Human-ness: nature or nurture?

[timeandeternity]

I recently read Dr. Suzuki’s book, “Nurtured by Love.” In it, he talks about an experiment in which two children were allowed to be raised in the wild by wolves, with the apparent effect being that they ended up acting and behaving like wolves. This just made me wonder about the “nature vs. nurture” issue; how much of our human-ness is innate? And what does this say about the nature of our souls? If we do have immortal souls and are on a completely different level than animals, how could something like this happen? I am sure that this is a complex issue that I am just not able to comprehend right now, but it’s causing some doubts for me. If anyone has done some research about this issue and can argue against the results of such an experiment, I would appreciate your insight.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I recently read Dr. Suzuki’s book, “Nurtured by Love.” In it, he talks about an experiment in which two children were allowed to be raised in the wild by wolves, with the apparent effect being that they ended up acting and behaving like wolves. This just made me wonder about the “nature vs. nurture” issue; how much of our human-ness is innate? And what does this say about the nature of our souls? If we do have immortal souls and are on a completely different level than animals, how could something like this happen? I am sure that this is a complex issue that I am just not able to comprehend right now, but it’s causing some doubts for me. If anyone has done some research about this issue and can argue against the results of such an experiment, I would appreciate your insight.

I found myself wondering what kind of beasts would turn children over to the care of wolves in the wild, and what kind of society would tolerate their doing so. If this story is true, then those “experimenters” should be arrested without delay and sentenced to long prison terms, if not for life. Did they not know that even the far-better-equipped wolf cubs mostly don’t survive in the wild? Or, knowing it (as they surely would) were they so heartless that they would do something like that?

Personally, I am a bit disinclined to believe the story itself. Most definitely I would not believe a word coming from the mouth of anyone who would treat a child in the manner described. Not a word.

 

[Shike]

I recently read Dr. Suzuki’s book, “Nurtured by Love.” In it, he talks about an experiment in which two children were allowed to be raised in the wild by wolves, with the apparent effect being that they ended up acting and behaving like wolves. This just made me wonder about the “nature vs. nurture” issue; how much of our human-ness is innate? And what does this say about the nature of our souls? If we do have immortal souls and are on a completely different level than animals, how could something like this happen? I am sure that this is a complex issue that I am just not able to comprehend right now, but it’s causing some doubts for me. If anyone has done some research about this issue and can argue against the results of such an experiment, I would appreciate your insight.

If true, it wouldn’t be the only instance of this happening. They are called feral children and there have been many recorded instances through the last couple hundred years.

You bring up a lot of stuff all at once and in a mush. It’s times like these when we need to sit back and start defining our terms and making distinctions.

That said, here are my thoughts: What does ‘humanness’ mean? Biologically, a human is a human is a human, no matter how small or old or ugly or beautiful. The human, as long as he is alive, will continue to have the defining number of chromosome pairs unique to our species. The human being will never become a dinosaur or a table or a star, it’s just not part of its nature. Philosophically, a human is a rational animal; it means that we have the capacities of growth and appetite just like all of the other animals, but that we also have the unique capacity of intellection. These capacities are a necessary part of a human being’s nature, no matter what; they cannot be lost. It may be that development is hindered and the capacities cannot be expressed as they normally are, but the capacities that are fundamental to human nature are never lost until a human ceases to be a human (which seems to be coextensive with biological humanness).

More to the point. Just because feral children don’t express some of the higher human functions that normal humans would express, it doesn’t make them something other than human (in both the biological and philosophical senses). What it shows, if anything, is that feral children have disabilities that wouldn’t normally be there if they had the chance to correctly develop some of their potentials.

That human beings can behave like animals isn’t all that surprising, considering that we are animals. We aren’t ‘completely different’ even though we do have immortal souls and are different.

Looking at this from a nature vs. nurture perspective, it appears that both are important and therefore not really a ‘versus’ at all. To become a fully developed human being one must be human, it must be one’s nature. For example, it would be nonsense to say that Tod is a fully developed human being because he is a table. Further to become a fully developed human being requires development. For example, it would be nonsense to say that Tod will become a fully developed human being without developing.

But notice how nature is more fundamental than development in that something will develop in a different way depending on what it is (its nature). This means that development is limited by one’s nature. You could say that one’s nature is like the rules of a game while development is trying to win. It doesn’t make sense to say that you have won if there are no rules.

Basically, we need both nature and nurture. And as a side-note (you can tell I am starting to ramble), don’t overlook the fact that our nature includes free-will. Just a reminder so you don’t fall into any deterministic ideologies just because there is indeed a legitimate sense in which we are determined by our nature.

Questions and critiques are always welcome.

ciao,
Michael

 

[GEddie]

While no society would tolerate the “experiment” as described, there have been wild children.

The fact is, our human brain has certain windows of development to enable us to function as human beings (speech, language, etc.) The fact that having missed those windows, the human body does not function in a fully human way, no more disproves the human soul than the human mind’s deficiency of function after severe head injury disproves the soul.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Khalid]

Humanity is nature by definition, as a human is the instantiation - more or less perfect - of the essential Form of “humanity” or “rational animal”.

