Although at first glance twins seem to pose a problem in the theory of tabula rasa, it can actually be used to defend nurture rather than nature. As identical twins share the same DNA, surely nurture is the componant which explains their differences? Naturally speaking their DNA is identical so it is not responsible for a twin's different personality.
Also, one twin's experience within the womb will always different from the other's. It may seem pedantic but this comes down to anything from sleeping habits (what one twin may hear while the other sleeps) to how much each twin receives from the mother (in terms of nurturing, depending on which is the dominant twin). Even more pedantic but really relevant in this kind of argument is that no one in the world will ever experience the same moment in the same way purely because of positioning - if we both witness the same tree falling down you will view it from a different perspective to me purely because you are standing in another place and this makes your experience of the moment different to mine (however small the difference may be). This can be applied to twins. Also, the very fact that the twins share the womb with another being capable of independant thought ensures that their experiences will be very different from one another, as there is an immediate influence from their sibling.
This kind of argument always heads into the debate of the exitence of a soul.. I suppose if you believe that it is purely nurture and experiences which create a person then you are denying the existence of a soul, and if you are spiritual, your faith may likely be in nature.
Just my thoughts.
Emma you're beautiful
and brainy! I love it! Your posts on this are so thought-provoking; I started reading the article on John Locke and will finish it soon...fascinating.
I've always believed that nature and nurture contribute to how a person turns out. DNA obviously plays a huge part, as can be seen in family members who have never known each other and share the same characteristics. My DH is an example of this - he didn't know his father until he was about 19, and they are very similar. But clearly the way a child is raised, the specific interactions with its mother or other primary caregiver, any other people, all contributing influences, shape who the child becomes.
Here's another layer I would like to discuss, and especially to see if Emma has any light to shed on it: a child's innate personality ALSO influences the way it's mother interacts with it. So nature directly influences nurture, iykwim. So we can't just argue that 2 or more children were raised in the same household and turned out different, therefore it's all down to nature. Here's what I mean. My first son was born with a very fiery little personality which affected the way I raised him. I had to be more firm with him because he was so strong-willed. Then my second son was really mild, so I was rather lax with him. So my argument is that children raised in the same home, by the same parents, are not treated the same. My boys did in fact turn out quite differently, because the older one is much more obedient and hard-working, and his younger brother is rather lazy and quietly disobedient. So nurture played a role in that. I hope I'm making sense, it's hard to put this into words! I think nature and nurture cannot be separated and that they influence each other and ultimately who the child grows up to be.
i totally agree, very well said. the existence of the soul is obviously another debate for another time but really is central in the nature vs nurture argument.
i do apologise.
