Is it nature or nurture that shapes and develops humans?
Looking for 2 participants.
Full Version: Nature vs Nurture- Human Development
Debate suggestion from Moe.
Is it nature or nurture that shapes and develops humans?
Looking for 2 participants.
Is it nature or nurture that shapes and develops humans?
Looking for 2 participants.
Hi. I'd like to join the debate. I would argue from the stand point that it is the up bringing (nurture) that forms the human qualities.
i'll give it a go 
(obviously being the opposition)
Jen xxx
(obviously being the opposition) Jen xxx
Lets get started then!
Korile will be debating that nuture shapes and develops humans while Tiddlyjen will be debating that nature is what shapes and deveops humans.
This will be a 1v1 formal debate.
An Introduction, 5 bodily posts and a conclusion from each participant. No Flaming, bad manners or profantities will be tolerated. Please make sure you quote ALL your sources!
Please be aware that:
There is a point deduction for debaters who fail to make a post within the 7 day time frame. The deductions will be 2 points for every day the participant fails to post after the 7 days.
This is to ensure that debates continue in a timely fashion. If for any reason you cannot post within the 7 days, please ensure that you let myself or Lottie know to avoid having the points taken off your debate.
If, however the participant does not then attempt to make a post for up to 2 weeks after the 7 day rule has started an immediate disqualification will occur.
Good luck Aztec.
Korile will be debating that nuture shapes and develops humans while Tiddlyjen will be debating that nature is what shapes and deveops humans.
This will be a 1v1 formal debate.
An Introduction, 5 bodily posts and a conclusion from each participant. No Flaming, bad manners or profantities will be tolerated. Please make sure you quote ALL your sources!
Please be aware that:
There is a point deduction for debaters who fail to make a post within the 7 day time frame. The deductions will be 2 points for every day the participant fails to post after the 7 days.
This is to ensure that debates continue in a timely fashion. If for any reason you cannot post within the 7 days, please ensure that you let myself or Lottie know to avoid having the points taken off your debate.
If, however the participant does not then attempt to make a post for up to 2 weeks after the 7 day rule has started an immediate disqualification will occur.
Good luck Aztec.
Introduction
The development of human being depends greatly on the enviroment and the situation the child is raised in. Though there are elements directly linked to the biological constructs, such as the existence of DNA which builds the child's body into the human form, it is not the physical aspects of the people that make them human. It is rather the psychological, linguistic, social, and emotional development that makes human human and not animal.
The earliest development of a child begins with the recognition of the outer world. Usually, the mother becomes the object of observation. From there, the recognition of the self develops by understanding that the "other" is separated and different from what you are. At this level, the child would also observe themselves (such as their hand), understanding that the extended part of their body is a part of him/herself. As their body develops, their fingers become more comptent to move and hold things and the hominization process are enhanced through the child playing with objects around themselves with their hands.
The physical development as indicated above is a mere starting point of the development of a child into a human being. At this stage, the child's development is only in the level of animals. The process that follows these physical development are what makes a child develop into human and one prominent development is the ability to understand and use language as a mean of communication. Though the human brain has the capacity for languages, it is only through the interaction with those around the child that makes him/her acquire language. In this sense, though Language acquisition is made available by nature, the development of it is only possible through nurture.
The emotional and psycholoical developments are also enhanced through the interaction between the child and the people around them. Just as Lacan elucidates, the psychological development of the child has greatly to do with their development in the language because people's unconscious is structured like language. In other words, it is not possible for a child to develop their unconsciousness properly without the existence of language.
In the 13th century, King Frederick (Germany) did an experiement to see how a child would develop without being exposed to language. He would have a foster mother take care of an infant without speaking a word to them. He theorized that the child would either develop the ability to speak Hebrew (the language which he thought was the original language of the people) or to speak the parents' language. The result was disastrous because all the children that he used in the experiment died. In the 16th century, the Mogul emperor Akbar also did an experiment with infants to see if they would develop a "natural" religious faith without being in contact with people. The results were equally disastrous with children growing up to be quasi-deaf and mute for life. (McClearn 3-4)
The existence of children who were brought up in the wild without absolutely any exposure to human life or languages presents another example of how a human being needs to be nurtured properly to acquire human qualities. The child of Aveyron (later named Victor), found in the French forest in 1797 had no ability to speak or understand human language and his habits and reactions to things proved that he grew up in the wild, being nurtured by wild animals. After some intense training by Dr. Itard, he was able to learn a few words and recognize objects. However, it was impossible for him to do higher thinking, expressing himself and having emotion.
If human beings do actually grow to be a human being naturally, the cases of feral children should have been something that would show that people DO develop naturally into human beings. However, their existence and the various examples of children who are impared by not being raised and nurtured properly shows explicitly that human beings develop through proper care and nurture.
sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron
McClearn, Gerald E. Nature, Nurture and Psychology. Washington DC:
American Psychological Association, 1993.
The development of human being depends greatly on the enviroment and the situation the child is raised in. Though there are elements directly linked to the biological constructs, such as the existence of DNA which builds the child's body into the human form, it is not the physical aspects of the people that make them human. It is rather the psychological, linguistic, social, and emotional development that makes human human and not animal.
The earliest development of a child begins with the recognition of the outer world. Usually, the mother becomes the object of observation. From there, the recognition of the self develops by understanding that the "other" is separated and different from what you are. At this level, the child would also observe themselves (such as their hand), understanding that the extended part of their body is a part of him/herself. As their body develops, their fingers become more comptent to move and hold things and the hominization process are enhanced through the child playing with objects around themselves with their hands.
The physical development as indicated above is a mere starting point of the development of a child into a human being. At this stage, the child's development is only in the level of animals. The process that follows these physical development are what makes a child develop into human and one prominent development is the ability to understand and use language as a mean of communication. Though the human brain has the capacity for languages, it is only through the interaction with those around the child that makes him/her acquire language. In this sense, though Language acquisition is made available by nature, the development of it is only possible through nurture.
The emotional and psycholoical developments are also enhanced through the interaction between the child and the people around them. Just as Lacan elucidates, the psychological development of the child has greatly to do with their development in the language because people's unconscious is structured like language. In other words, it is not possible for a child to develop their unconsciousness properly without the existence of language.
In the 13th century, King Frederick (Germany) did an experiement to see how a child would develop without being exposed to language. He would have a foster mother take care of an infant without speaking a word to them. He theorized that the child would either develop the ability to speak Hebrew (the language which he thought was the original language of the people) or to speak the parents' language. The result was disastrous because all the children that he used in the experiment died. In the 16th century, the Mogul emperor Akbar also did an experiment with infants to see if they would develop a "natural" religious faith without being in contact with people. The results were equally disastrous with children growing up to be quasi-deaf and mute for life. (McClearn 3-4)
The existence of children who were brought up in the wild without absolutely any exposure to human life or languages presents another example of how a human being needs to be nurtured properly to acquire human qualities. The child of Aveyron (later named Victor), found in the French forest in 1797 had no ability to speak or understand human language and his habits and reactions to things proved that he grew up in the wild, being nurtured by wild animals. After some intense training by Dr. Itard, he was able to learn a few words and recognize objects. However, it was impossible for him to do higher thinking, expressing himself and having emotion.
If human beings do actually grow to be a human being naturally, the cases of feral children should have been something that would show that people DO develop naturally into human beings. However, their existence and the various examples of children who are impared by not being raised and nurtured properly shows explicitly that human beings develop through proper care and nurture.
sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron
McClearn, Gerald E. Nature, Nurture and Psychology. Washington DC:
American Psychological Association, 1993.
Tiddlyjen has informed myself that she is unable to participate in this debate due to personal reasons.
We are now looking for one member to debate that nature is what shapes and develops human beings.
We are now looking for one member to debate that nature is what shapes and develops human beings.
you have under debate title you need one more debator
can i be that one? in this topic or is it too late?
can i be that one? in this topic or is it too late?
Aberombi it is not too late at all. You will be debating that nature is what shapes and develops human beings.
As Koriel has already posted her introduction you must now post your introduction.
As Koriel has already posted her introduction you must now post your introduction.
INTRODUCTION : Nature Shaping and developing the mind of man
Nature has played a roll since the BIG BANG in our universe. Due to the natural gases
mixed with others, life contracts from elements our Earth is made up of . Water being the main ingredient and shares the vast occupancy of life itself.