I say “more or less perfect” because no instance of a Form is perfect - only the Form itself. All instantiated forms have an admixture of potency and act. A person born without arms is still a human being, albeit an imperfectly instantiated one. A person born retarded, or in a persistent vegetative state, no longer has the act of rationality, but still has the potency of rationality, being of the form “rational animal” - it is just the rationality is not actualized in that particular instance of the Form.

All humans, from the moment of conception, are instances of the Form “rational animal” - some instances are more complete than others, and better instantiate the perfection of the formal essence of its nature. A baby may not have the act of rationality; but it has the potency, even if that potency is never actualized.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If true, it wouldn’t be the only instance of this happening. They are called feral children and there have been many recorded instances through the last couple hundred years.

You bring up a lot of stuff all at once and in a mush. It’s times like these when we need to sit back and start defining our terms and making distinctions.

That said, here are my thoughts: What does ‘humanness’ mean? Biologically, a human is a human is a human, no matter how small or old or ugly or beautiful. The human, as long as he is alive, will continue to have the defining number of chromosome pairs unique to our species. The human being will never become a dinosaur or a table or a star, it’s just not part of its nature. Philosophically, a human is a rational animal; it means that we have the capacities of growth and appetite just like all of the other animals, but that we also have the unique capacity of intellection. These capacities are a necessary part of a human being’s nature, no matter what; they cannot be lost. It may be that development is hindered and the capacities cannot be expressed as they normally are, but the capacities that are fundamental to human nature are never lost until a human ceases to be a human (which seems to be coextensive with biological humanness).

More to the point. Just because feral children don’t express some of the higher human functions that normal humans would express, it doesn’t make them something other than human (in both the biological and philosophical senses). What it shows, if anything, is that feral children have disabilities that wouldn’t normally be there if they had the chance to correctly develop some of their potentials.

That human beings can behave like animals isn’t all that surprising, considering that we are animals. We aren’t ‘completely different’ even though we do have immortal souls and are different.

Looking at this from a nature vs. nurture perspective, it appears that both are important and therefore not really a ‘versus’ at all. To become a fully developed human being one must be human, it must be one’s nature. For example, it would be nonsense to say that Tod is a fully developed human being because he is a table. Further to become a fully developed human being requires development. For example, it would be nonsense to say that Tod will become a fully developed human being without developing.

But notice how nature is more fundamental than development in that something will develop in a different way depending on what it is (its nature). This means that development is limited by one’s nature. You could say that one’s nature is like the rules of a game while development is trying to win. It doesn’t make sense to say that you have won if there are no rules.

Basically, we need both nature and nurture. And as a side-note (you can tell I am starting to ramble), don’t overlook the fact that our nature includes free-will. Just a reminder so you don’t fall into any deterministic ideologies just because there is indeed a legitimate sense in which we are determined by our nature.

Questions and critiques are always welcome.

ciao,
Michael

I’m still skeptical about the whole thing. I have read stories about “feral children” raised by wolves or some other animal, but they sound very tinny to me. Some have opined that such “feral children” are actually disabled children (autistic or whatever) who have, because of village rejection, lived on the perhipheries of human habitations, getting a little nourishment here or there, perhaps from refuse as well as wild plants or carrion, but always very seriously impaired. They can’t, for example, talk simply because they can’t talk, not because they were raised by wolves. “Raised by wolves” is thought by some as a convenient excuse for lack of decent human care, if not outright frauds.

When one pictures the utter helplessness and extreme vulnerability of human infants and children, and realizing they would still not be fully grown when their protective wolf “parents” died, the whole thing seems an extreme stretch.

But when it comes to the whole “nature vs nurture” issue, one may reflect on the fact that no one has ever recorded, say, a wolf (or ape) raised by humans that managed to design even the simplest house, let alone write a novel, notwithstanding the strenuous efforts some people have put into “humanizing” animals and getting them to do “humanlike” things.

Simply put, when it comes to animals, we are not them and they are not us. Citing strange and perhaps contrived outliers does not change that.

 

[GEddie]

We are them, in the sense that our marvelous human body is in effect a glorified animal. One adapted to hold a cognitive mind, and the precursors to everlasting life; but an animal nonetheless. Supress the higher functions , either through damage or misdevelopment, and the animality will make an appearance.

But they are not us. No amount of developmental tweaking of any other species will make the creature a human being, as the human nature is not there.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[domandcarols]

 

[tonyrey]

God created us in His image as **social **beings with a capacity for love and friendship. We cannot develop fully in isolation from other persons.

 

[levinas12]

Humanity is nature by definition, as a human is the instantiation - more or less perfect - of the essential Form of “humanity” or “rational animal”.

