Todays discussion was not as stimulating as can be, one of the major reasons being that we cud talk abt it for only 15 mins.
Finally after a long time I had a chance to discuss philosophy today with a bunch of folks. I used to do this quiet often when I was in Roorkee. But in bangalore, there's only friend I have with whom i could hold such a conversation. So am kinda rusty in that dept now.
We had started talking abt whether a person is product of his environment or does his basic nature also have a role to play. And as happens in such discussions, we kept jumping between topics and finally ended up discussing something as vague as the meaning of Instinct! :)
I believe that you cant brand a person to be a product of any one individual thing. Its a mix of a lot of things. Including the environment hes brot up in and his basic nature & values (values can again get hugely influenced by the environment). So what I am saying is that theres tight coupling between the two, and you cant just view it as a disjoint relationship.
Otherwise how else can you explain situations where 2 ppl brought up in very similar environments, react very very differently to different situations.
When I thought abt bloggin on this, I had so many ideas floating in my head... But now nothing coming into my mind. :(
Hope my brain cells r set in motion again seeing someone else's views on this...
posted by Kiran @ 8:59 AM
2 Comments:
hi kiran!!we both sport da same name,ofcourse not da same sex(m/f) though!!im stunned cing ur blog::lots of info/links/pretty cool design,I need to learn a lot from u yaar,I will visit it from time to time for my lessons!!I already del.icou.us ed you rey,so I wont' miss u!!
kiran k
Thank you for your comment on my profile. You are right, there are many things that tie in to what I said.
But about this blog...I saw a documentary on a controversial theory of how an individuals environment and surroundings directly affected how they have advanced from ancient times and up through current day.
It explored many countries throughout the world that were very advanced and some that still have cultural and social ties that they had thousands of years ago that have never changed.
It was controversial because the proposal was that because of what the peoples land and surroundings had to offer in the way of agriculture directly affected how they advanced. For example: an environment that due to climate, geography and the ability to harvest neccesary foods as well the availability of material to be used for tools to help with social or economic advancement could prevent an entire region of peoples from being any different from their ancestors thousands of years before them.
Many scientists, archaeologists, and sociologists argued that this cannot be true if there are other cultures throughout the world that have thrived and flourished and advanced under similar circumstances.
Myself...I feel that the first theory cannot be argued if you look at certain facts. Some cultures and countries today are clearly more and less advanced than others, and it can be directly or indirectly linked to what tools one has available. But as you mention in your comments...Otherwise how else can you explain situations where 2 ppl brought up in very similar environments, react very very differently to different situations....
I also believe that it has a great deal to do with the human will and the human spirit. Some of the strongest nations and countries in the world are where they are today due to mankind not settling for what was laid before them by nature and striving to be better.
To me, the real meaning of life is not just being able to observe your surroundings, but to observe, study, learn, theorize, test, fail, re-test, observe, apply, observe, improve, and never stop trying to better yourself.
Somehow...this keeps me going.
Thanks for waking my brain up.
Post a Comment
<< Home