"Nature vs. Nurture" is a classic debate within both the biology and psychology fields that deals with the development of the individual--both physically and behaviorally.
On the "nature" side of the argument, physical traits and behavioral elements such as one's personality are strictly defined by genetics. Whether you are an introvert or an extrovert, your height, whether or not you'll be a rebellious teenager...everything about you is set from the time of your conception. The term most often used for this mode of thinking about development is biological determinism, as the fate of your physical and biological attributes are determined solely by your biology.
As for the “nurture” side of the argument, our physical and behavioral traits are determined as a result of our environment and experiences. Genetics have little to no role in our specific development—or can easily be overcome. Height is a product of nutrition, personality is shaped by whether or parents hugged us enough (or, for the Freudians, childhood experiences and fixations), etc. Our physical and behavioral traits are more malleable as they are not so set in stone as the biological determinists believe.
Although now most scholars agree that our physical traits and behavioral attributes are shaped by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, what would Sarte say? Our physical appearance and personality are more or less equal to what Sarte would describe as our “essence.” For when asked to describe a particular individual, what do we describe but physical qualities and personality traits? These are what make you distinctly you.
So with this logic, non-human entities (be they tables or animals) would follow biological determinism. A table’s stability is determined by the quality of materials it is made from and by who made it. Whether a dog is friendly or not depends on its genes. There is no flexibility in an en soi object’s essence, as they are determined prior to their existence. But for humanity, because existence precedes essence, the “nurture” perspective is appropriate. We become who we are as a result of our environment and experiences, and have the freedom to define ourselves.
Does the application of Sarte’s “existence precedes essence” allow for the contemporary mix of the “nature” and “nurture” perspectives? Or does it force us to apply one perspective absolutely to en soi entities and one absolutely to pour soi entities? And if so, does this validate or hinder Sarte’s philosophical theories?
I'm not exactly sure what Sartre would have to say on the matter, but the nature vs. nurture debate is indeed an interesting one. The way I understood the difference between en soi and pour soi was that the things in themselves are bound by facticity while the things for themselves can transecend mere facticity through the power of their freedom. Still, since there are some things, like height or mortality, that can't be transcended even by the pour soi, I think there's room in Sartre's theory for a mix of nature and nurture, with nature applying to these things that can't be transcended and nurture applying to those that can.
ReplyDeleteI feel like Sartre's idea of our existence coming before our essence falls in line with the nature vs nurture debate. I feel like the nature aspect of the debate, as you mentioned, is concerned entirely with facticity, and the nurture is the transcendent part of being. In certain situations, one may outweigh the other and hold more significance, but to make them mutually exclusive and say one is more important than the other or that one is the sole reason for the development of a human would be an example of bad faith
ReplyDeleteI'd like to respond to something you say in the fourth paragraph. I don't think that our physical appearances and personalities are actually "more or less equal" to Sartre's idea of "essence." They are rather, variables of facticity, like with the table. You can change the color, size, etc. of a table and a person, but they will still be tables or people. Essence, rather, is a more purpose-driven idea. Our essence, as Sartre claims, is freedom. We do describe people in terms of those traits, but that's for identification purposes, not to really capture the essence/existence of a person. Even further, those aren't what make us individual, distinct entities...or at least, they do, but only on a superficial, descriptive level. Yes, you and I look different and have different personalities, but we have traits that could be (and are) found in any other combination in another person.
ReplyDeleteGrace,
ReplyDeleteIf it’s just a question of parallelism, I would agree that the “nurture” perspective is more appropriate for humanity, since we are influenced by the environment and our experiences, and have the freedom to define ourselves. I do agree with Matthew that in some particular situations, one may outweigh the other or hold more significance, and thus it would be a far-stretch to say they are mutually exclusive. As to whether it would be an example of bad faith, as Matthew states, I’m not really sure how.