Tabula Rasa

[Mithrea]

Okay, this is pretty basic but that's okay. I did a search and I didn't find anything :)

The phrase means "blank writing tablet" and it comes originally from Aristotle, though the idea behind it is attributed to John Locke (whether or not he used the term). Locke believed that people are innately good and that they are born that way. He believed that the mind can not hold anything that is not gained through the senses. Therefore we know nothing when we are born. We are all born equal because we all start at 0, so to speak. It's like having a big empty box for a brain and we have to fill it up with the things we see, touch, taste, hear and smell. This had some very positive rammifications for political theory but IMHO, it doesn't bode so well for many religions. It rules out intuition and has the potential to be used as an argument against reincarnation.

So what do you think? Did your DNA carry anything but physical specs?

[Gwion]

I think what Locke had to struggle against most with this theory is the christian concept of "orignal sin." Because I do believe in reincarnation, I don't believe the tabula rasa theory. As a happy Pagan, I am blessed with being born in a state of Original Grace.

[widukind]

Our bodies are born empty, with an empty brain. The way I see it, our brain is the bridge between our body and the consciousness/soul/otherworld, call it what you will. The brain adapts to this link and changes composition to better match this.
I know this theory might seem like BS to a lot of you, but I don't care. Anyone's entitled to their own truth, as I don't believe we'll ever find all the answers. We're not omnipotent.

[Raevyn]

What if when you die your past life is done, and when your spirit returns to a physical body that one has an empty mind set to 0?

In Kemet they had zep tepi - that is, you start over and the world is perfect and everything is possible. What went on in the past is not universally lost, but is left behind.

Maybe because deities don't reincarnate, or because spirit doesn't, they will always have a record of what went on, even if you don't bring it with you to the next life. Reminds me of the akashic records - where you can go look up past lives. Intuition could be explained as the ability to tap into deity/akashic records/what have you, even if that information isn't present in our mind at birth.

[Mithrea]

*bumping* for me because I'm lecturing on John Locke tomorrow :lol:

[mol]

Look at the examples of children being born of a family and being put up for adoption immediately only years later to reunite finding that the child shares some of the behavior of the ORIGINAL parents.

[Ravens_Tears]

This is definately part of the nature vs nurture thing... I'll go dig up my old text books and be back in a little bit.. I am sooo rusty on on my theories... ** blushes **

[Ravens_Tears]

Gol durn text books are never where I left them!:confused: (Guess I should be happy my oldest has taken an interest in higher learning...:p)

Please keep in mind that this is all IMHO:)


... Locke believed that people are innately good and that they are born that way. He believed that the mind can not hold anything that is not gained through the senses. Therefore we know nothing when we are born. We are all born equal because we all start at 0, so to speak. It's like having a big empty box for a brain and we have to fill it up with the things we see, touch, taste, hear and smell. This had some very positive rammifications for political theory but IMHO, it doesn't bode so well for many religions. It rules out intuition and has the potential to be used as an argument against reincarnation.

So what do you think? Did your DNA carry anything but physical specs?

On the simplest level, this would appear to be a true statement however I cannot agree with the basic assumption involved in making this statement. Just because we are born without "knowledge" (For my purposes, I will define knowledge as the aquiring of knowledge through sensory experiences) does not necessitate that we are innately "good". At birth, an individual is neither good nor evil, they are INSTINCTUAL. Instincts are neither "good" nor "evil", they are innate and imperative to survival. Individuals born without this innate, physically programmed knowledge generally will not survive (I believe one way of describing it would be "failure to thrive"). The designation of "good" is inaccurate, inappropriate and I would suspect that it would be an assumption based upon the biblical teachings of Original Sin. Therefore, IMO, we are not innately good, I believe at the time of birth we are limitless potential. To what end that potential developes would be the result of predisposing genetic factors and environment.

Also, from my own personal experiences in pregnancy and childbirth, I know babies certainly are not deprived of sensory learning before birth. I played games with mine before they were born (flashlights are fun!). They definately had music and tv preferences before they were born. My oldest was particularly amusing as he really liked "Night Court" and techno rave music (he would kick in time to it). But I have kept in mind that the majority of philosophies that we study today were first developed in times where women; their experiences, knowledge and opinions were not considered worthy of contemplation.....

I don't think Locke's theory ruled out intuition, I think it just simply wasn't considered to be relevant, as intuition was (and for the most part still is) considered a feminine trait and, in that time, was not valued. As for reincarnation, I am unsure if this could be used as a valid arguement against it. Someone could certainly try to but when it comes to matters of spirituality, each religion or theology has their own beliefs in regards to the soul, based upon their faith. If I believe it to be true, you're not likely to change my mind, no matter what arguement you put forth.... Not much empirical leverage there....

Not sure that this is entirely relevant but, in regards to the mind. To my knowledge there has never been anything empirical that shows a "physical seat" for the mind in the human brain. The closest I can conclude is that the mind does reside within the head because you do not seem to "lose" your mind when you lose other parts of the body, and the ability of the mind to function can certainly be impaired when there is trauma to the head. To me, the mind and the soul have a symbiotic relationship with our bodies, without a body to express themselves through they are almost imperceivable, but the physical body they inhabit does not seem to always reflect the mind's ability and vis versa.... I'm starting to confuse myself now.. so I'm going to have a coffee and contemplate for awhile ... ;)

[Ahautenites]

Gwion said....
Because I do believe in reincarnation, I don't believe the tabula rasa theory.