Bare with me here ,. The human body floats in the womb and develops for a nine month period with nothing except the placenta that feeds the fetus .The fetus suspending inside water is enclosed by a membrane that holds it together. Without that source it couldn't develop or survive .Thus proving,.. nature is the primary developing strength
and the critical time inside the womb is what it shapes the determined color hair to ,eye color ,even intellect. A universal love it has been considered because there is no dogmas or limitations from the mind. confidence is built right in without the bioust of a influence of being nutured.Thus man becomes only what he learns on his own experiences and most likely to have to experience one time only throught his life.
And like labor, and birth, from the BIGBANG, to man, the expansion of life begins here.
This development is the first example of the unique metamorphis one human being goes through from conception to the time of his death .
It is what lies between this event, and why a lifespan exhists to make known nature is the primary developer that shapes a man throughout his experience on earth.
Due to the brain's ability to survive and collect information , a automatic involuntary process takes place without having any other outside factor telling him so.
Naturally curious is the brain and the body like its counterpart ,helps communicate without input from another person to nuture him. The Earth provides him with cycles, food ,shelter fire and companionship from all its resources .It isnt untill other humans are brought in ,that the well being of this man is disrupted and threatend. Negative feelings of protecting what he claims to be his own is there. Calamity. Therefore he expresses all the behaviors wich are healthy and correct. Correct enough to claim that nature is his parent from wich nuturing from another had no distinct reason for his well being.
This is the introduction to the basis of primitive man and nature. The elements of chemistry
and survival are proof that one human can develop and be shaped successfully in order to take life on. His individual experience with only himself from an infant to a child , adolescence, and adulthood with no other means but nature itself to shape him.
A universal love that through the Earth and our surroundings that were made for us to strive on this planet ,.man is a part of it ,with the natural body and mind to survive to the fullest without having to be nutured from the human parent. The globe is his pathway and his own claimed independence prepares him for an exceedingly long life ahead.
* Neo Humanism as propounded by P.R Sarkar
* Liberation of intellect the Neohumanism
Nature has played a roll since the BIG BANG in our universe. Due to the natural gases
mixed with others, life contracts from elements our Earth is made up of . Water being the main ingredient and shares the vast occupancy of life itself.
Bare with me here ,. The human body floats in the womb and develops for a nine month period with nothing except the placenta that feeds the fetus .The fetus suspending inside water is enclosed by a membrane that holds it together. Without that source it couldn't develop or survive .Thus proving,.. nature is the primary developing strength
and the critical time inside the womb is what it shapes the determined color hair to ,eye color ,even intellect. A universal love it has been considered because there is no dogmas or limitations from the mind. confidence is built right in without the bioust of a influence of being nutured.Thus man becomes only what he learns on his own experiences and most likely to have to experience one time only throught his life.
And like labor, and birth, from the BIGBANG, to man, the expansion of life begins here.
This development is the first example of the unique metamorphis one human being goes through from conception to the time of his death .
It is what lies between this event, and why a lifespan exhists to make known nature is the primary developer that shapes a man throughout his experience on earth.
Due to the brain's ability to survive and collect information , a automatic involuntary process takes place without having any other outside factor telling him so.
Naturally curious is the brain and the body like its counterpart ,helps communicate without input from another person to nuture him. The Earth provides him with cycles, food ,shelter fire and companionship from all its resources .It isnt untill other humans are brought in ,that the well being of this man is disrupted and threatend. Negative feelings of protecting what he claims to be his own is there. Calamity. Therefore he expresses all the behaviors wich are healthy and correct. Correct enough to claim that nature is his parent from wich nuturing from another had no distinct reason for his well being.
This is the introduction to the basis of primitive man and nature. The elements of chemistry
and survival are proof that one human can develop and be shaped successfully in order to take life on. His individual experience with only himself from an infant to a child , adolescence, and adulthood with no other means but nature itself to shape him.
A universal love that through the Earth and our surroundings that were made for us to strive on this planet ,.man is a part of it ,with the natural body and mind to survive to the fullest without having to be nutured from the human parent. The globe is his pathway and his own claimed independence prepares him for an exceedingly long life ahead.
* Neo Humanism as propounded by P.R Sarkar
* Liberation of intellect the Neohumanism
Bodily post 1
Reaction to Abercrombie's introduction:
Point 1: Yes, you are right that nature exists and harbours life in general. If it wasn't for nature, no life would exist. However, this does not mean that the development of the human beings are exclusively dependent on nature. As I have stated in my introduction, physical attributes (such as hight, skin colour, function of the enzymes, etc.) are not what makes a human, human.
Thus proving,.. nature is the primary developing strength
and the critical time inside the womb is what it shapes the determined color hair to ,eye color, even intellect.
I agree with your point there...but is that any different from other animals? The same things happen to cats, for example, but they are not human at all.
Point 2: Your thoughts as I quote below:
Naturally curious is the brain and the body like its counterpart, helps communicate without input from another person to nuture him.
How would you interpret the case of Feral children (as I noted in my introduction). They grew up "without input" from any human being...are you able to say that they are fully "human" ? I would not disagree with you that biologically, they are human beings. However, I strongly disagree that they had any human qualities that distinguishes human beings from animals.
That leads me into another issue that is related. Are we able to say that children, who are disable in the brain, "human"? I would say that they are--unless we are talking about severly handicapped people who are in a quasi-vegitative state from a very early stage of their lives. This is because though their understanding or reaction maybe limited, them being nurtured by their parents or therapists allow them to acquire a certain level of "human-ness" which includes the usage and the understanding of language, reaction with and to emotions, and their ability to interact with other human beings. Though there are many exceptions to this group (which would not really be a fair example to use), they are human beings because they were raised and nurtured among other human beings and have acquired human attributes.
Point 3: Love, is a tricky word to use because it can mean different things depending on the context. In my opinion, the "love" you mention is more like the system of the universe that maintains life...a balance of life and energy in the universe. Yet, love in a human sense is very different. Love that animal have and love that human beings have are totally different in nature. When an animal takes care of their child and loves them, it is a way to maintain their genealogy and clan. Life chooses to preserve it's own kind an if taking care of their child is love, it is more like out of necessity that they choose to love. I think you would not object that I note here that animals only take care of their own children until they are old enough to live on their own...and after that, they forget that each other were once a family.
The human love has several categories. The love between the mother and the child do not cease even when the child grows old enough to support him/herself. Though there are cases of mothers who cannot love their child, that has more to do with sociological and psychological reasons, and it is not something inherent to the nature of human love. The human love does not cease easily like they do in animals, not only because we're merely physically different from animals, but because that is an attribute of human beings. Returning to the example of the Wolf child, Victor...he was not able to "love" or accept love from others. The concept of love was beyond his comprehension, but I do not think it is because he was disabled in some way. It was because he was not raised being loved by a human being.
The human child builds an attachment and later love for the mother (or the person taking care of the child) because she nurtures the child with love. This is why many people who were not loved and nurtured properly in the early stages of live develop psychological difficulties later on in life. Though there are cases of inherent and heredetary psychological complications such as schizophrenia and depression, many psychological diffculties that people face were caused by suffereing from mistreatment and molestation in the early stages of life. This means that in order for a human being to develop a "healthy" psyche, one needs to be nurtured with proper love and care.
Another kind of human love is a more altruistic one. Compassion for others and the idea that people should care for each other, regardless of their background is a human attribute. This kind of love has nothing to do with the survival of the kind (though it would in the long run, this kind of love is very rare in animal world, for example), and in a sense, having compassion, for example to share with, others could become a hindrance for the survival of the individual...and it is not "natural" for animals to share food, for example, with every one around it. Animals are for the most part, egoistic because that is the way animals ensures that they survive in nature. However, human beings transcends that and are able to have compassion for others, even if that meant risking their own survival. And this kind of love is gained through nuture. Not nature.
Reaction to Abercrombie's introduction:
Point 1: Yes, you are right that nature exists and harbours life in general. If it wasn't for nature, no life would exist. However, this does not mean that the development of the human beings are exclusively dependent on nature. As I have stated in my introduction, physical attributes (such as hight, skin colour, function of the enzymes, etc.) are not what makes a human, human.
QUOTE("Abercrombie")
Thus proving,.. nature is the primary developing strength
and the critical time inside the womb is what it shapes the determined color hair to ,eye color, even intellect.
I agree with your point there...but is that any different from other animals? The same things happen to cats, for example, but they are not human at all.
Point 2: Your thoughts as I quote below:
QUOTE
Naturally curious is the brain and the body like its counterpart, helps communicate without input from another person to nuture him.
