A Bit of Both
The ironic tale of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein shows that the miserable and tragic fate of the protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, is the product of his nature. In his relentless quest to instill life upon inanimate objects, Frankenstein “deprived [himself] of rest and health” (Shelley 45), and “lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit” (Shelley 42). After his own invention murdered his closest family and friends, Victor vowed to revenge their deaths. He persistently chased after the wretch even under extreme conditions despite knowing that he was incapable of defeating the enemy. These obsessive behaviors eventually lead him to his death. On the other hand, the beast of Victor’s toil was “benevolent and good; misery …show more content…
What determines how people turn out in the end? Is it their genes or their environment? Historically, the two sides of the nature versus nurture debate have been on polarizing ends of the spectrum. Nativists adopt the eugenics perspective and assume that humans are hard-wired at birth. They argue that human behavior, intelligence, and other psychological attributes are innate qualities encoded in the genetic makeup of each individual. In contrast, the empiricists are devotees of an idea termed tabula rasa, which states that the brain is a blank slate at the moment of conception. This implies that humans acquire all of the aforementioned characteristics through personal experiences and sociocultural factors (McLeod). However, as both sides have accumulated significant amounts of scientific data in favor of their respective theories, researchers found it increasingly paradoxical to accept either of these extreme positions and ultimately declared the argument a “false dichotomy”(Levitt). This is to say that heredity and the environment are constantly interacting with each other in order to develop traits, as opposed to being separate entities, acting against one
The ironic tale of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein shows that the miserable and tragic fate of the protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, is the product of his nature. In his relentless quest to instill life upon inanimate objects, Frankenstein “deprived [himself] of rest and health” (Shelley 45), and “lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit” (Shelley 42). After his own invention murdered his closest family and friends, Victor vowed to revenge their deaths. He persistently chased after the wretch even under extreme conditions despite knowing that he was incapable of defeating the enemy. These obsessive behaviors eventually lead him to his death. On the other hand, the beast of Victor’s toil was “benevolent and good; misery …show more content…
What determines how people turn out in the end? Is it their genes or their environment? Historically, the two sides of the nature versus nurture debate have been on polarizing ends of the spectrum. Nativists adopt the eugenics perspective and assume that humans are hard-wired at birth. They argue that human behavior, intelligence, and other psychological attributes are innate qualities encoded in the genetic makeup of each individual. In contrast, the empiricists are devotees of an idea termed tabula rasa, which states that the brain is a blank slate at the moment of conception. This implies that humans acquire all of the aforementioned characteristics through personal experiences and sociocultural factors (McLeod). However, as both sides have accumulated significant amounts of scientific data in favor of their respective theories, researchers found it increasingly paradoxical to accept either of these extreme positions and ultimately declared the argument a “false dichotomy”(Levitt). This is to say that heredity and the environment are constantly interacting with each other in order to develop traits, as opposed to being separate entities, acting against one