Re: The Noble Savage
heh, i'm confused as well, but i thought i should share my understanding of that part of the book. now, i don't know if this is the correct understanding or not, but here's what i got from that part.
what pinker said about the noble savage is basically this: there's a theory called the NOBLE SAVAGES. sounds like an oxymoron to me at first; i mean, how could savages be noble? but that's the idea. i think margaret mead was the one who started a theory on this, although like pinker wrote in the book, there's been reference to "noble savages" from the likes of dryden and rosseau (did i spell it right?). what the theory says is that HUMAN BEINGS ARE INNATELY GOOD. then as they're exposed to riches and whatnot, they become greedy. but if they're put in a place that won't expose them to greediness, or in another word by letting them to be savages, then they're good. i think pinker mentions something about in nature, human beings are in a quest for brotherhood, and therefore live in peace. but then a study was conducted and they found out that savages are actually brutal, like that example about father beating up daughter to death if she turns out not virgin at the day of marriage. so basically yes, i think what the noble savage theory says is that human beings are peaceful in nature, but violent when brought to civilization.
now, i think pinker OPPOSES this view. the very fact that he brought up the study about savage brutality shows that he's trying to claim that this idea is wrong. on the talk about babies, to me he's like giving justification for both view. like you said: if babies are innately good, then they are evil because society corrupts them, but if babies are innately bad, then they are evil because they are not well disciplined. i think it's more like ideas on how to handle either one of the two situation presented. if the noble savages is a correct theory, then society is at fault, but if it's wrong, then society is not at fault (environment cant be blamed), but the parents are at fault because they cannot "tame" the violence in the baby.
just a personal opinion, i think babies are innately violent. i mean, look at the way they try to grab their parent's attention. they cry, kick, scream, throw stuff all over the place, spit out the food you're trying to feed them. now, i'm not saying i hate babies, i like them. it's just that they ARE naturally violent. it's not EVIL that these babies are going to learn as they grow up, it's MANNERS and how to be GOOD. if you let babies grow up without properly teaching them how to behave, MOST LIKELY they'll be bad people. so in this case, nature says "baby bad" but nurture makes "baby good," or at least that's what i think.
what pinker said about the noble savage is basically this: there's a theory called the NOBLE SAVAGES. sounds like an oxymoron to me at first; i mean, how could savages be noble? but that's the idea. i think margaret mead was the one who started a theory on this, although like pinker wrote in the book, there's been reference to "noble savages" from the likes of dryden and rosseau (did i spell it right?). what the theory says is that HUMAN BEINGS ARE INNATELY GOOD. then as they're exposed to riches and whatnot, they become greedy. but if they're put in a place that won't expose them to greediness, or in another word by letting them to be savages, then they're good. i think pinker mentions something about in nature, human beings are in a quest for brotherhood, and therefore live in peace. but then a study was conducted and they found out that savages are actually brutal, like that example about father beating up daughter to death if she turns out not virgin at the day of marriage. so basically yes, i think what the noble savage theory says is that human beings are peaceful in nature, but violent when brought to civilization.
now, i think pinker OPPOSES this view. the very fact that he brought up the study about savage brutality shows that he's trying to claim that this idea is wrong. on the talk about babies, to me he's like giving justification for both view. like you said: if babies are innately good, then they are evil because society corrupts them, but if babies are innately bad, then they are evil because they are not well disciplined. i think it's more like ideas on how to handle either one of the two situation presented. if the noble savages is a correct theory, then society is at fault, but if it's wrong, then society is not at fault (environment cant be blamed), but the parents are at fault because they cannot "tame" the violence in the baby.
just a personal opinion, i think babies are innately violent. i mean, look at the way they try to grab their parent's attention. they cry, kick, scream, throw stuff all over the place, spit out the food you're trying to feed them. now, i'm not saying i hate babies, i like them. it's just that they ARE naturally violent. it's not EVIL that these babies are going to learn as they grow up, it's MANNERS and how to be GOOD. if you let babies grow up without properly teaching them how to behave, MOST LIKELY they'll be bad people. so in this case, nature says "baby bad" but nurture makes "baby good," or at least that's what i think.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home