How would you interpret the case of Feral children (as I noted in my introduction). They grew up "without input" from any human being...are you able to say that they are fully "human" ? I would not disagree with you that biologically, they are human beings. However, I strongly disagree that they had any human qualities that distinguishes human beings from animals.
That leads me into another issue that is related. Are we able to say that children, who are disable in the brain, "human"? I would say that they are--unless we are talking about severly handicapped people who are in a quasi-vegitative state from a very early stage of their lives. This is because though their understanding or reaction maybe limited, them being nurtured by their parents or therapists allow them to acquire a certain level of "human-ness" which includes the usage and the understanding of language, reaction with and to emotions, and their ability to interact with other human beings. Though there are many exceptions to this group (which would not really be a fair example to use), they are human beings because they were raised and nurtured among other human beings and have acquired human attributes.
Point 3: Love, is a tricky word to use because it can mean different things depending on the context. In my opinion, the "love" you mention is more like the system of the universe that maintains life...a balance of life and energy in the universe. Yet, love in a human sense is very different. Love that animal have and love that human beings have are totally different in nature. When an animal takes care of their child and loves them, it is a way to maintain their genealogy and clan. Life chooses to preserve it's own kind an if taking care of their child is love, it is more like out of necessity that they choose to love. I think you would not object that I note here that animals only take care of their own children until they are old enough to live on their own...and after that, they forget that each other were once a family.
The human love has several categories. The love between the mother and the child do not cease even when the child grows old enough to support him/herself. Though there are cases of mothers who cannot love their child, that has more to do with sociological and psychological reasons, and it is not something inherent to the nature of human love. The human love does not cease easily like they do in animals, not only because we're merely physically different from animals, but because that is an attribute of human beings. Returning to the example of the Wolf child, Victor...he was not able to "love" or accept love from others. The concept of love was beyond his comprehension, but I do not think it is because he was disabled in some way. It was because he was not raised being loved by a human being.
The human child builds an attachment and later love for the mother (or the person taking care of the child) because she nurtures the child with love. This is why many people who were not loved and nurtured properly in the early stages of live develop psychological difficulties later on in life. Though there are cases of inherent and heredetary psychological complications such as schizophrenia and depression, many psychological diffculties that people face were caused by suffereing from mistreatment and molestation in the early stages of life. This means that in order for a human being to develop a "healthy" psyche, one needs to be nurtured with proper love and care.
Another kind of human love is a more altruistic one. Compassion for others and the idea that people should care for each other, regardless of their background is a human attribute. This kind of love has nothing to do with the survival of the kind (though it would in the long run, this kind of love is very rare in animal world, for example), and in a sense, having compassion, for example to share with, others could become a hindrance for the survival of the individual...and it is not "natural" for animals to share food, for example, with every one around it. Animals are for the most part, egoistic because that is the way animals ensures that they survive in nature. However, human beings transcends that and are able to have compassion for others, even if that meant risking their own survival. And this kind of love is gained through nuture. Not nature.
bodily post #1
Nature-nurture controversy (or heredity-environment controversy), concern regarding the relative roles of heredity versus physical and social surroundings in the development of an individual
*Social relationships are important but the core fascinations are with ourselves and the projection of the world around us
Changes that throughout ones life are expressed through drawings dance music and sound other than language thus is language due to its most inner defininition and that is communication.
The oldest exhistance of man communicated with the forces of nature and raised the young to do the same . indians are a good example of this. It is almost devestating to think that the elements of the earth wouldn’t be of nuture to any civilazation.
Is it not mankind that has been the self destructive animal race on the planet ?, not to mention allowing the extinction of other animal species and all for purposes of power greed and the love of money.
Humans practice free will and are themselves what they choose to be or what they desire for themselves. Therefore the enviroment is what stimulates an individual and it may be that as a independent choice inside a group of people that decide the fate of that group. With or without the nurturing effect.
Juevenile delinquency is rebelious behavior that formed from a non nututring enviroment . due to the free will we have as humans means that the outcome can always defy the situation and the outcome is always unpredictable.
*Humans are diverse beings and no one person experiences life the same way. It came as something of a surprise when scientists determined that human beings share almost 99 percent of their genetic material with chimpanzees. This led one scientific journalist to refer to humans as "the third chimpanzee
Just because a child is feral doesnt mean that theyare less human. the bible pionts out that God is responsible for the process of formation of an embryo in the womb, showing that the design of the human in the womb is according to gods pattern and not by chance or evolution.
job 31:15 compare job 10:8ps 139:13-16 isiah 45:9Womb is employed at times with refference to the source of something. in speaking about creative works involving the earth ,God speaks of the sea as bursting forth from the womb.
job 38:8 pslms110:1-3
If relious belief is going to be debated might i suggest evolution as its only other opposition as to life . meaning we evolved from apes and could survive likewise . example there are Natural laws of science. etc.
*Ellen Greenberge PhD stanford university
worth publishers
insight on the scriptures
compton's interactive encyclopedia
*the life span perpective educational documentary
worth publishers
Nature-nurture controversy (or heredity-environment controversy), concern regarding the relative roles of heredity versus physical and social surroundings in the development of an individual
*Social relationships are important but the core fascinations are with ourselves and the projection of the world around us
Changes that throughout ones life are expressed through drawings dance music and sound other than language thus is language due to its most inner defininition and that is communication.
The oldest exhistance of man communicated with the forces of nature and raised the young to do the same . indians are a good example of this. It is almost devestating to think that the elements of the earth wouldn’t be of nuture to any civilazation.
Is it not mankind that has been the self destructive animal race on the planet ?, not to mention allowing the extinction of other animal species and all for purposes of power greed and the love of money.
Humans practice free will and are themselves what they choose to be or what they desire for themselves. Therefore the enviroment is what stimulates an individual and it may be that as a independent choice inside a group of people that decide the fate of that group. With or without the nurturing effect.
Juevenile delinquency is rebelious behavior that formed from a non nututring enviroment . due to the free will we have as humans means that the outcome can always defy the situation and the outcome is always unpredictable.
*Humans are diverse beings and no one person experiences life the same way. It came as something of a surprise when scientists determined that human beings share almost 99 percent of their genetic material with chimpanzees. This led one scientific journalist to refer to humans as "the third chimpanzee
Just because a child is feral doesnt mean that theyare less human. the bible pionts out that God is responsible for the process of formation of an embryo in the womb, showing that the design of the human in the womb is according to gods pattern and not by chance or evolution.
job 31:15 compare job 10:8ps 139:13-16 isiah 45:9Womb is employed at times with refference to the source of something. in speaking about creative works involving the earth ,God speaks of the sea as bursting forth from the womb.
job 38:8 pslms110:1-3
If relious belief is going to be debated might i suggest evolution as its only other opposition as to life . meaning we evolved from apes and could survive likewise . example there are Natural laws of science. etc.
*Ellen Greenberge PhD stanford university
worth publishers
insight on the scriptures
compton's interactive encyclopedia
*the life span perpective educational documentary
worth publishers
Koriel your reply please!
Whoa...sorry guys 
Bodily Post 2
*Social relationships are important but the core fascinations are with ourselves and the projection of the world around us
Changes that throughout ones life are expressed through drawings dance music and sound other than language thus is language due to its most inner defininition and that is communication.
I think you missed my point there...that what scholars like Saussure and Lacan theorized was that language is not what you hear or see expressed as language but a system that structures your psyche. I believe it is something analogous to what the Operation System is for a computer. A computer with the OS is a mere object though having all the potentials...and same with human beings. People need langauge to function properly as human beings.
Also, artistic expression such as dance, drawing and music are seemingly in opposition to what I've been saying, but it is not. Those things are not natural...see if any other living creature creates a work of art. I believe feral children are unable to create a work of art as other animals are unable to. In this sense, art is one of the greatest features of what a human being is, and it is certainly not "natural."
Yes, the birds sing, some animals have dacing mating rituals and such...but that is totally different from what artistic expression is. The same kinds of birds sing the same tune while human beings are able to create mulitudes of sounds.
The oldest exhistance of man communicated with the forces of nature and raised the young to do the same. indians are a good example of this. It is almost devestating to think that the elements of the earth wouldn’t be of nuture to any civilazation.
I don't think I ever said or suggested that people did not communicate with the natural world. But please do note that it is only the human beings that intentionally puts meaning to the world around and tries to pull a conclusion from it. Animals only live under instincts and what ever they do or react against is not because they intend to "communicate" with the natural world.
I do not deny that Earth nurtures life on earth (I think I said that in my previous post too). And please don't keep on sounding like I refute the idea. As I said, the natural world does cradle life...but that's not what makes human being what we are.
