About 55 years ago, in a Philosophy course, we examined Roseau’s “Tabula Rasa” theory that held that everyone is born with no Jung-Ian hard-wiring (like primordial archetypes). The theory being that behavior was learned. Bad boys were not born that way, instead, they learned by observing other Bad boys and new tracks were laid-down on their brain’s “tabula.” The class used the book “Lord of the Flies” to take sides on Roseau’s theory. Of course, we never resolved the issue. I resolved it personally after studying universal archetypes (ascent, descent, journey, water, etc) in Literature, some which the readers observed but the author denied.
I love the correlation between immaculate conception and the blank slate. I am reminded also of the south park episode ‘the goobacks’, about the time travelling immigrants from the future who all look the same, all differences disappearing through centuries of intermixing.
And then the blank canvas from different artistic perspectives, some seeing the canvas as completely determined by their mark making, others may consider the canvas a threshold with latent possibilities anchored by history, material. The former reminds me of old stories where the woman/mother was seen as passive vessel and the life was determined completely by the male ‘seed’.
I think the biofoundationalist canvas is a better one
in some ways it's a kind of adaptive fiction. it's useful at the personal level to believe you can be anything if you try, because hopefully it motivates you to be the best that you can. but taken to the level of national faith, so married to the fiction you create laws and political doctrines around it... corrosive.
In support, one might envision the intellectual monoculture of (Harvard?) to be a place that actively suppresses 'Thought mutations'. This might be comparable to a genetic universe that has no spontaneous mutations. No path or abilty for the system to adapt to environmental reality via 'selection'. No evolution... and a serious danger of extinction.
"Neanderthals aren't around anymore because they lost to the more empathetic brain"?
The self-congratulatory cognitive dissonance on display makes me feel embarrassed for this person and also highly frightened of the self-proclaimed empathetic people he sides with. "Empathy can and will destroy all of your competition"? These people are insane and dangerous.
what's 'insane and dangerous' is thinking having some empathy means you must be consumed by it. yes, it is beneficial for a human collective to have *some* empathy for those in society; a hierarchy benefits when all layers are healthy. it's a matter of degree and how parochial it is.
About 55 years ago, in a Philosophy course, we examined Roseau’s “Tabula Rasa” theory that held that everyone is born with no Jung-Ian hard-wiring (like primordial archetypes). The theory being that behavior was learned. Bad boys were not born that way, instead, they learned by observing other Bad boys and new tracks were laid-down on their brain’s “tabula.” The class used the book “Lord of the Flies” to take sides on Roseau’s theory. Of course, we never resolved the issue. I resolved it personally after studying universal archetypes (ascent, descent, journey, water, etc) in Literature, some which the readers observed but the author denied.
I enjoyed reading that. blank slatism in different shapes over time.
Can you share which Philosopher took Roseau’s “tableau rasa” term and issued the term “blank slatism” ?
Never saw the term before your post. Whole lot of Latin & French terms have crept into the English usage.
I love the correlation between immaculate conception and the blank slate. I am reminded also of the south park episode ‘the goobacks’, about the time travelling immigrants from the future who all look the same, all differences disappearing through centuries of intermixing.
And then the blank canvas from different artistic perspectives, some seeing the canvas as completely determined by their mark making, others may consider the canvas a threshold with latent possibilities anchored by history, material. The former reminds me of old stories where the woman/mother was seen as passive vessel and the life was determined completely by the male ‘seed’.
I think the biofoundationalist canvas is a better one
in some ways it's a kind of adaptive fiction. it's useful at the personal level to believe you can be anything if you try, because hopefully it motivates you to be the best that you can. but taken to the level of national faith, so married to the fiction you create laws and political doctrines around it... corrosive.
and thank you <3
In support, one might envision the intellectual monoculture of (Harvard?) to be a place that actively suppresses 'Thought mutations'. This might be comparable to a genetic universe that has no spontaneous mutations. No path or abilty for the system to adapt to environmental reality via 'selection'. No evolution... and a serious danger of extinction.
"Neanderthals aren't around anymore because they lost to the more empathetic brain"?
The self-congratulatory cognitive dissonance on display makes me feel embarrassed for this person and also highly frightened of the self-proclaimed empathetic people he sides with. "Empathy can and will destroy all of your competition"? These people are insane and dangerous.
what's 'insane and dangerous' is thinking having some empathy means you must be consumed by it. yes, it is beneficial for a human collective to have *some* empathy for those in society; a hierarchy benefits when all layers are healthy. it's a matter of degree and how parochial it is.