Now!: Learning How to Live through Philosophy (Pt. 2)

There is nothing more exciting than having an ex-student writing to you expressing the wish to discuss what you have written (http://ed-is-a-stranger-on-earth.blogspot.com/2011/01/now-learning-how-to-live-through.html). Below is my rambling response to his rather lengthy mail. If there are any untruths or falsities, I am the one to blame... Have fun reading it! ;-)

Now we are talking!

Since you have taken the time to compose such a long response, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading, I will do it justice by giving you a detailed response.

First off, Gaarder's Sophie's World. This is the Bible of us amateur philosophers. I read it more than ten years ago, and it still remains one of my all-time favoruites. If you feel like reading something equally thought-provoking but a lot less transparent, try Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

The Empedocles argument (earth, fire, water and air being the basic elements of the world) is interesting in that it closely resembles Chinese philosophy. What he says about these elements being representations of the Ideal was taken up by Plato, who turned it into the Theory of Eternal Forms.  It is exactly like what you said: the rose we hold in our hands, made up of earthly elements, will wither and die, but its eternal form, which exists solely in our mind, will remain intact. This line of thinking was rejected by Aristotle, who claims that change (motion) is eternal. If that was not the case, then time would not have always existed. He also says that there is no end to motion: "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion." That is because all material things contain within them the seed of motion. You can say that they have been "programmed" from the start to undergo change (that is why we slide from youth to old age).

What you said about subscribing to only one extreme is true: we should all try to resist that urge. I am of the opinion that true knowledge never comes from just one single source (this is especially true of religion).

The next issue you raised is far more complex - that of nature vs nurture.

If you were to strictly follow what I wrote in my previous blog entry, you could actually claim that once your personality is set, there is very little you can do to alter it. This is of course a very controversial (and probably untrue) thing to claim. "Once a thief, always a thief" cannot be a truism, can it? Or perhaps it can... Let us look at it this way, using your example. If you have always been conditioned to be a decent boy (nurture), and then suddenly change your mind and start acting like a rogue, does that not mean that you have managed to change yourself after all?

Yes and no (sorry, these issues are never clear-cut).

Yes - because any change qualifies as change. You were once a considerate, studious goody two-shoes and now you are a heartless, heartbreaking Casanova. Hooray! You have succeeded in undermining "nurture."

But what about the "nature" part? Do you even know what your true "nature" is? And if you do, how do you distinguish it from "nurture"? I will not even attempt to answer these questions as I am not a certified psychologist...

No - because the change you have brought about is an artificial one. In other words, you have wilfully coerced yourself to change, and that, as we know, is not a natural process. You also mentioned guilt. Guilt is our instinct telling us that we are doing something we should not be doing, and this shows the change you have willed into existence collides with your "nature" (or "nurture"). Of course, you could continue to exist with two opposing personalities inside you (Orson Welles' 1941 movie Citizen Kane makes a good point about this), but how long can you sustain this Jekyll and Hyde charade without going under?

Another complicated issue is of course whether the decent, studious boy is "nature" or "nurture." Is decency encoded in your genes, or are you a tabula rasa (blank slate), to be scribbled on as you mature? Some philosophers believe that goodness is inherent in us (Kant, Rousseau); some are of the opinion that it is learnt (Locke, Freud). There is a whole army that advocates that evil, rather than goodness, is intrinsic (Hobbes, Schopenhauer). So shall we flip a coin for who is right?

I believe, as my instinct seems to tell me, both "nature" and "nurture" play a role in the formation of our personality. We may already possess the seed of goodness in us, but until we have witnessed what goodness is, we will not know how to make it grow. As for how we instinctively recognise goodness, that is a whole other discussion!