Is it not mankind that has been the self destructive animal race on the planet ?, not to mention allowing the extinction of other animal species and all for purposes of power greed and the love of money.
I just wonder...what you say is correct, but does it have anything to do with if human being become human being by nature or nurture?
Humans practice free will and are themselves what they choose to be or what they desire for themselves. Therefore the enviroment is what stimulates an individual and it may be that as a independent choice inside a group of people that decide the fate of that group. With or without the nurturing effect.
Animals have free will too...it's just that their brains are not developed enough to choose in the way we can. And besides, I think you're not being logical there...if human beings have free will, why does it ought to be that we are stimulated by the environment. The history of human race has shown that people don't always change according to the environment like the animals do, but rather human beings change the environment around themselves. Which means that it is not necessarily the natural world that has the most effect on how the human beings develop.
Juevenile delinquency is rebelious behavior that formed from a non nututring enviroment . due to the free will we have as humans means that the outcome can always defy the situation and the outcome is always unpredictable.
There...you're supporting the nuturing theory now. Yes. The youths who have been deprived from things like love and care do have the risk of becoming Juvenile delinquent...and that does not happen naturally.
Thus, a person becomes who he/she is because of how he/she was raised. Not because he/she was born to be that way. The society in the large sense, and family in a smaller sense becomes the key to who that person grows up to become. Not something inherent.
Looking at this way, there is also great hope for a person to rehabilitate BECAUSE it was the way that person was raised had problems. If you consider a person to have become a juvenile delinquent by nature...there is no hope for them to rehabiltate because that's the way they were born. Therefore, it is more humanistic and logical to think that people become who they are because of their upbringing.
*Humans are diverse beings and no one person experiences life the same way. It came as something of a surprise when scientists determined that human beings share almost 99 percent of their genetic material with chimpanzees. This led one scientific journalist to refer to humans as "the third chimpanzee
Yes. I agree there...but I think you're supporting my position again. If almost all of human DNA are the same (with minor but important differences), it means that the diversity of personalities and statures are due to upbringing. For example, Twins are born with practically identical DNA, but they usually grow up to be two distinctively different persons. This is because what they experiece in their lives (though similar enough) are different from each other and those difference of experiences make who they are in the future. There again, people become who they are through up bringing, not nature.
Just because a child is feral doesnt mean that they are less human. the bible pionts out that God is responsible for the process of formation of an embryo in the womb, showing that the design of the human in the womb is according to gods pattern and not by chance or evolution.
If I may ask you: I think we better not pull the Bible into this discussion. I'm Christian myself, so I have nothing against it. However, the nature of the biblical reference, I belive, cannot be used as a proof for your argument. This is because the Bible (and any other mythology for that matter) is a metaphorical text which only gives the true meaning to the reader through interpretation.
For example, you may believe that "God is responsible for the process of formation of an embryo in the womb," but does that prove anything? However Chrisitan I may be, I can never prove the existence of God. Only thing I can do is believe and have faith. In other words, what you believe cannot be the core or the proof of your argument. If I wanted to, I can believe that alien aircrafts flew to my parent's bed the night I was conceived and somehow I got half alien DNA...and insist that it is correct without any proof. And only thing anyone can say there is..."crap."
Also, about feral children. Yes. they are physically human beings...no doubt about that. But, however they may look like human beings, internally (psychologically) they are animals, and even after intense teaching by specialists, they are not able to function as most human beings are able to.
In addition, if what they grew up to become was like an animal, it's because they were brought up that way. So, the point is not the question of whether they were "human" but rather the question if the result of who they are were dependent on their upbringing or not...and I say that it was their up bringing that impaired them to grow up like any other child in the world. If people become "human" naturally, those kids must have developed the same skills as other childs. But they didn't and that's the proof of my position.
job 31:15 compare job 10:8ps 139:13-16 isiah 45:9Womb is employed at times with refference to the source of something. in speaking about creative works involving the earth ,God speaks of the sea as bursting forth from the womb.
job 38:8 pslms110:1-3
Job 31:15...Job is trying to say that all men are equal because all men are created by God.
Job 10:8.....He's saying that he's God's creation too...so don't punish me!!
Isiah 45:9...Saying, not to speak back to God because he's the one who created you.
Ok...even if God was the creator and we can prove that...but how can you say that people grow up to be who they are by nature? Those quotes only tell you that the biblical character who was speaking believe in creationism and only that.
If relious belief is going to be debated might i suggest evolution as its only other opposition as to life . meaning we evolved from apes and could survive likewise . example there are Natural laws of science. etc.
I hope you don't start pulling religious beliefs in again though...but yes. Evolution does talk a lot about how people develop into people physically, so yeah. We can discuss that in the up coming posts
It actualy would make your argument stronger...you need to talk about science...not relgion for that matter.
About Jacques Lacan and how language and psyche is related.
Saussure's lecture on general linguistics
Bodily Post 2
QUOTE(abecrombi @ Feb 20 2006, 03:47 PM) [snapback]1069714[/snapback]
*Social relationships are important but the core fascinations are with ourselves and the projection of the world around us
Changes that throughout ones life are expressed through drawings dance music and sound other than language thus is language due to its most inner defininition and that is communication.
I think you missed my point there...that what scholars like Saussure and Lacan theorized was that language is not what you hear or see expressed as language but a system that structures your psyche. I believe it is something analogous to what the Operation System is for a computer. A computer with the OS is a mere object though having all the potentials...and same with human beings. People need langauge to function properly as human beings.
Also, artistic expression such as dance, drawing and music are seemingly in opposition to what I've been saying, but it is not. Those things are not natural...see if any other living creature creates a work of art. I believe feral children are unable to create a work of art as other animals are unable to. In this sense, art is one of the greatest features of what a human being is, and it is certainly not "natural."
Yes, the birds sing, some animals have dacing mating rituals and such...but that is totally different from what artistic expression is. The same kinds of birds sing the same tune while human beings are able to create mulitudes of sounds.
QUOTE
The oldest exhistance of man communicated with the forces of nature and raised the young to do the same. indians are a good example of this. It is almost devestating to think that the elements of the earth wouldn’t be of nuture to any civilazation.
I don't think I ever said or suggested that people did not communicate with the natural world. But please do note that it is only the human beings that intentionally puts meaning to the world around and tries to pull a conclusion from it. Animals only live under instincts and what ever they do or react against is not because they intend to "communicate" with the natural world.
I do not deny that Earth nurtures life on earth (I think I said that in my previous post too). And please don't keep on sounding like I refute the idea. As I said, the natural world does cradle life...but that's not what makes human being what we are.
QUOTE
Is it not mankind that has been the self destructive animal race on the planet ?, not to mention allowing the extinction of other animal species and all for purposes of power greed and the love of money.
I just wonder...what you say is correct, but does it have anything to do with if human being become human being by nature or nurture?
QUOTE
Humans practice free will and are themselves what they choose to be or what they desire for themselves. Therefore the enviroment is what stimulates an individual and it may be that as a independent choice inside a group of people that decide the fate of that group. With or without the nurturing effect.
Animals have free will too...it's just that their brains are not developed enough to choose in the way we can. And besides, I think you're not being logical there...if human beings have free will, why does it ought to be that we are stimulated by the environment. The history of human race has shown that people don't always change according to the environment like the animals do, but rather human beings change the environment around themselves. Which means that it is not necessarily the natural world that has the most effect on how the human beings develop.
QUOTE
Juevenile delinquency is rebelious behavior that formed from a non nututring enviroment . due to the free will we have as humans means that the outcome can always defy the situation and the outcome is always unpredictable.
There...you're supporting the nuturing theory now. Yes. The youths who have been deprived from things like love and care do have the risk of becoming Juvenile delinquent...and that does not happen naturally.
Thus, a person becomes who he/she is because of how he/she was raised. Not because he/she was born to be that way. The society in the large sense, and family in a smaller sense becomes the key to who that person grows up to become. Not something inherent.
Looking at this way, there is also great hope for a person to rehabilitate BECAUSE it was the way that person was raised had problems. If you consider a person to have become a juvenile delinquent by nature...there is no hope for them to rehabiltate because that's the way they were born. Therefore, it is more humanistic and logical to think that people become who they are because of their upbringing.
