There are always things that’s itching under my skin at times.
Currently there’s an discussion me and my friend Kami had, only a few days ago. The discussion was related to the Tabula Rasa theory, and concerned mostly the question if a human being consist of more than just instincts. I’m of cause more of an academically interested person; thinking more in the lines of people having their own will to change any presented problem into anything the person may like.
The only flaw seem to be that not a lot of people are as good and helping as they ought to be. A reoccurring problem it might seem, but even so, I’m inclined to change the opinion. As people seem flawed due to the nature of the tabula rasa theory, there are quite a few variations of it that sends light on each of the different scenarios the theory can be used in.
First I’ll visit the original theory and explain what the theory really concerns and then the variations of it: The original Tabula Rasa theory revolves around the same principles as the name translates to; Empty Table. The theory as it’s originally written state that every person is an empty table when born, it’s what the person consist of that’s the important point, in an psycological kind of way. Which in easier words mean that a person is like an piece of code. When you start an new document, it’s empty, but after a while, as it grows, it becomes more advanced and able to do more things.
The main point, as it seems then, would be that everyone start with the same privileges (unless handicapped) as everyone else, and it’s just the ethical and moral settings that evolve the character into the person it is at that given time.
Problem with this is that a good person can have been subjected to horrible treatment in the past, and still turn out good. As it seems, it’s not a foolproof theory, but the variations of it holds the key of it’s true genius. Different scenarios hold the different keys of the theory.
The first real argument against the theory would be the thought of family relations, and how we tend to take perks from our fathers, mothers and further up the food chain.
Counter argument is that a person that takes up the qualities from their parents and grand parents are just subjected to “remote controlled code typing”, meaning that they are just experiencing the same thing as everybody else that’s been around friends. we augment each other and often people tend to choose people that’s close to themselves in the search of friends. This often results in scenarios where friends often means the same thing and so on and doesn’t interfere with the tabula rasa theory, since the effects are not genetically written, but imprinted through a series of situations where the person in question learns something from an elder of situation of importance.
On the other side, as the question arises, a person which turns out as the opposite to the situations and people of it surroundings, there’s a different part of interpreting the theory to explain the problem and counter argument:
The power of choice and logic. The tabula rasa theory builds heavily on the theory of having a free mind. We may choose to do what we (culturally and morally) think is the right choice, and otherwise. In that manner it’s perfectly possible to observe a person becoming the opposite of the subjects parents and friends. But that free mind comes with a price. Seen as the theory builds on the fact that we are culturally and morally bound to another it’s only as free as we can believe it to be.
Seeing that a person takes it’s choices built on logic and not instincts, we can conclude that a human mind is built on different aspects than the one of an animal. But, the following question would then be if those cultural and (what seems to be) logical choices point us back again to the instincts of human mind. The definition of instincts are:
“instinct – inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli.”
When an in learned way of acting, according to the represented culture of the geographical area or law, is shown, is it then an inborn pattern of behavior in response to a specific stimuli? The question have been a tough one to answer, but it’s hard to define if the reaction would be inborn of learned? In defense of the tabula rasa theory we may say that such an reaction (as f.eks moving away when something is coming really fast towards you.) counts as an instinct since it’s just logics making the body move accordingly to the reactions our senses gives us.
Problem is that depending on how you see it. We’re all bound to the culture we’re born and / or living in. Depending on how the culture views on different subjects it’s recognized as different meanings in our world. In Norway it’s not rude to shake hands with the left hand, depending on what hand you use as your master. But doing this in an Arabic country (or even Mexico) is a horrible insult, due to the different cultures making different rules for the person in question.
But as I may conclude, since I’m getting really tired, it’s on the border to instincts, since we don’t consider the different outcomes of the same situations at all times. But we may change the pace just to make a difference; making it a part instinct, part logic, part cultural pollution and part human impulse.
A funny thing, the human mind.
Sincerely
/Fluffy
