Page 1 of 2 12>
Topic Options
#43776 - 10/24/10 05:04 AM The old Nature vs. Nurture debate
Tranceparent Sky Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/02/09
Posts: 31
It's old, it's redundant, and a few of you may have rolled your eyes, but I seriously want to know what your views are.

Why are we the way we are?

Is your boss an asshole because his father drank too much, or was he simply born that way? From my understanding, the minute we are born and emerge from the womb, we begin taking in information and developing thought processes and thinking patterns. But what about personality? Are we born with one that lies dormant until we're able to express it, or can it be molded?

Psych 101 flashbacks ensue.
_________________________
~Satanism~
The cream cheese to my atheistic bagel.

Top
#43780 - 10/24/10 08:17 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Tranceparent Sky]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Tranceparent Sky

Why are we the way we are?

Is your boss an asshole because his father drank too much, or was he simply born that way?


Are you asking about yourself, or others? If the latter (which it seems from your wording), then don't forget that you may only be getting a portion of the whole picture of someone else.

Maybe your boss is an asshole because he's responsible for output and you guys have been slacking off, and he's already been planning for 2011 and knows the budget is going to be cut, and he has to lay off 20% just in time for Christmas.

Try seeing things from another person's viewpoint - it's a lot more instructive than sterile psych models.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#43791 - 10/24/10 11:42 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Autodidact]
Tranceparent Sky Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/02/09
Posts: 31
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
 Originally Posted By: Tranceparent Sky

Why are we the way we are?

Is your boss an asshole because his father drank too much, or was he simply born that way?


Are you asking about yourself, or others? If the latter (which it seems from your wording), then don't forget that you may only be getting a portion of the whole picture of someone else.

Maybe your boss is an asshole because he's responsible for output and you guys have been slacking off, and he's already been planning for 2011 and knows the budget is going to be cut, and he has to lay off 20% just in time for Christmas.

Try seeing things from another person's viewpoint - it's a lot more instructive than sterile psych models.


I think you're tying too hard, I was being facetious. This has nothing to do with my boss. Thanks for the insight though.

I simply want to discuss whether or not people have individual personalities that are "ingrained" in their brain, or if they are shaped by their environment. Obviously, environment has a major part to some extent, but are there some things about people that will never change because that's the way they were born?
_________________________
~Satanism~
The cream cheese to my atheistic bagel.

Top
#43800 - 10/25/10 03:42 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Tranceparent Sky]
Wolflust Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/20/09
Posts: 33
This has been actually been the topic for a huge debate among academics in my country for the last few months, when some well-known and respected people stood up and said that a lot sociology is based on false premises, because they doesn`t take biology into account.

I agree with this. Though, having studied sociology myself, I think its beyond doubt that the environment, culture, socialization, and even media, plays a big role in how you "become" what you are.

This should not be reckoned as an excuse for mediocrity or irresponsible behavior though. Maybe this further proofs Dr. LaVey`s point that Satanists are born, and not made?
_________________________
It is not my name or my number, its how I use it and what I do.

Top
#43801 - 10/25/10 04:07 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Wolflust]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
I'll chip in, mostly because I tend to disagree with everyone and his uncle when it comes to just about everything these days.

All these questions are all well and good; interesting in their own way and certainly sparking an interest for the headway being made into the realms of genetics, neurology, psychology, evolution, metaphysics and philosophy as a result of all the funding heading their way.

It all boils down to the question "Do we have any kind of free will?" OK, so I'm over-simplifying and being tabloid and fashionably blase about the whole thing. Doesn't change the essential truth of my statement.

I'll summarize my earlier viewpoint here: by today's tools there's simply no way of knowing whether free will exists or not. It's just not feasible. And you know, I'm fine with that. Peaches and cream, really.

Because there are more important traits to the human psyche than the freedom of your will. Like moral perspectivism. Look it up. Like mental resilience. Vital existence. Apotheosis through a life lived to the utmost.

If people want to rape each other to death while shooting heroin into their eyeballs, that is easily dismissed with a simple "I'm an addict personality; it's not my fault!" Fine. Get the hell away from me. I can tolerate a whole lot from people around me, but not the total and absolute abdication of responsibility due to the genetic predisposition in their genes toward a certain addiction or weakness.

You can be a slave to your genes all you want, but in the end it doesn't matter. Some people will always aspire to greater things and move beyond such simple excuses for their compound trainwreck of a life. I have met many of the latter people in here, and they are easily a million times more worthwhile and stimulating than the people who reduce their own lives to a series of G's, A's, T's and C's.

If you take responsibility, you have earned it by dint of holding it. It's the ultimate 'Fuck You And The Horse You Rode In On' to the proponents of genetic predestination.

