fought ad nauseum in all forms of literature and science. The general consensus is that we are a product of both. The entire basis of the field of psychology is that our experience affects who we are (nurture). However, if you consider the number of genetic mood disorders (depression, eating disorders, etc), it's not hard to assert that our biological makeup determines who are as well. (nature)

 

[Brett`]

The idea of Tabula Rasa, proposed by John Locke, which literally means "blank slate" is the idea that a child learns and acts how he was treated or what he learned from his experiences. The child is literally a blank slate and what happens to him is what fills the slate and that is what he becomes.

Does anyone agree that this is correct?

If not, lets take a look at Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley. The monster created by Dr. Frankenstein is abandoned and left to learn and develop on his own. He is treated with violence and hostility by those that he helps or cares for. For example, the monster saves a young girl from drowning, only to be shot by her father. The family he watches and cuts wood for is horrified to see the monster conversing with the blind father.

The monster is treated horribly, and in my opinion this is unwarranted. If Dr. Frankenstein had only stayed and taught the monster caring and kindness, then the monster would have turned out much differently. Instead, the monster's 'slate' if you will causes him to kill and cause pain to Frankenstein, his family, and his friends.

It is this example I am using to illustrate the idea of Tabula Rasa. Does anyone agree?

I totally agree with you. I mean if you look at a kid that has grown up in the "ghetto" with gangs, drugs, violence, and murder, it is usually not uncommon for the child to act, and behave the exact same way as the child has seen time and time again.

 

[jebckr]

As sin said, there is an element of both in everyone. A child left to fend for his/her self won't just roll over and die. Nor wil he learn to speal or interact. Now don't get me wrong, a large portion of how someone acts Is how they were raised. But like Sin666 first said, there's some of both to be found.