The Stuff Of Life

 Posted by my granddaughter:  A speculative piece on what I believe defines personality and whether personality persists in total isolation without external sources to react to.

https://soulleak.wordpress.com/2020/05/16/what-defines-personality/

An interesting article. Here is an excerpt: >But if a man was raised in a white, empty room without ever having human contact and assuming he does not need to be fed and has basic knowledge enough to be civilized and not like an animal, would he have personality? (In this example, he need not be fed for the sake of not having food to interact with). Without any faculties to react to, would he have intangible attributes of character?<

My response:  Interesting. Of course the problem with the thought experiment is raise a human being that way and they will simply die. Small children, especially babies, who don’t have sufficient human contact fail to thrive and die. Children adopted by Americans from highly neglectful orphanages have profound personality disorders that simply cannot be corrected. Look to Maslow‘s experiments with infant monkeys. Quite cruel, and today probably would not be permitted. However, quite informative.

Jun 20, 2018

PsychologicalScience.org

...the monkeys showed disturbed behavior, staring blankly, circling their cages, and engaging in self-mutilation. When the isolated infants were re-introduced to the group, they were unsure of how to interact — many stayed separate from the group, and some even died after refusing to eat.

 https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/us-experiment-on-infants-withholding-affection/13213

 > In the United States, 1944, an experiment was conducted on 40 newborn infants to determine whether individuals could thrive alone on basic physiological needs without affection. Twenty newborn infants were housed in a special facility where they had caregivers who would go in to feed them, bathe them and change their diapers, but they would do nothing else. The caregivers had been instructed not to look at or touch the babies more than what was necessary, never communicating with them. All their physical needs were attended to scrupulously and the environment was kept sterile, none of the babies becoming ill. 

The experiment was halted after four months, by which time, at least half of the babies had died at that point. At least two more died even after being rescued and brought into a more natural familial environment. There was no physiological cause for the babies' deaths; they were all physically very healthy. Before each baby died, there was a period where they would stop verbalizing and trying to engage with their caregivers, generally stop moving, nor cry or even change expression; death would follow shortly. The babies who had "given up" before being rescued, died in the same manner, even though they had been removed from the experimental conditions. 

The conclusion was that nurturing is actually a very vital need in humans. Whilst this was taking place, in a separate facility, the second group of twenty newborn infants were raised with all their basic physiological needs provided and the addition of affection from the caregivers. This time however, the outcome was as expected, no deaths encountered.<

We are social animals.  Without society, without socialization, we do not survive. The followers of Ayn Rand, so much of today’s conservative movement, ignores the basic nature of human beings. Their philosophy, if you want to call it that, makes as much sense as breatharianism. Yeah, there actually is such a thing. People who claim that you don’t need to eat food or even drink water, all you need to do is breathe.

Our need for human contact, for human touch, for human affection runs deep. So deep that it defines the very nature of what it means to be a living human being.  To expand on my granddaughter’s question, at what point do we cease to even care about our own survival?. Are these poor abused monkeys really monkeys? Where those poor abused babies really human?

One thing is clear, they did not even value their own survival in the absence of the affection of their own species.

To withdraw love and affection from those who love you and need you is one of the cruelest of all acts.  Whether you are a biblical literalist or an objective rationalist, it is clear that we are, as human beings, one great family.  Every stranger is a distant relative. We must care about each other and for each other or we will fail to thrive.

Idle Thoughts -- Tragedy

Oedipus Rex By Sophocles. Ancient Greek tragedy.

Oedipus, King of Thebes, has a problem. A horrible plague has struck his country. It becomes clear that the gods meting out justice because his country has committed some terrible sin, but no one knows what the sin is. Also, unknown to him, what has happened has been ordained by the gods. As a matter of his fate or as the Greeks might say, his moira. Moira was an act of the Fates. What they decided would happen to you IS what happened to you. There was no escape. Not even the gods could help.

Long before the play opens, Oedipus' father, Laius is the king of Thebes. He receives a prophecy that his son will kill him. So, when his son is born the attacks the baby by pinning its feet together. He then gives it to someone to take it out and kill it.

The baby is abandoned and left to die. But a shepherd finds the infant and adopts it. Later the boy learns that he has been condemned by the Fates to kill his father and marry his mother. Because he is a good person and loves his parents, he runs away from home to prevent this from happening. When he comes to Thebes he fights the king, kills him and marries the king's widow. Strange as it seems, the Greeks considered this an acceptable method of gaining a kingship, at least in plays.

You must remember that Oedipus did not know the man he was killing was his father or that the woman he was marrying was his mother. He thought he was the son of the shepherd who raised him. But ancient Greek morality was very rigid. It didn't matter that the whole thing was a mistake and wasn't Oedipus' fault. The fact is he killed his father and married his mother, so the gods were determined to punish the entire country for what he had done. After all, he was the king, so all his subjects must suffer for his sins. This is also reflected in the Bible, remember that Israel was punished because of the sins of King David.

When Oedipus finds out that all this has happened. He is horrified. He gouges out his own eyes and flees the country to wander the world alone and helpless. His daughter decides to go along with him because of her devotion to her father. Of course, his daughter is also his sister because of the cruel trick the Fates played upon him.

Oedipus has been punished, so the gods are happy and the plague ends.

There are several morals in the story. Number one is that you cannot escape your fate. The matter what you do, you are doomed. The second moral is that if a king does something wrong the entire country must be punished for it even though everyone else is totally innocent. The final lesson is that if you do something wrong, even if you were forced to do so by the Fates and did so completely innocently, without intending any wrong, you're still guilty and deserve punishment.

None of those morals are commonly accepted today. Students of literature often refer to Greek tragedy versus Shakespearean tragedy. Greek tragedy is as described above. Shakespearean tragedy says the bad things happen to people because of their own choices and their own actions, not because of blind fate. Even though Shakespeare referred to Romeo and Juliet as starcrossed lovers, suggesting that fate and astrology caused all their problems, it's clear from the play that if they had made better decisions, things would've gone better for them.

And that may be the common ground between the two different opinions. Yes, fate may set things up in a way that makes life difficult for you and beyond your control; nevertheless you still can make decisions which can increase or reduce the impact of those matters which are outside of your control. In other words, yes they can make things good or bad for you but you still have the ability to make things either better or worse based on your own choices. You don't have complete control, but you do have some control. That means were responsible for using that control carefully and making wise, thoughtful decisions. (Unless you're Greek. Then you are judged by how nobly or basely you face your fate. Cowards whine about it, heroes struggle bravely against it. But even that allows for some free will in how you react.