In China's long cultural history, the debate between "nature" and "nurture" is like a red line running through ancient and modern times. It not only affects the development of the ideological field, but also shapes the evolution of social concepts. How to view the relationship between the two is a fundamental problem faced by Chinese philosophers. In their view, the formation and development of all things in the world are the result of the interaction between nature and nurture.
Since ancient times, Chinese philosophy has reflected the exploration and thinking of nature and nurture.
In ancient China, many philosophical thoughts emphasized the formation of human innate characteristics and personality. For example, Confucianism believes that each person's virtues and talents are determined by his or her talent. Confucius mentioned, "The learning of a gentleman comes from others." This shows that individual energy comes from the harmony between innate qualifications and acquired efforts. This is a view that emphasizes innate attributes and believes that the nature of human character and behavior is intrinsically determined.
However, Confucianism does not ignore acquired education. Xunzi emphasized the theory of "evil nature" and advocated that human nature is inherently evil and must be educated and restrained in order to meet society's expectations. In his view, acquired environment and education are the keys to correcting human flaws. This view reflects society's emphasis on acquired influences and believes that individual moral behavior is closely related to the social environment.
In Chinese history, the dialectic between innate qualifications and acquired efforts has formed a profound philosophical thinking.
Ancient Chinese philosophy often displays a dialectical nature when dealing with issues of nature and nurture. Taoism emphasizes the way of nature and believes that human behavior should change in accordance with the laws of nature, and therefore has its innate destiny. In contrast, Legalists emphasize the importance of law and social norms, believing that acquired constraints can shape a good social order. This contrast reflects the conflict and integration of nature and nurture, and extends to the discussion of morality and destiny.
A case in "Historical Records" mentions the question of "do princes and generals have their own kind?" and explores whether a person's status is determined by nature alone. This shows a profound reflection on human nature, implying that social status is not only formed by birth, but also related to acquired efforts and choices. This kind of thinking still has reference significance in contemporary society, triggering rethinking of success and responsibility.
In ancient literary works, the dialectical relationship between "nature" and "nurture" has become a theme of discussion among literati.
As society develops, the nature versus nurture debate continues to exist in contemporary culture. In the fields of education and psychology, experts and scholars have increasingly integrated their views on the two, emphasizing their mutual influence in individual growth. Much research evidence shows that different environmental factors and genetic structure are intertwined to shape each person. As a result, a perspective was gradually formed that moved away from simple binary oppositions and instead sought a more comprehensive understanding.
Due to the complexity of the issue of "nature" and "nurture," the important revelation provided by ancient wisdom is that no matter how the environment changes, both are indispensable elements for the growth of an individual. On this basis, as modern people, how do we find the balance between nature and nurture in our lives, so as to achieve the harmonious development of individuals and society? This is a topic worth pondering for every reader?