QUOTE
*Humans are diverse beings and no one person experiences life the same way. It came as something of a surprise when scientists determined that human beings share almost 99 percent of their genetic material with chimpanzees. This led one scientific journalist to refer to humans as "the third chimpanzee
Yes. I agree there...but I think you're supporting my position again. If almost all of human DNA are the same (with minor but important differences), it means that the diversity of personalities and statures are due to upbringing. For example, Twins are born with practically identical DNA, but they usually grow up to be two distinctively different persons. This is because what they experiece in their lives (though similar enough) are different from each other and those difference of experiences make who they are in the future. There again, people become who they are through up bringing, not nature.
QUOTE
Just because a child is feral doesnt mean that they are less human. the bible pionts out that God is responsible for the process of formation of an embryo in the womb, showing that the design of the human in the womb is according to gods pattern and not by chance or evolution.
If I may ask you: I think we better not pull the Bible into this discussion. I'm Christian myself, so I have nothing against it. However, the nature of the biblical reference, I belive, cannot be used as a proof for your argument. This is because the Bible (and any other mythology for that matter) is a metaphorical text which only gives the true meaning to the reader through interpretation.
For example, you may believe that "God is responsible for the process of formation of an embryo in the womb," but does that prove anything? However Chrisitan I may be, I can never prove the existence of God. Only thing I can do is believe and have faith. In other words, what you believe cannot be the core or the proof of your argument. If I wanted to, I can believe that alien aircrafts flew to my parent's bed the night I was conceived and somehow I got half alien DNA...and insist that it is correct without any proof. And only thing anyone can say there is..."crap."
Also, about feral children. Yes. they are physically human beings...no doubt about that. But, however they may look like human beings, internally (psychologically) they are animals, and even after intense teaching by specialists, they are not able to function as most human beings are able to.
In addition, if what they grew up to become was like an animal, it's because they were brought up that way. So, the point is not the question of whether they were "human" but rather the question if the result of who they are were dependent on their upbringing or not...and I say that it was their up bringing that impaired them to grow up like any other child in the world. If people become "human" naturally, those kids must have developed the same skills as other childs. But they didn't and that's the proof of my position.
QUOTE
job 31:15 compare job 10:8ps 139:13-16 isiah 45:9Womb is employed at times with refference to the source of something. in speaking about creative works involving the earth ,God speaks of the sea as bursting forth from the womb.
job 38:8 pslms110:1-3
Job 31:15...Job is trying to say that all men are equal because all men are created by God.
Job 10:8.....He's saying that he's God's creation too...so don't punish me!!
Isiah 45:9...Saying, not to speak back to God because he's the one who created you.
Ok...even if God was the creator and we can prove that...but how can you say that people grow up to be who they are by nature? Those quotes only tell you that the biblical character who was speaking believe in creationism and only that.
QUOTE
If relious belief is going to be debated might i suggest evolution as its only other opposition as to life . meaning we evolved from apes and could survive likewise . example there are Natural laws of science. etc.
I hope you don't start pulling religious beliefs in again though...but yes. Evolution does talk a lot about how people develop into people physically, so yeah. We can discuss that in the up coming posts
It actualy would make your argument stronger...you need to talk about science...not relgion for that matter. About Jacques Lacan and how language and psyche is related.
Saussure's lecture on general linguistics
abercrombi argument in RED
Koriel Said: The development of human being depends greatly on the enviroment and the situation the child is raised in. Though there are elements directly linked to the biological constructs, such as the existence of DNA which builds the child's body into the human form, it is not the physical aspects of the people that make them human. It is rather the psychological, linguistic, social, and emotional development that makes human human and not animal.
Point 1= You said it it depends greatly on the enviroment and situation ,elements exhistance of DNA . But the child is not what builds it into humun it is the genetic code of DNA and its hereditary developement that is already depecting this life as human and not cat ,dog, etc. comptons enclycopedia interactive thearsus
Koriel said: The earliest development of a child begins with the recognition of the outer world. Usually, the mother becomes the object of observation. From there, the recognition of the self develops by understanding that the "other" is separated and different from what you are. At this level, the child would also observe themselves (such as their hand), understanding that the extended part of their body is a part of him/herself. As their body develops, their fingers become more comptent to move and hold things and the hominization process are enhanced through the child playing with objects around themselves with their hands.
Point=2development starts at conception and DNA genetic code same as refference in point 1.
Koriel said The physical development as indicated above is a mere starting point of the development of a child into a human being. At this stage, the child's development is only in the level of animals. The process that follows these physical development are what makes a child develop into human and one prominent development is the ability to understand and use language as a mean of communication. Though the human brain has the capacity for languages, it is only through the interaction with those around the child that makes him/her acquire language. In this sense, though Language acquisition is made available by nature, the development of it is only possible through nurture.
POINT 3 ARGUMENT = the stage of the child's development is depected in the DNA thus making the life human not the animal stage you indicate therefore disprooving your statement.
Koriel Said: The emotional and psycholoical developments are also enhanced through the interaction between the child and the people around them. Just as Lacan elucidates, the psychological development of the child has greatly to do with their development in the language because people's unconscious is structured like language. In other words, it is not possible for a child to develop their unconsciousness properly without the existence of language.
Hitler sure knew how to snatch an infant child and make a detructive soilder out of him or he tried ,.....ferel children communicate with there animal peers in means of survival . this does not mean they are not human and the development and shape that exhibits these children of such can adapt to a human life style well with time but they also connect with their past as who they are.
Koriel Said: In the 13th century, King Frederick (Germany) did an experiement to see how a child would develop without being exposed to language. He would have a foster mother take care of an infant without speaking a word to them. He theorized that the child would either develop the ability to speak Hebrew (the language which he thought was the original language of the people) or to speak the parents' language. The result was disastrous because all the children that he used in the experiment died. In the 16th century, the Mogul emperor Akbar also did an experiment with infants to see if they would develop a "natural" religious faith without being in contact with people. The results were equally disastrous with children growing up to be quasi-deaf and mute for life. (McClearn 3-4)
POINT 4 ARGUMENT= a human experimenting with another human prooves the point of what realy makes one a human from the real animal so nature seems to keep in tact the human need to survive not to be experimented on by its own kind- that would be in humaneAs for the rest of the introduction Koriel- it seem that DNA prooves my points stated and reprooved as fact that development starts there and makes us human from the point of conception= Websters ebclopedia of dictionaries and copmtons interactive encyclopedia refferenes of factual information gathered
Koriel Said: The existence of children who were brought up in the wild without absolutely any exposure to human life or languages presents another example of how a human being needs to be nurtured properly to acquire human qualities. The child of Aveyron (later named Victor), found in the French forest in 1797 had no ability to speak or understand human language and his habits and reactions to things proved that he grew up in the wild, being nurtured by wild animals. After some intense training by Dr. Itard, he was able to learn a few words and recognize objects. However, it was impossible for him to do higher thinking, expressing himself and having emotion.
No one said nutured properly in this debate if I recall Koriel.
Edit by Lottie, Please don't use capital letters to reply it comes across as shouting.
Koriel Said: If human beings do actually grow to be a human being naturally, the cases of feral children should have been something that would show that people DO develop naturally into human beings. However, their existence and the various examples of children who are impared by not being raised and nurtured properly shows explicitly that human beings develop through proper care and nurture.
POINT 5 ARGUMENT= AGAIN AN ANIMAL CAN AND HAS NUTURED A HUMAN AS HUMAN NUTURES ANIMAL =RARE BUT TRUE NATURE SEEM TO BE THE METHOD OF DEVELOPMENT AND SHAPE OF THE HUMAN BEING STARTING AGAIN WITH THE CONCEPTION, TIME OF AND DNA.
sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron
*McClearn, Gerald E. Nature, Nurture and Psychology.?Washington DC:
American Psychological Association, 1993.
Edit by Lottie, I have changed the format for you so its easier to read.
Koriel Said: The development of human being depends greatly on the enviroment and the situation the child is raised in. Though there are elements directly linked to the biological constructs, such as the existence of DNA which builds the child's body into the human form, it is not the physical aspects of the people that make them human. It is rather the psychological, linguistic, social, and emotional development that makes human human and not animal.
Point 1= You said it it depends greatly on the enviroment and situation ,elements exhistance of DNA . But the child is not what builds it into humun it is the genetic code of DNA and its hereditary developement that is already depecting this life as human and not cat ,dog, etc. comptons enclycopedia interactive thearsus
Koriel said: The earliest development of a child begins with the recognition of the outer world. Usually, the mother becomes the object of observation. From there, the recognition of the self develops by understanding that the "other" is separated and different from what you are. At this level, the child would also observe themselves (such as their hand), understanding that the extended part of their body is a part of him/herself. As their body develops, their fingers become more comptent to move and hold things and the hominization process are enhanced through the child playing with objects around themselves with their hands.