My suggestion to everyone who ponders this question tonight:

You are very clever to ponder such conundrums. It's good that you care. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life responsibly. You can still act like a child if you want, fuck eighteen prostitutes a night if that's your bag, or even flush your entire life down the crapper. Just own it. That's all I ask.

You'll be more interesting and have a richer life than the other mouthbreathers.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#43816 - 10/26/10 02:18 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
Reminds me of Bukowski...

He was a drunk, and he knew it. He really didn't make any excuses for it. He was what he was, if you didn't like it, I'm sure he wouldn't care if you let yourself out. He was also ugly as hell, and he knew it... but ended up having written some interesting books, and some pretty awful poetry, got famous, has two movies out now, and got to have lots of sex with crazy women, maybe that was enough for him?

I know that wasn't the point of this, so I'll shut up now.

(I was referring to "ownership of one's actions)
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#43826 - 10/26/10 09:11 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Wolflust Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/20/09
Posts: 33
I enjoyed your post, sums things up quite nicely. There will always be differences among people of many varied reasons, but its ultimately better to hone ones own talents, than to ponder others faults. Everyone can certainly fuck things up for themselves, but what matters most is what their next move is. If you fuck up, you'd better own up.
_________________________
It is not my name or my number, its how I use it and what I do.

Top
#44012 - 11/05/10 10:29 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Wolflust]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Wolflust
This has been actually been the topic for a huge debate among academics in my country for the last few months, when some well-known and respected people stood up and said that a lot sociology is based on false premises, because they doesn`t take biology into account.

I agree with this. Though, having studied sociology myself, I think its beyond doubt that the environment, culture, socialization, and even media, plays a big role in how you "become" what you are.

This should not be reckoned as an excuse for mediocrity or irresponsible behavior though. Maybe this further proofs Dr. LaVey`s point that Satanists are born, and not made?



While there are definitely far too many sociologists preaching tabula rasa, the sociobiologist alternative is hardly any better...genetically more or less identical to hunter-gatherers we may be, but if we fail to take into account how our 'nature' is mediated by the social, we're bound to end up in a silly reductionism that posits genetic perpetuation as the rationale behind everything from malls to international trade.

I don't think that inverting the commonly held, uncritical position of sociologists is necessary for an ethics of responsibility per se either; the fact that the universe is indifferent and deterministic shouldn't stop us from weighing the potentially positive net effects of executing paedophiles and the like. Similarly, since no one behaves under the M.O. of not having any free will, it is certainly strange that we'd excuse behavior by taking this very detour. Don't fall into the trap of debating on your opponent's theoretical terrain; borrowing their concepts, studies, etc. Ethics are not bound pure and simple to the false antinomy of nature/nurture, free will/determinism.

Top
#44027 - 11/06/10 09:41 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: ballbreaker]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
You're requesting the Satanic community to respond to an anthropocentric question which borders on the right-hand path religions such as christianity to which the majority tries to keep christianity on the other side of the spectrum. With the initial inquiry, a heretical christian (non-Satanist) would answer in a coached, premeditated unintentional christian ways (orthodoxy) such as: the self-consciousness of humankind drives a person to conquer everything in their surroundings. This idea is broaching topics like competing with others in the work place to be the alpha and omega of an unkept group that answers to a higher power (the boss). Another perspective on the rejoinders is that a monotheistic Being must have created the provisionally bifrucating "areas" by beginning with biblical, soteriological creation and ending with judgement or eschaton as in the bible. This leaves the thought of a primordial undifferentiated other-power behind the scenes. Because science has failed in describing the origins of humankinds' personality or characteristics, something must have started it to help spurn humans towards rolling evolution. It's only logical. With a beginning, there is an end. Nature or nurture? Thirdly, a person glossing over the posts can think outside-the-box taking the thought a couple of steps further within a process of their discriminating intellect thinking giantly to themselves about other topics the question interpenetrates like ethical, prophetic and theistic to which all are tied by interdependency. This anthropocentrism is axiological with discussing even further on virtues and spirituality, for example. This is atypical of Satanic logico-philosophical thought. A true Satanist would unleash a phalanx with raging fury and strength of Mind against exactly this kind of mentation.

Switching gears.

Take a dehomocentric, cosmological view on the essence of the initial inquiry embracing core Satanic beliefs that is a diaspora to western, judeo-christian beliefs. View life through naturalistic, mystical and non-theistic (Panentheistic) modes of thought. There is a whole cadre of various types of thinking, one just has to pick up a book to launch them as a missle to their proposed destination, and read it.

I'll stop before lecturing from a lectern on the way to think otherwise. ;\) Ciao.
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#44036 - 11/07/10 06:20 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: paolo sette]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
Was this actually intended to be directed at me, or to the OP?

