Nature v. Nuture
Does one's environment determine the type of person one becomes? Or is one defined by one's nature, one's soul?
When nurture fails, does nature take over? That is, when an environment is undesirable to the growth or stagnation of one's soul, does human nature take over, trying to find a way to make the undesirable environment desirable? Or when human nature is undesirable, does the environment attempt to change the undesirable human nature to desirable human nature?
Can anyone truly find the distinction between nurture and nature?
Take an American for example. Americans are known for their belief in freedom. A totalitarian government would seem appalling to an American. But someone who has lived under the power of a totalitarian government would find freedom appalling. Say these two type of people were switched. How do we know that the American (in the position of the person who grew up under a totalitarian government)wouldn't still find the totalitarian government appalling? How do we know that they wouldn't still desire freedom?
We don't know.
So when my teacher told me that we were all brainwashed ("But in a good way!"), I was upset. I didn't like her assumption that, if raised in a different society, we'd all be different than we are now. How do we know that are beliefs are only established by our environment? The line between nature and nurture is blurred. It's indistinct. It's nearly non-existent.
I tried to explain this to her and she stared at me with a very calm, attentive look and then proclaim, "I don't know what you mean."
I suppose I wasn't very articulate with my ideas. Which is always possible. I'm not very articulate. In fact, I generally don't say much. I'm laconic.