Point=2development starts at conception and DNA genetic code same as refference in point 1.
Koriel said The physical development as indicated above is a mere starting point of the development of a child into a human being. At this stage, the child's development is only in the level of animals. The process that follows these physical development are what makes a child develop into human and one prominent development is the ability to understand and use language as a mean of communication. Though the human brain has the capacity for languages, it is only through the interaction with those around the child that makes him/her acquire language. In this sense, though Language acquisition is made available by nature, the development of it is only possible through nurture.
POINT 3 ARGUMENT = the stage of the child's development is depected in the DNA thus making the life human not the animal stage you indicate therefore disprooving your statement.
Koriel Said: The emotional and psycholoical developments are also enhanced through the interaction between the child and the people around them. Just as Lacan elucidates, the psychological development of the child has greatly to do with their development in the language because people's unconscious is structured like language. In other words, it is not possible for a child to develop their unconsciousness properly without the existence of language.
Hitler sure knew how to snatch an infant child and make a detructive soilder out of him or he tried ,.....ferel children communicate with there animal peers in means of survival . this does not mean they are not human and the development and shape that exhibits these children of such can adapt to a human life style well with time but they also connect with their past as who they are.
Koriel Said: In the 13th century, King Frederick (Germany) did an experiement to see how a child would develop without being exposed to language. He would have a foster mother take care of an infant without speaking a word to them. He theorized that the child would either develop the ability to speak Hebrew (the language which he thought was the original language of the people) or to speak the parents' language. The result was disastrous because all the children that he used in the experiment died. In the 16th century, the Mogul emperor Akbar also did an experiment with infants to see if they would develop a "natural" religious faith without being in contact with people. The results were equally disastrous with children growing up to be quasi-deaf and mute for life. (McClearn 3-4)
POINT 4 ARGUMENT= a human experimenting with another human prooves the point of what realy makes one a human from the real animal so nature seems to keep in tact the human need to survive not to be experimented on by its own kind- that would be in humaneAs for the rest of the introduction Koriel- it seem that DNA prooves my points stated and reprooved as fact that development starts there and makes us human from the point of conception= Websters ebclopedia of dictionaries and copmtons interactive encyclopedia refferenes of factual information gathered
Koriel Said: The existence of children who were brought up in the wild without absolutely any exposure to human life or languages presents another example of how a human being needs to be nurtured properly to acquire human qualities. The child of Aveyron (later named Victor), found in the French forest in 1797 had no ability to speak or understand human language and his habits and reactions to things proved that he grew up in the wild, being nurtured by wild animals. After some intense training by Dr. Itard, he was able to learn a few words and recognize objects. However, it was impossible for him to do higher thinking, expressing himself and having emotion.
No one said nutured properly in this debate if I recall Koriel.
Edit by Lottie, Please don't use capital letters to reply it comes across as shouting.
Koriel Said: If human beings do actually grow to be a human being naturally, the cases of feral children should have been something that would show that people DO develop naturally into human beings. However, their existence and the various examples of children who are impared by not being raised and nurtured properly shows explicitly that human beings develop through proper care and nurture.
POINT 5 ARGUMENT= AGAIN AN ANIMAL CAN AND HAS NUTURED A HUMAN AS HUMAN NUTURES ANIMAL =RARE BUT TRUE NATURE SEEM TO BE THE METHOD OF DEVELOPMENT AND SHAPE OF THE HUMAN BEING STARTING AGAIN WITH THE CONCEPTION, TIME OF AND DNA.
sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron
*McClearn, Gerald E. Nature, Nurture and Psychology.?Washington DC:
American Psychological Association, 1993.
Edit by Lottie, I have changed the format for you so its easier to read.
Koriel, you're reply please!
Bodily post 3
The development of human being depends greatly on the enviroment and the situation the child is raised in. Though there are elements directly linked to the biological constructs, such as the existence of DNA which builds the child's body into the human form, it is not the physical aspects of the people that make them human. It is rather the psychological, linguistic, social, and emotional development that makes human human and not animal.
Point 1= You said it it depends greatly on the enviroment and situation ,elements exhistance of DNA . But the child is not what builds it into humun it is the genetic code of DNA and its hereditary developement that is already depecting this life as human and not cat ,dog, etc. comptons enclycopedia interactive thearsus
Genetically we are nothing but apes. It's only between 1 - 5.4 margin that seperates human DNA from that of a chimanzee. Chimpanzees and ourselves had shared a common ancestor six millions years ago, according to your claim our lives should be resembling our sister species's life. DNA is not what makes us human - biologically and according to DNA we are inherently animals but as I have previously explained the psychological, linguistic, social and emotional develepment that differentiates us in the way that is characteristic of humans. There is no genetic code for shedding tears and laugh, compassion and so on via genetical code, yet complex emotions are what makes us different to animals and they are not inherited via DNA.
The earliest development of a child begins with the recognition of the outer world. Usually, the mother becomes the object of observation. From there, the recognition of the self develops by understanding that the "other" is separated and different from what you are. At this level, the child would also observe themselves (such as their hand), understanding that the extended part of their body is a part of him/herself. As their body develops, their fingers become more comptent to move and hold things and the hominization process are enhanced through the child playing with objects around themselves with their hands.
Point=2development starts at conception and DNA genetic code same as refference in point 1.
Physical development is not the same as psychological, social and linguistic, please read my other posts.
The physical development as indicated above is a mere starting point of the development of a child into a human being. At this stage, the child's development is only in the level of animals. The process that follows these physical development are what makes a child develop into human and one prominent development is the ability to understand and use language as a mean of communication. Though the human brain has the capacity for languages, it is only through the interaction with those around the child that makes him/her acquire language. In this sense, though Language acquisition is made available by nature, the development of it is only possible through nurture.
POINT 3 ARGUMENT = the stage of the child's development is depected in the DNA thus making the life human not the animal stage you indicate therefore disprooving your statement.
you have actually posted a source that disapproves your own claims
Despite the fact that he could hear, Victor was taken to the National Institute of the Deaf for the purpose of study. Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard, a young medical student, took on the remarkable case as his own. He wanted to be the first person to fully civilize a wild child and attempted, primarily, to teach Victor to speak. Though initially successful ・Victor showed significant progress, at least, in understanding language and reading simple words ・he eventually slowed down to the point that Itard abandoned the experiment. The only words that Victor ever actually learned to speak were lait (milk) and Oh Dieu (oh God). Modern scholars now believe, partly by studying such feral children, that language acquisition must take place in a critical period of early childhood if it is to be successful.
genetic code was impact, yet he could not learn ・not because of defective DNA but because of the lack of human contact and the void in his development. Left in nature without social contact with humans, the feral children behave as animals when left to nothing but their DNA heritage. What makes us humans, is nurture by humans.
The emotional and psycholoical developments are also enhanced through the interaction between the child and the people around them. Just as Lacan elucidates, the psychological development of the child has greatly to do with their development in the language because people's unconscious is structured like language. In other words, it is not possible for a child to develop their unconsciousness properly without the existence of language.
Hitler sure knew how to snatch an infant child and make a detructive soilder out of him or he tried ,.....ferel children communicate with there animal peers in means of survival . this does not mean they are not human and the development and shape that exhibits these children of such can adapt to a human life style well with time but they also connect with their past as who they are.
Hitler didn't snatch children for creating of an army, but of their Aryan predisposition to create a "Perfect" race. If he were to create the army, yet again you're pointing the fact that they'd have to be nurtured to become destructive, we do not possess "Destructive" tendencies via genetical code.
Feral children communicate with animal peers but are unable to communicate with humans・et again you support my claim and not your own・ If feral children are only able to communicate with animals that obviously indicates that what makes a human a human is the nurture of other humans, not DNA. Victor and other feral children had never acquired language properly, neither had he adapted to life with humanity, rather they were on margins of it. The full adaptation is not supported by the history of feral children.