If the former, I suspect you've fundamentally misunderstood me, though the red ink and some of your babble like 'dehomocentric' and arbitrary capitalization of 'Mind' has me thinking 'bullshit'.

Lack of generosity aside, could you humour a naive idiot by spelling out what you mean to say a little more clearly, maybe with some punctuation and a little less obscurantism? I don't want to be totally dismissive...but the600club does get its share of morons (I'm one of them).

Top
#44092 - 11/14/10 06:22 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: ballbreaker]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
 Quote:
Lack of generosity aside, could you humour a naive idiot by spelling out what you mean to say a little more clearly, maybe with some punctuation and a little less obscurantism? I don't want to be totally dismissive...but the600club does get its share of morons (I'm one of them).


I do not qualify to be in the categories such as a "moron" or idot or mentally retarded. I am in an immutable class all by myself, for myself and of myself. When I type class, automatically I am allowing myself to be described in the English language; hence, better words to elucidate more specifically my self-nature concretely was-is-will be a Noumenal, Monistic Nihilist. Erudition is without a question needed to decipher meaning.

In the West, a member of one of many countries is predisposed to think in Positivistic terms. That is teleological (aim seeking). What is Real is everything that falls under the human senses. Moreover, the West is interested only in the object of knowledge. At the same time, the West maintains that the senses are imperfect, and I have to conclude that an imperfect instrument cannot comprehend Ultimate Reality. How can we say that what we see is "truly" Real, if te instrument with which we see is inadequate, limited and imperfect?

The Western individual interprets Reality on the basis of image-forms which the Mind creates from psycho-physical senses. The customary way to reflect on our personal Universe is by image representaions other than Reality itself. The world around humankind is one which is related to mental interpretation. Once the focus and dimension change, the world acquires an altered view which the untrained Mind wll accept as Reality. This is exactly what is meant by having a "two dimensional" view of things. An ambitious, unimpaired Mind can operate through the senses to differ from the aforementioned way that is three dimensional or giantly which is pertaining to the fourth dimension. As far as I can tell, humans have uncovered these modes of thought. I am not one to restrain an individual, aim seeking Mind, but rather one who encourages Truth.

Through informed aspirations and persevering determinations, the intellect can discover literally what is directly in front of you. If you attempt to grab It, It will allude you. As you search for It by looking aggressively to the right, It will move even faster to the left leaving more distance between you and It. It equals Truth. The information offers ways in which one extrapolates meaning and definitions. Two prerequisites are a supra-counscious cognizance and correct action. The former is left up in large part to the individual, but the latter is through Trust of other fellow people. I'm not telling you to have faith, as that word does not exisit in my dictum; rather, faithlessness is a word to help describe the three labeling words I used in purple to define myself. Once you have learned to Trust people who lead an aspiring individual to correct action(s), an unfoldment of discernment intuitively grasps a seeker on the true nature of Reality.

There are religions of grace such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Secondly, there are religions of awakening such as Buddhism and Advaitism. Finally, there are religions of diabolism such as Satanism and Setianism. Participants in the community offer ways to utilize cogently our Minds to bring about a clearer and sharper perspective on Satanism which is broad and cumbersome.

Ciao
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#44093 - 11/15/10 03:36 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: paolo sette]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3113
 Quote:
How can we say that what we see is "truly" Real, if te instrument with which we see is inadequate, limited and imperfect?

Even an inadequate and imperfect instrument is capable of detecting a vague piece of reality. Unless you really want to discuss the fist with metal knuckles approaching your teeth with quite a high speed is not real...

Now, may I ask you to quit being hollistic? You may have a better vocabulary then most of the people here, but it isn't really going to add a difference if you can't focus on the subject and are simply adding nothing to the subject itself. (Except for brainless banter).
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44096 - 11/15/10 11:06 AM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Tranceparent Sky]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Tranceparent Sky

Why are we the way we are?


I can't really say. I think every individual is living a collection of choices, good and bad, and there's no pat answer to describe how any individual got from point A to point B.

I'd say that your understanding is as reasonable as any other, perhaps more so. I think personality is an individual thing (hard wired) and it's responsible for prioritizing the information taken in as well as for decisions made using said information.

An interesting study for this question is in the life of Charles Manson. His situation is unique in that he was a product of differing institutions since the age of nine. At nine, of course, Manson had committed no crime greater than being the product of the stupid people who chose to institutionalize him rather than to care for him. Having been taught nothing but to respond to bells and to wait until he was told what to do, I believe he was destined to failure upon release by complying with the only set of rules that he knew, and then resorting to petty theft when doing so failed to produce any results.