See, now I believe in reincarnation and the tabula rasa theory. I think that souls can reincarnate and I also think that souls can reproduce. New souls would be subject to the tabula rasa theory and souls that have been around for awhile still have that knowledge locked inside from previous lives (even if they don't realize it when they are in a current incarnation). :)

[Mithrea]

I don't think Locke's theory ruled out intuition, I think it just simply wasn't considered to be relevant, as intuition was (and for the most part still is) considered a feminine trait and, in that time, was not valued

Actually Locke summarily dismissed intuition along with all things internal because the whole idea of empiricism was that we cannot know anything unless the universe lets us know and the only way we have of receiving those messages are through the FIVE senses. It has nothing to do with gender.


To my knowledge there has never been anything empirical that shows a "physical seat" for the mind in the human brain.

You should read up on Cartesian dualism if you are interested in this. In fact, Descartes believed the connection between the mind and body was made at the penial gland so that is also where he would have placed the "mind"--in the brain.

IMeducatedO though, consciousness isn't an entity that resides anywhere but instead, it is the illusion (for lack of a better word--I don't mean false necessarily) created by the extremely complex workings and trappings of firing neurons.

Also, don't discount Locke because of the phrase "at birth" as he simply meant when the mind is formed and he wouldn't not have necessarily known at that time when precisely that happens.

That being said, not many philosophers would say, "Yes Locke is completely right. We are all born with empty boxes in our heads." Instead they would say, as I do, that Locke's theories are just a piece of the answer to the mind/body connection and our quest for knowledge and it does have a place in our total understanding.

[Ravens_Tears]

EEPS! I thought I had replied to this but I guess I didn't... good thing I'll be off these pain killers soon!:p

I'll definately be looking into the things you've pointed out. Actually, as you teach philosophy, I would also be interested in any information you would have in regards to proper etiquette, form etc in regards to philosophical debate. (Links, books :)) I've never had the opportunity to return to university since the birth of my youngest ( doesn't look like it's happening any time soon financially either:( ) and I haven't been able to complete my minor in it. I still like to study on my own but sometimes it's difficult to find a direction. When you have time, any direction you could point me in would be deeply appreciated.:)

[Danustouch]

I read a terriffic book a while ago..I cannot remember the title of it though :( It was about Past Life Memory found in Children. This is why my own beliefs do not support the theory of Tabula Rasa. There are so many cases of children recalling things from past lives.

Much of the research from this book, was gathered in the Middle East, and Asiatic countries. However, there were also cases cited here in the US, from children who grew up with a Judeo-Christian Background.

To cite a couple of examples... One child was born with a birthmark on his left cheek. He would often say to his parents.."I remember when I was shot, here" and he would point to his birthmark. Upon questioning.."now..how could you have been shot?", the child would reply something like.."Ask Yanni, he will tell you" or something to that effect. Of course, the family knew of noone named Yanni. So they would ask.."How can we find Yanni?". Child would tell them an exact town. Miles, and MILES away. A town which had no connection to his own. The researchers then would go in search of a Yanni, living in this town, and would find him. Yanni would then relate a story (without any prodding) of his friend, who had been shot in his cheek, at precisely the point of the birthmark on the child. What's even more convincing, is that often children in this type of scenario, would be able to name names, their own in their former lives, and those of their lovedones and friends.

My Husband, has always had a feeling that he was a Civil War soldier, and lost his leg in a battle. He is immensely uncomfortable watching Civil War documentaries. Always has been. When he watches them, he get's aches, and pains, in his left leg. When he was young, he always sat with that left leg tucked under him. Even in positions where that would be highly uncomfortable. His parents asked him why he does that...and as a child, he would often answer "Because it's not there anymore". Puzzling... His parents, btw..were Jehovah's Witnesses.

His FATHER, who as I said ..was a Jehovah's Witness for a long time, is no longer with the JW's. And he related a story to me not too long ago. He was pushing his grandson, Bobby, in a swing when the child was a toddler, and the child said.."Pepe, remember when I used to push YOU in the swing" and then began humming a tune, which Johns Grandfather used to Sing to John's FATHER when he was being pushed in a swing. Nobody fed this child this information. It was a memory long forgotten, by the family....

My theory is, that Children ARE born with past life memories. But in most cases, the shock of birth, the course of trying to adjust to THIS life, to deal with THIS family, etc...soon starts to "fog" those past life memories. It becomes more and more distant to a child, as they grow older, and older, and begin to deal more and more with their current incarnations, and realities.

So...if children have past life memories, then it would make sense to me, that karma, and that sort of thing, is carried over from one life, into the next. The problem I have seen too often, within newage circles, is that often that becomes an "excuse" for behaviors. "I don't like that person. I must have had a bad experience with them in my past life". or "Oh...well..this bad thing is happening to me, I must have done something really wrong in my past life". To me, this becomes yet another cycle of guilt. IMO...past life memories, and karmic energy, is not to be used in this method. If you CAN remember your past lives, it is not so that you can continue grudges, behavioral patterns, illnesses, etc, in THIS incarnation, but rather so that you can learn from the mistakes of your past life, and do something "differen't" in this life. Fix the problems that you had in your last one.