Perusing Barnes and Noble I came across this sentence in the introduction of a book entitled The Blank Slate, by Steven Pinker:

The denial of human nature has spread beyond the academy and has led to a disconnect between intellectual life and common sense.

Hoo!

My summary of the introduction: The book surveys the modern debate of “nature” vs. “nurture”. The Nature side of the argument is that human beings are biologically or otherwise creatures of certain, inalienable, unmodifiable objectives. The Nurture side of the argument states that all human objectives are a consequence of environment, which can be changed. The author will not conceal his beliefs in favor of the Nature side. He will also show how the sole focus on the Nurture side has caused actual harm in many people’s lives.

I was going to read, as seeking out an educational foundation in philosophy, a book by Bertrand Russell entitled “A History of Western Philosophy“, but in the introduction to The Blank Slate, Russell is quoted making an analogy of human beliefs to pestering, ever-present flies. That is polar opposite of where I’d go - my anology would be a talisman, or the Light of Elendil, or a Sceptre of righteousness. If I can choose my slant on philosophy (and it seems that according to Pinker I both can and can’t), I’ll try another book before exploring Russell. I don’t want to start with Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters, either. I may enjoy The Blank Slate as I look for something else.

Which I suspect I will disagree with in ways. Two clues to this: 1)In the introduction the author says it is impossible for a scientifically literate person to believe the Nature side of the argument. I hope he doesn’t really mean that; that maybe he meant the bulwarks of modern science tend to obscure rather than point to universal commonalities of humanity. 2)The title: the phrase “The Blank Slate” describes a picture of the human mind as empty; malleable and to be filled and programmed with whatever objective the environment causes. The real work of the book stands against the Blank Slate theory. But to focus only against a foe and not for some other cause is to give more power to the foe, to still be bound by him. If I really want to extoll the virtues of riding a horse vs. riding a donkey, I won’t name my argument Not Riding Donkeys (which only leads us into the vagaries of whatever Donkeys aren’t, meanwhile focusing mostly on Donkeys), I’ll name it Riding Horses. So the author Doesn’t Buy the Blank Slate, but he also doesn’t overtly Acknowlede Nature. In his own words, he doesn’t pretend not to. I prefer open acknowledgement. I believe that human beings are created with a foundation of inarguable objectives that cannot be changed, while attempts to do so destroy the human.