In the 13th century, King Frederick (Germany) did an experiement to see how a child would develop without being exposed to language. He would have a foster mother take care of an infant without speaking a word to them. He theorized that the child would either develop the ability to speak Hebrew (the language which he thought was the original language of the people) or to speak the parents' language. The result was disastrous because all the children that he used in the experiment died. In the 16th century, the Mogul emperor Akbar also did an experiment with infants to see if they would develop a "natural" religious faith without being in contact with people. The results were equally disastrous with children growing up to be quasi-deaf and mute for life. (McClearn 3-4)
POINT 4 ARGUMENT= a human experimenting with another human prooves the point of what realy makes one a human from the real animal so nature seems to keep in tact the human need to survive not to be experimented on by its own kind- that would be in humaneAs for the rest of the introduction Koriel- it seem that DNA prooves my points stated and reprooved as fact that development starts there and makes us human from the point of conception= Websters ebclopedia of dictionaries and copmtons interactive encyclopedia refferenes of factual information gathered
This doesn稚 make any logical sense whatsoever. Protection against human experimentation is not proven to be inherent in DNA. Many humans take part in medical trials everyday, many of these trials means that human lives can be saved. Not all medical trials are beneficial for the individual but it痴 not his/hers genetic codes that determine him/her to differentiate and be able to comply or refuse, those come down to acquired social skills.
The existence of children who were brought up in the wild without absolutely any exposure to human life or languages presents another example of how a human being needs to be nurtured properly to acquire human qualities. The child of Aveyron (later named Victor), found in the French forest in 1797 had no ability to speak or understand human language and his habits and reactions to things proved that he grew up in the wild, being nurtured by wild animals. After some intense training by Dr. Itard, he was able to learn a few words and recognize objects. However, it was impossible for him to do higher thinking, expressing himself and having emotion.
No one said nutured properly in this debate if I recall Koriel.
whether nurtured correctly or incorrectly, our psychological, social and linguistic and behavioural characteristic are not determined by DNA from 100% as you claim but to the social conditions that surrounds us - nurture of our human society.
If human beings do actually grow to be a human being naturally, the cases of feral children should have been something that would show that people DO develop naturally into human beings. However, their existence and the various examples of children who are impared by not being raised and nurtured properly shows explicitly that human beings develop through proper care and nurture.
POINT 5 ARGUMENT= AGAIN AN ANIMAL CAN AND HAS NUTURED A HUMAN AS HUMAN NUTURES ANIMAL =RARE BUT TRUE NATURE SEEM TO BE THE METHOD OF DEVELOPMENT AND SHAPE OF THE HUMAN BEING STARTING AGAIN WITH THE CONCEPTION, TIME OF AND DNA.
All the sources on feral children, including the one you posted had disproved your claims. Animal cannot raise a human as human because the animal simply does not have social and psychological structures of humans. The behaviour of the feral children stands against this, and I would recomend you find a different way to support your argument.
Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron
QUOTE
QUOTE
The development of human being depends greatly on the enviroment and the situation the child is raised in. Though there are elements directly linked to the biological constructs, such as the existence of DNA which builds the child's body into the human form, it is not the physical aspects of the people that make them human. It is rather the psychological, linguistic, social, and emotional development that makes human human and not animal.
Point 1= You said it it depends greatly on the enviroment and situation ,elements exhistance of DNA . But the child is not what builds it into humun it is the genetic code of DNA and its hereditary developement that is already depecting this life as human and not cat ,dog, etc. comptons enclycopedia interactive thearsus
Genetically we are nothing but apes. It's only between 1 - 5.4 margin that seperates human DNA from that of a chimanzee. Chimpanzees and ourselves had shared a common ancestor six millions years ago, according to your claim our lives should be resembling our sister species's life. DNA is not what makes us human - biologically and according to DNA we are inherently animals but as I have previously explained the psychological, linguistic, social and emotional develepment that differentiates us in the way that is characteristic of humans. There is no genetic code for shedding tears and laugh, compassion and so on via genetical code, yet complex emotions are what makes us different to animals and they are not inherited via DNA.
QUOTE
QUOTE
The earliest development of a child begins with the recognition of the outer world. Usually, the mother becomes the object of observation. From there, the recognition of the self develops by understanding that the "other" is separated and different from what you are. At this level, the child would also observe themselves (such as their hand), understanding that the extended part of their body is a part of him/herself. As their body develops, their fingers become more comptent to move and hold things and the hominization process are enhanced through the child playing with objects around themselves with their hands.
Point=2development starts at conception and DNA genetic code same as refference in point 1.
Physical development is not the same as psychological, social and linguistic, please read my other posts.
QUOTE
QUOTE
The physical development as indicated above is a mere starting point of the development of a child into a human being. At this stage, the child's development is only in the level of animals. The process that follows these physical development are what makes a child develop into human and one prominent development is the ability to understand and use language as a mean of communication. Though the human brain has the capacity for languages, it is only through the interaction with those around the child that makes him/her acquire language. In this sense, though Language acquisition is made available by nature, the development of it is only possible through nurture.
POINT 3 ARGUMENT = the stage of the child's development is depected in the DNA thus making the life human not the animal stage you indicate therefore disprooving your statement.
you have actually posted a source that disapproves your own claims
QUOTE
Despite the fact that he could hear, Victor was taken to the National Institute of the Deaf for the purpose of study. Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard, a young medical student, took on the remarkable case as his own. He wanted to be the first person to fully civilize a wild child and attempted, primarily, to teach Victor to speak. Though initially successful ・Victor showed significant progress, at least, in understanding language and reading simple words ・he eventually slowed down to the point that Itard abandoned the experiment. The only words that Victor ever actually learned to speak were lait (milk) and Oh Dieu (oh God). Modern scholars now believe, partly by studying such feral children, that language acquisition must take place in a critical period of early childhood if it is to be successful.
genetic code was impact, yet he could not learn ・not because of defective DNA but because of the lack of human contact and the void in his development. Left in nature without social contact with humans, the feral children behave as animals when left to nothing but their DNA heritage. What makes us humans, is nurture by humans.
QUOTE
QUOTE
The emotional and psycholoical developments are also enhanced through the interaction between the child and the people around them. Just as Lacan elucidates, the psychological development of the child has greatly to do with their development in the language because people's unconscious is structured like language. In other words, it is not possible for a child to develop their unconsciousness properly without the existence of language.
Hitler sure knew how to snatch an infant child and make a detructive soilder out of him or he tried ,.....ferel children communicate with there animal peers in means of survival . this does not mean they are not human and the development and shape that exhibits these children of such can adapt to a human life style well with time but they also connect with their past as who they are.
Hitler didn't snatch children for creating of an army, but of their Aryan predisposition to create a "Perfect" race. If he were to create the army, yet again you're pointing the fact that they'd have to be nurtured to become destructive, we do not possess "Destructive" tendencies via genetical code.
Feral children communicate with animal peers but are unable to communicate with humans・et again you support my claim and not your own・ If feral children are only able to communicate with animals that obviously indicates that what makes a human a human is the nurture of other humans, not DNA. Victor and other feral children had never acquired language properly, neither had he adapted to life with humanity, rather they were on margins of it. The full adaptation is not supported by the history of feral children.
QUOTE
QUOTE
In the 13th century, King Frederick (Germany) did an experiement to see how a child would develop without being exposed to language. He would have a foster mother take care of an infant without speaking a word to them. He theorized that the child would either develop the ability to speak Hebrew (the language which he thought was the original language of the people) or to speak the parents' language. The result was disastrous because all the children that he used in the experiment died. In the 16th century, the Mogul emperor Akbar also did an experiment with infants to see if they would develop a "natural" religious faith without being in contact with people. The results were equally disastrous with children growing up to be quasi-deaf and mute for life. (McClearn 3-4)
POINT 4 ARGUMENT= a human experimenting with another human prooves the point of what realy makes one a human from the real animal so nature seems to keep in tact the human need to survive not to be experimented on by its own kind- that would be in humaneAs for the rest of the introduction Koriel- it seem that DNA prooves my points stated and reprooved as fact that development starts there and makes us human from the point of conception= Websters ebclopedia of dictionaries and copmtons interactive encyclopedia refferenes of factual information gathered
This doesn稚 make any logical sense whatsoever. Protection against human experimentation is not proven to be inherent in DNA. Many humans take part in medical trials everyday, many of these trials means that human lives can be saved. Not all medical trials are beneficial for the individual but it痴 not his/hers genetic codes that determine him/her to differentiate and be able to comply or refuse, those come down to acquired social skills.
QUOTE
QUOTE
The existence of children who were brought up in the wild without absolutely any exposure to human life or languages presents another example of how a human being needs to be nurtured properly to acquire human qualities. The child of Aveyron (later named Victor), found in the French forest in 1797 had no ability to speak or understand human language and his habits and reactions to things proved that he grew up in the wild, being nurtured by wild animals. After some intense training by Dr. Itard, he was able to learn a few words and recognize objects. However, it was impossible for him to do higher thinking, expressing himself and having emotion.
