We are not a tabula rasa

[Kuznetzova]

We are not a tabula rasa.

We are not floating disembodied tabula rasas who are passively receiving sense perceptions. Anyone whom marries themselves to this axiom; anyone who fixes this presumption as a foundational pillar of their epistemological framework -- anyone who does this is off track, off base, and leading themselves into error.

That is as simple as it gets.

[jackles]

What the hells a tabular rasta.are we talkin rastafari or some fin.

[Kuznetzova]

Tabula rasa, meaning blank slate in Latin, is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Generally, proponents of the tabula rasa thesis favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence. The term in Latin equates to the English "blank slate" (or more accurately, "scraped tablet") (which refers to writing on a slate sheet in chalk) but comes from the Roman tabula or wax tablet, used for notes, which was blanked by heating the wax and then smoothing it to give a tabula rasa.

[jackles]

Yes can see the point.its a bit like niezche the german pholsopher.not a healthy state to be in.un balanced.is that what you mean a complete view is in someways out of balance. emotion balances the clean sheet.love is all.all is love.

[Impenitent]

then there is no freewill... you were made to do as you do...

-Imp

[jackles]

You mean what is written .the individual is part of what is written.the indervidual has only free will on his own meaning in what is already written.

[Hobbes' Choice]

We are not a tabula rasa.

We are not floating disembodied tabula rasas who are passively receiving sense perceptions. Anyone whom marries themselves to this axiom; anyone who fixes this presumption as a foundational pillar of their epistemological framework -- anyone who does this is off track, off base, and leading themselves into error.

That is as simple as it gets.

Whilst I agree, I think that concept has much to recommend it.
When Locke talked about it he was rejecting the idea that man was born into original sin, that blacks and other non-white races were inherently inferior; and he was making a plea that every person could improve and make use of education. That in each of us was the potential to grow, change and progress.
In it historical context the tabula rasa was revolutionary.

This argument is now more about degree. None of us are born with a language. So on that level you can safely say that our existing potential for language, existing as cerebral structure is empty of content.
And whilst each child has a specialised area for recognising and remembering faces; we are not born with any knowledge of a face.

[Hobbes' Choice]

What the hells a tabular rasta.are we talkin rastafari or some fin.

Google it up, man!! Wot iz you dumb init?

[jackles]

Yes well a blank slate is something.jesus parable of the harvest .hes talkin about the blank slate its how nature is.spirt is the harvest the rest is rubbish.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Yes well a blank slate is something.jesus parable of the harvest .hes talkin about the blank slate its how nature is.spirt is the harvest the rest is rubbish.

So what?
As you describe it, it sounds like garbled rubbish.

[jackles]

May be your to lost up your on garbled rubbish to realise common scence.interlectualisation = bull.only love is real brov the rest is bull.

[Hobbes' Choice]

May be your to lost up your on garbled rubbish to realise common scence.interlectualisation = bull.only love is real brov the rest is bull.

May I ask if I have correctly identified the fact that English is not your first language?

If so, may I recommend some grammar?

When you said;" What the hells a tabular rasta.are we talkin rastafari or some fin.", I thought you were having a laugh.
I now suspect that this is how you speak.

[Felasco]

Tabula rasa, meaning blank slate in Latin, is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Generally, proponents of the tabula rasa thesis favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence.

When I was younger I favored the nurture thesis, and generally felt I was chooser of my own fate etc.But after decades of observation and experience I now largely agree with Kuznetzova, and see the nature side as more prominent.

I sense we are much like actors on the stage who have gotten so deeply in to character that we've forgotten we didn't write the script.

It's possible to overdo this of course, and often on forums we see sophomoric proclamations of a pure determinism. I wouldn't go that far, but do feel the range of things we have control over is smaller than we normally assume.

Here's an anecdotal example. I spent 25 years after high school trying to settle on a career. I examined what seemed hundreds of different options. Finally, after much confusion and exhaustive effort I by chance stumbled on to the perfect choice for me, and dove in to it with volcanic enthusiasm!

Wanna know what the perfect career turned out to be for me? The 21st century version of just what my father and grandfather both did for a living.

The temporary career I used to pay the bills while undergoing this ridiculous journey was the same thing my great grandfather did, though I didn't know that at the time.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Tabula rasa, meaning blank slate in Latin, is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Generally, proponents of the tabula rasa thesis favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence.

When I was younger I favored the nurture thesis, and generally felt I was chooser of my own fate etc.But after decades of observation and experience I now largely agree with Kuznetzova, and see the nature side as more prominent.

I sense we are much like actors on the stage who have gotten so deeply in to character that we've forgotten we didn't write the script.

It's possible to overdo this of course, and often on forums we see sophomoric proclamations of a pure determinism. I wouldn't go that far, but do feel the range of things we have control over is smaller than we normally assume.

Here's an anecdotal example. I spent 25 years after high school trying to settle on a career. I examined what seemed hundreds of different options. Finally, after much confusion and exhaustive effort I by chance stumbled on to the perfect choice for me, and dove in to it with volcanic enthusiasm!

Wanna know what the perfect career turned out to be for me? The 21st century version of just what my father and grandfather both did for a living.

The temporary career I used to pay the bills while undergoing this ridiculous journey was the same thing my great grandfather did, though I didn't know that at the time.

Actually this is not a one dimensional argument between tabula rasa (TR) on the one hand and free will on the other. Even if you accept determinism, or free will, the tabula rasa is still an open question, and compatible with either position.

The TR hinges on our state at birth, and the question then becomes to what degree is this tablet written on with our will, or how much is determined by the accident of our birth; where, when, into what class, domicile, nation, culture.
The argument can become circular; as our will is determined by our needs, given by our circumstances and by the cultural, moral and social environment we experience; none of which is ultimately within the remit of our control.

Babies are a blank state to a certain degree; most likely the most "blank" of all species, as others are far more dependant on instinct, and have little ability to learn or any need to do so.

I do not think the son of a blacksmith is best suited to being a blacksmith in his turn. Nor would I recommend this, preferring to fight against in on political grounds. There is no gene for smithing any more than there is a gene for being a slave.
History is increasingly littered with examples of great men coming from humble origins and of children following paths not related to their family business. To think of my own siblings, parents and progeny; whilst I can see some similarities, basically we all all significantly different, and all have characteristics that seem to have no basis in genetics. This is what humans are like, and unlike most other species. It is this very emptiness at birth and minimised instinct that gives us all the potential for improvement and change in our lives, in education; in adaptability; and in being able to conform to an ever changing cultural environment.

It's all a matter of perspective.

[Felasco]

I do not think the son of a blacksmith is best suited to being a blacksmith in his turn.

There isn't a blacksmith gene, but there is a genetically transferred set of natural abilities and disabilities, personality traits, types of intelligence and stupidity and so on that will incline one towards certain life circumstances.

It's not always true the son of a blacksmith should follow in his father's footsteps, but that's not a bad place to start the search. Of course, one might try following in one's mother's footsteps too.