Further study of Manson will reveal many truths, many of which will be surprising to people who have not traversed this particular path. It's too long to go into here and would be too far afield of the subject of the thread.

At any rate, using Manson as my model, it is my hypothesis that one's surroundings absolutely do influence the person that one becomes. It's the setting of a belief system and then the underlying core of a person changing to align with that belief system.

Those who live outside the box (Satanists, for example) can readily see the systemic influences that others subject themselves to, as part of the core personality of a Satanist is to reject being boxed in by anything (doubt is key).

So, yes, I think that the common individual (cute misnomer huh?) is susceptible to being a product of their environment. I like Joseph Campbell's hierarchy starting with 'what will the neighbors think?' and moving on up the chain of people commonly perceived as above oneself in the social hierarchy.

I also think there are folks (like many here) who see the game for what is and begin to ascend.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#44122 - 11/16/10 06:22 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: Tranceparent Sky]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Tranceparent Sky
It's old, it's redundant, and a few of you may have rolled your eyes, but I seriously want to know what your views are.

Why are we the way we are?




I have to revert to my sig for this one love. Maybe when we are younger, we can be molded quite easier than when we grow older. However, as we mature and gain more control over our surroundings and our personalities, we get to pick and CHOOSE what we are and what we are going to take from what we have experienced.

Now, there are those that would argue that a mother that beat her children is just repeating some kind of action that they learned when they were younger whether they were abused, weren't taught any better, or just simply watched too many movies that they should have not been exposed to.

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for oneself? You are who you are because, quite simply put, you have made it as such. I have a couple friends that "beat the odds" when it came to abuse whether physical or mental. I think it takes someone with the emotional will power to overcome these things that manifest outside of themselves into more productive activities. You cannot blame anyone but yourself.

And before anyone brings up those with mental disabilities, these people that have special needs should be tended to as it is fit.

I truly believe in the saying that your life is 99% controlled by you and yourself alone. Therefore stating, "my life sucks" .. you are actually saying "my life sucks because I suck/haven't done anything to change it from the drainage hole that it is" in my opinion.

There are many elements in which we use to create ourselves and identify ourselves. I believe that there comes a point in time where we step up and tell everyone "I am because I choose". We are what we are, who we are, because we have chosen to be who and what we are. Those who disagree and try to push their negativity on events in their lives or their unhappiness on other people are just lying to themselves.

The only person at the end of the day that I have to deal with is me. So why in the world why I wonder why I am who I am when I already know it's who I have chosen to be, who I will choose to become..

Choice my dear, is indeed what makes us who we are. Not people, not our surroundings because we can change those things.. we can change who we are around, what we are around ect ect.

The individual chooses for itself.. only the ones playing to the crowd allows anything else to affect them otherwise.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#44284 - 11/20/10 05:50 PM Re: The old Nature vs. Nurture debate [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3113
 Quote:
I truly believe in the saying that your life is 99% controlled by you and yourself alone. Therefore stating, "my life sucks" .. you are actually saying "my life sucks because I suck/haven't done anything to change it from the drainage hole that it is" in my opinion.

You life being controlled by yourself is very loosely true. You have the idea of being in control of your own life, in reality you tend to be persuaded to fit into different social cultures, to be compared to different kinds of people, your actions being labeled etc..
You have the choice what you are going to do next, but try to notice that your own decisions and that the idea of your life being only controlled by yourself is also an illusion. Every action you make is a result from persuation under social pressure from friends, relatives, family,.. and is sub-consciously not really your own choice but an advice and idea which seemed good enough in your opinion to be followed for the gratification of your inner needs/emotions.

And if a person thinks his life sucks then it simply is a quite unlucky guy/girl or an attentionwhore who didn't get into REAL trouble yet.

 Quote:
The only person at the end of the day that I have to deal with is me. So why in the world why I wonder why I am who I am when I already know it's who I have chosen to be, who I will choose to become..

It is considered to be a Satanic virtue to know oneself and to see yourself as the highest good within the (your own) universe.
But there is always that sense of realism and honesty to oneself that is lacking greatly.
Might I ask, in all honesty, what your current goal at the moment is?

Individualism in all of its facets if very nice to put in bold, underline it and shout out at politicals speeches. And yes, Satanism pushes forth and stimulates individualistic thinking but many tend to forget what that word really means (and not the dictionary definition) and underestimates how deep-rooted anticipating and communicating with others really is. Even to the extend that true individualistic thinking is quite utopic.

You always will have choices, keep in mind these choices are not because you have chosen to choose between them. They have been served to you on a silver plate by the different envirronments you come across and are being tried to push in (taking various experiences into account to make up the mind).


Edited by Dimitri (11/20/10 05:53 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
Page 1 of 2 12>


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.032 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.