No one said nutured properly in this debate if I recall Koriel.
whether nurtured correctly or incorrectly, our psychological, social and linguistic and behavioural characteristic are not determined by DNA from 100% as you claim but to the social conditions that surrounds us - nurture of our human society.
QUOTE
QUOTE
If human beings do actually grow to be a human being naturally, the cases of feral children should have been something that would show that people DO develop naturally into human beings. However, their existence and the various examples of children who are impared by not being raised and nurtured properly shows explicitly that human beings develop through proper care and nurture.
POINT 5 ARGUMENT= AGAIN AN ANIMAL CAN AND HAS NUTURED A HUMAN AS HUMAN NUTURES ANIMAL =RARE BUT TRUE NATURE SEEM TO BE THE METHOD OF DEVELOPMENT AND SHAPE OF THE HUMAN BEING STARTING AGAIN WITH THE CONCEPTION, TIME OF AND DNA.
All the sources on feral children, including the one you posted had disproved your claims. Animal cannot raise a human as human because the animal simply does not have social and psychological structures of humans. The behaviour of the feral children stands against this, and I would recomend you find a different way to support your argument.
Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron
abecrombi has been given an extension and will post her reply within another day or two.
BODILY POST 3-
by abecromie
Refference Material based on fact is footnoted at the bottom of this post in green with a astrick* beforeit in resource documentated.
Im finding that through out this debate there need be some things to bring to the attention of all reading and judging or organizing for the sole purpose of fairness. Koriel agrees with point 1 and point 2 of my prior postings . that is one thing that agreement was first stated then developments there after. contradicting to the nurture theory
.
also in point 3 ,koriel expressd love was too much of a tricky word she thought it not to be fair to use do to its various meanings. i believe that words should not be a restriction here in the debate.
feril children are not the topic it is a example of means to survive under neglectful or abusive enviroments and that is the security that child makes in choice of choosing to bond with the animal .depending on shelter with warmth and other living things that can recognize and protect the young the importance of benefiting from one another was choosing to do so thus man is given free will to journey venture out decide for the curious and will know where and how to befriend a animakl if life will permit the two to meet up. it is simply a survival instinct and not a threat but a benefit in selective discerment before making the choice
AGAIN lets go over basics here with human as man or mankind , then develop-ment
,defining those as human and each one indivuals within our race , alike but distinctivly different through the dna genetic code that does make up the brains abilities of vunerablity to deffect deficits disease deformaty sex eye color who is the dominate gene from both parents left or right handedness natural gifts and abilities from birth all developing the human being as life persists into shaping that person and as a human race we face a unkown death , where we came from and dreaming what does it mean and the inevidable question life has shown every child feril or not that adapting survial wonder and ability is just some of the things that develop and shape us as humans
,definitions of
*DEVELOP:=
1}TO CAUSE TO GROW to unfold gradually 2}TO EVOLOVE by Natural processes3} to expand to ,4}...open out
-*MENT = development - The result of previous cause To assume definite character
*SHAPE= 1} To mold or make into a particular form: to give shape to 2}to figure 3} to devise 4}to assume a form or definite pattern : form figure appearance outline
thus reproving my points of god forming man from the dust of the ground and breathed his spirit through the nostrils and man became a living soul. genesis ch 1
and prooving yet that development is in human stages of physical as one in the same as humans form appearence in both definitions
*NATURE = The essential character of something 2} the overall pattern or system of NATURAL OBJECTS, EXISTANCES, FORCES, EVENTS, ETC. also the principal of power that appears to guide it: LAWS OF NATURE 3}The entire material universeand its phenominon.4} the basic character or disposition of a person or animal 5}sometimes a force, drive, or tendancy that influences or determines the behavior or condition of a person or a thing 6}instinct
*CHARACTER=1} The combination of qualities or traits that distinguishes , attributes characteristics properaly 2} any distinguished attribute 3}MORAL FORCE :INTEGRATY4}a good reputation 5}ANY STRUCTURAL OR FUNCTIONAL TRAIT IN A PLANT OR ANIMAL RESULTING FROM THE INTERACTING OF GENES AND REGUARDED AS HEREDITARY IN ORGIN
*HERE IS A RIDDLE OF THE SPHINX from the Greek Illistration of OEDIPUS
"in the morning , it moves on four feet
at noon on two, and in the evening on three?
Of all the creatures living , it is the only one that changes the number of its feet, yet just when it walks on the most feet , its speed and strength are at their lowest ebb"
THE ANSWER : Man
Man crawls as a baby, walks upright as an adult ,and uses a cane in old age
footnotes
*Funk and Wagnalls desk dictionary vol.1
*Exploring the mind of man Sigmund Freud and the age of psychology by Lucy Freeman
*A grossett library edition
by abecromie
Refference Material based on fact is footnoted at the bottom of this post in green with a astrick* beforeit in resource documentated.
Im finding that through out this debate there need be some things to bring to the attention of all reading and judging or organizing for the sole purpose of fairness. Koriel agrees with point 1 and point 2 of my prior postings . that is one thing that agreement was first stated then developments there after. contradicting to the nurture theory
. also in point 3 ,koriel expressd love was too much of a tricky word she thought it not to be fair to use do to its various meanings. i believe that words should not be a restriction here in the debate.
feril children are not the topic it is a example of means to survive under neglectful or abusive enviroments and that is the security that child makes in choice of choosing to bond with the animal .depending on shelter with warmth and other living things that can recognize and protect the young the importance of benefiting from one another was choosing to do so thus man is given free will to journey venture out decide for the curious and will know where and how to befriend a animakl if life will permit the two to meet up. it is simply a survival instinct and not a threat but a benefit in selective discerment before making the choice
AGAIN lets go over basics here with human as man or mankind , then develop-ment
,defining those as human and each one indivuals within our race , alike but distinctivly different through the dna genetic code that does make up the brains abilities of vunerablity to deffect deficits disease deformaty sex eye color who is the dominate gene from both parents left or right handedness natural gifts and abilities from birth all developing the human being as life persists into shaping that person and as a human race we face a unkown death , where we came from and dreaming what does it mean and the inevidable question life has shown every child feril or not that adapting survial wonder and ability is just some of the things that develop and shape us as humans
,definitions of
*DEVELOP:=
1}TO CAUSE TO GROW to unfold gradually 2}TO EVOLOVE by Natural processes3} to expand to ,4}...open out
-*MENT = development - The result of previous cause To assume definite character
*SHAPE= 1} To mold or make into a particular form: to give shape to 2}to figure 3} to devise 4}to assume a form or definite pattern : form figure appearance outline
thus reproving my points of god forming man from the dust of the ground and breathed his spirit through the nostrils and man became a living soul. genesis ch 1
and prooving yet that development is in human stages of physical as one in the same as humans form appearence in both definitions
*NATURE = The essential character of something 2} the overall pattern or system of NATURAL OBJECTS, EXISTANCES, FORCES, EVENTS, ETC. also the principal of power that appears to guide it: LAWS OF NATURE 3}The entire material universeand its phenominon.4} the basic character or disposition of a person or animal 5}sometimes a force, drive, or tendancy that influences or determines the behavior or condition of a person or a thing 6}instinct
*CHARACTER=1} The combination of qualities or traits that distinguishes , attributes characteristics properaly 2} any distinguished attribute 3}MORAL FORCE :INTEGRATY4}a good reputation 5}ANY STRUCTURAL OR FUNCTIONAL TRAIT IN A PLANT OR ANIMAL RESULTING FROM THE INTERACTING OF GENES AND REGUARDED AS HEREDITARY IN ORGIN
*HERE IS A RIDDLE OF THE SPHINX from the Greek Illistration of OEDIPUS
"in the morning , it moves on four feet
at noon on two, and in the evening on three?
Of all the creatures living , it is the only one that changes the number of its feet, yet just when it walks on the most feet , its speed and strength are at their lowest ebb"
THE ANSWER : Man
Man crawls as a baby, walks upright as an adult ,and uses a cane in old age
footnotes
*Funk and Wagnalls desk dictionary vol.1
*Exploring the mind of man Sigmund Freud and the age of psychology by Lucy Freeman
*A grossett library edition
Abecrombie a quick note: Copying material from another site or source is only allowed in moderation; i.e you cannot make up an argument entirely out of quoted material.
Koriel we are waiting for a reply. Thanks.
Unfortunately Koriel has had to pull out of this debate due to other commitments.
abercrombie you win by default.
abercrombie you win by default.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.