I say “more or less perfect” because no instance of a Form is perfect - only the Form itself. All instantiated forms have an admixture of potency and act. A person born without arms is still a human being, albeit an imperfectly instantiated one. A person born retarded, or in a persistent vegetative state, no longer has the act of rationality, but still has the potency of rationality, being of the form “rational animal” - it is just the rationality is not actualized in that particular instance of the Form.

All humans, from the moment of conception, are instances of the Form “rational animal” - some instances are more complete than others, and better instantiate the perfection of the formal essence of its nature. A baby may not have the act of rationality; but it has the potency, even if that potency is never actualized.

In this discussion of “nature vs nurture”, we must not forget that the human being, in addition to having a “nature”, is also a “person”. “Person” is not the same as “nature”. This distinction ranks up there as one of the great philosophical distinctions. “Person” is not a “sortal” noun - it does not denote a kind of entity, it is not a “universal” nor a “particular” (if the latter is understood simply as an “instantiation”) - “person” names a “singularity”, a “someone” that Aristotelian philosophy cannot explain with the usual metaphysical terminology (form, matter, essence, etc) …

 

[tonyrey]

In this discussion of “nature vs nurture”, we must not forget that the human being, in addition to having a “nature”, is also a “person”. “Person” is not the same as “nature”. This distinction ranks up there as one of the great philosophical distinctions. “Person” is not a “sortal” noun - it does not denote a kind of entity, it is not a “universal” nor a “particular” (if the latter is understood simply as an “instantiation”) - “person” names a “singularity”, a “someone” that Aristotelian philosophy cannot explain with the usual metaphysical terminology (form, matter, essence, etc) …

It is certainly true that not all persons are human beings. It is possible that not all human beings are persons!

 

[levinas12]

It is certainly true that not all persons are human beings. It is possible that not all human beings are persons!

I’m not sure what you might mean by “not all human beings are persons” …

As you point out, not all persons are human beings, e.g., angels and the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity.

I think “person” (as a singularity) first surfaced in theological discussions of the Trinity. Prior to that, “person” was either “persona”, i.e., a mask or character in dramatic presentations, or, “breath” understood as an impersonal cosmic principle.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not sure what you might mean by “not all human beings are persons” …

I stipulated that it is possible! When human beings are consistently inhuman there is reason to believe they lose their humanity and become depersonalised monsters.

 

[JDaniel]

I’m still skeptical about the whole thing. I have read stories about “feral children” raised by wolves or some other animal, but they sound very tinny to me. Some have opined that such “feral children” are actually disabled children (autistic or whatever) who have, because of village rejection, lived on the peripheries of human habitations, getting a little nourishment here or there, perhaps from refuse as well as wild plants or carrion, but always very seriously impaired. They can’t, for example, talk simply because they can’t talk, not because they were raised by wolves. “Raised by wolves” is thought by some as a convenient excuse for lack of decent human care, if not outright frauds.

When one pictures the utter helplessness and extreme vulnerability of human infants and children, and realizing they would still not be fully grown when their protective wolf “parents” died, the whole thing seems an extreme stretch.

But when it comes to the whole “nature vs nurture” issue, one may reflect on the fact that no one has ever recorded, say, a wolf (or ape) raised by humans that managed to design even the simplest house, let alone write a novel, notwithstanding the strenuous efforts some people have put into “humanizing” animals and getting them to do “humanlike” things.

Simply put, when it comes to animals, we are not them and they are not us. Citing strange and perhaps contrived outliers does not change that.

Ridgerunner:

As an ex-biologist and ex-medical assistant, I must say that I agree with you completely. Wolves, in the wild, are very strong animals capable of injuring a child by accident, and without intent of any kind. For example, young wolves have teeth as sharp as needles! They love to pull and tear at things, twigs, ropes, other puppies. In the process, blood is often drawn.

1-yo to 2-yo wolves are rambunctious teenagers, in every sense of that word! I still have scars from playing with a 1-yo - 2-yo Black Lab. He drew my blood on many occasions.

Wolves have an innate hierarchical system. The squabbles that occur during the times of such establishments of privilege are particularly dangerous - and would be more so especially for a human child! Wolves feel pain but do so very differently from humans. Their pain threshold, as it is called, is considerably higher than any human’s - even adult humans’.

Considering all of the variables and potentials for death, injury and accident to a human, I find stories of feral children, raised by wolves, bears, or large cats, to be complete fabrications.

God bless,
jd

 

[levinas12]

I stipulated that it is possible! When human beings are consistently inhuman there is reason to believe they lose their humanity and become depersonalised monsters.

Is this ontologically possible?

Remember that demons are persons.

 

[GEddie]

I stipulated that it is possible! When human beings are consistently inhuman there is reason to believe they lose their humanity and become depersonalised monsters.

Personhood can be lost, ie, by virtue of being dead – a dead body is not a “person” – but I have never heard that it can be forfeited.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Khalid]

I stipulated that it is possible! When human beings are consistently inhuman there is reason to believe they lose their humanity and become depersonalised monsters.

No. They are still completely human, just less perfectly instantiated. A dead body isn’t a human, it’s a corpse; nor is the soul a human, but it is a person.