Well, it's been decided. Out on my luck and with no work hours in sight as well as a nagging feeling that flowers are TERRIBLY overdone(at least in the wrong way: as a sort of bribery), I shall ask my girlfriend to prom with a rock. Those of you who complain, feel free to take it up in comment, but don't expect me not to defend myself.
In any case, today's real post is about feral children. I find them fascinating. After reading Kipling's "The Jungle Book" I've wondered just what the dynamics of the animal world are. It's unlikely they are as "human" as Kipling portrays, but I don't doubt they are more intricate then we initially think. Which might be due to a sociological imagination that animals are inferior because they can't open Snapple bottles as they have no thumbs? Or the supreme individuality they express? I'd argue we envy the latter, but society says it's wrong in the name of compassion either religious or just ethical. Proving religion and ethics are for the human being to strive for something which is good and bad. The good is that it works. The bad is that it works. People think something is selfish just by looking out for itself first because they have taught themselves on a superficial level that it is(nurture). Meanwhile your nature won't have you running into burning buildings to save babies, so it's a bit of a stretch to argue that's human nature: selfLESSness. Now all this gets to the point when I wonder if feral children are just human NATURE run rampant, released by a truly NATURAL NURTURE rather than human nature not fully met. This is kinda Sal's dog and human starting line bit. I'd argue that humans are unique in that they don't have that starting line at all! That human nature is one of adaptation above all else, not of reasoning or logic, which would support how this children live. So if humans have no starting line, then they can set the bar however high or low the situation demands. If in a pack of wolves where that sense of logic isn't so key and atrophies, the bar is different than in a human environment where reasoning is a requisite. So I shall call this "The Mowgli Thesis", a theory of my own device whereby feral children are proof of the Tabula Rasa, but also that the human nature is inherently adaptive and for this reason is so infinitely impressionable(the nature is there, but in being there it is NOT there). I know that's confusing, but I managed to wrap my head around it so if anyone's curious don't hesitate to ask in a comment. I can try to explain in spoken word too. Mhmm, enjoy the Mowgli Thesis, good night!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
wow. i understand very little of what you said but i think, and correct me if i'm wrong, that you said human nature is shapable into anything it just adapts to the environment it's in?
i get that. i definately believe that humans have a nature that is selfish though. did you say that? lol.
I agree with your Mowgli Thesis - we are amazingly adaptable. However, there is clearly a different limit for each of us. Some people have more capacity for intelligence. Plus, I'd dare to say that some can not be lowered as far as others. That a child raised among apes that in another circumstance could have been a genius would be able to think in a way that would lead to a questioning of his environment...Maybe.
What do you think?
By the way, rocks can be powerful gifts. Like those rocks that supposedly ward of nightmares if placed under your pillow. Or give you good luck. I think its a sweet gesture.
You seem to have grasped enough Katie. And I wouldn't disagree with your genius amongst apes thought Liesl, but then we'd need to talk potential which is a longer post script than the actual Mowgli Thesis itself. Thanks for the approval of the rock, that was kind of my line of thinking too. I figured a rock period was more real than flowers(though there's a time and a place for both).
Post a Comment