John Locke Nature Vs Nurture

Without taking into account genetic disposition, a child is born as a “clean slate” and the way they experience society and life skills determines how they will turn out. John Locke, a classical philosopher born in 1632 (Biography), takes on the argument that a person is born as a clean slate and that the people and events that they encounter are what that shape their ideals and their character. The social and societal impacts left on an infant or child can shape their personality as well as their character, beliefs, and potential actions. The nature vs nurture argument is more valid when it comes to the nurture aspect of the argument. Similar to how the monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein learns to be the way he is, he is not created evil …show more content…
“Crying is a fault that should not be tolerated in children; not only for the unpleasant and unbecoming noise it fills the house with, but for more considerable reasons, in reference to the children themselves: which is to be our aim in education,” (Locke, John. An 214). Locke shows how if you do not correct an infant/child’s behavior then they will act however they please. They are not born good, because they are born a blank slate, but rather born with a passion to learn what to do and what not to do. All children strive to learn. “No; but I was educated by a French family, and understand that language only. I am now going to claim the protection of some friends, whom I sincerely love, and of whose favour I have some hopes,” (Shelley 95). The monster, like a child, is only striving to learn as much about the people of the village, cottage, and humanity as he possibly can. The monster uses his access to the blind man’s knowledge to try to learn how to blend in and be like the rest of society. The monster, who represents the nurture point-of-view that Locke presents to the drawing board, display a sense of passion and a desire to seek the skills and persona required to survive in the mortal human