Great introduction video by Janet!

The information-packed book explores human nature and how our ideas of human nature have changed over time.   Steven Pinker challenges the blank slate philosophy and proposes that we have innate genetic traits, shaped through evolutionary processes, that influence our lives more than we think.
Two competing ideas about human nature are the  “blank slate “  and  Pinker’s “innate mind”.   I reject both of these extremes.
If I were to diagram the argument this is the way I picture it: 

Both feel like they have an underlying foundation of dependency.  That man depends either on society (the blank slate philosophy) or nature (innate philosophy).  I have a different view of the world and human nature.  I believe that we are created by God and have the ability to progress to become more like God if we choose to do so.  We can also, through our choices, become less like God.  But that divineness is there, and it is what we do with our choices that decides who and what we become.  I think we can change our personality.  I don’t think it’s easy at all, but I think it is possible.  I believe that we are affected by society and nature, and independent from them, not dependent on them.  They can influence us, especially if we allow them to, but we can rise above our genes and our environment.     

I never thought I would be a fan of Louis L’Amour, but I was wrong.  I seem to pick up a lot of lessons or ideas from his books. 
As I sat down to write about this book, I noticed that in the front of this book, there is a dedication:  “To my Father…who knew what it meant to wear the badge”.  Interesting thought.  Most of the L’Amour books that I have read were about the frontier and the skills or ideas needed to establish a frontier.  This book started differently compared to several of the other books that I have read.   It opens with a coyote attempting to catch a chipmunk.  He fails, but in the process of time the area changed due to the weather.   It then moves to a trapper that finds a nugget of gold and takes it, and carries it around for many years.  Near the end of his life, he decides to return to the area where he found the nugget.  He shares his story with 3 men but dies in his attempt to return area.  The three men follow the trapper’s information and find gold.  Well, what does that have to do with wearing a badge, you wonder?  I did.  
You are well into the book before any badge is mentioned.  The three gentlemen set up a claim and registered it with the intent of building a “town”.  There is no thought about law or order, just hunting for gold.  In this town of mostly men, there is a lot of gambling, shooting, fighting, drinking, and drifting of people.  L’Amour paints a vivid picture of a “boom” town.  A town that is full of violence.  One of the three from the beginning of the story seems surprised that there is so much lawlessness.  He wants to see schools, churches, and a community set up, but what he has is a ‘dog-eat-dog world’.  Very violent men will do whatever it takes to get what they want.  Some with their fights, some with weapons, but the story of this town is very grim.  It is a L’Amour novel, so you know a hero will arise and he does.  The hero teaches us that “if you’re going to have peace rather than violence, both sides have got to want it.  One side alone can’t make peace.”   And “The trouble with most folks coming out here is that they’ve been protected so long they’re no longer even conscious of it.  Back where they come from there are rules and laws, curbstones and sidewalks, and policemen to handle violence.  The result is that violence is no longer real for them; its it something you read about but that never happens to you.”
Definitely some ideas to think about.  What makes a good town?  What makes a good society?  Is it right to use violence to chase away violence?  Why?  Is there another option to violence?  Can violence be halted without more violence?  What does it mean to wear a badge?  What type of person/people is/are required to have a place that has peace?
 

This book is a challenging read, no doubt about it.  I am learning a trick with books to help me not only keep focus when a book is harder to understand.  I have been writing in books for a while and love it.  This week, I am adding to my writing in books.  A new skill I have been practicing is creating a concise bullet-point summary of each chapter. 

I struggle with this because it means I have to slow down and think.  As I am saying this, I am reminded of one of the author’s points.   The author compares what he sees in America with what is traditional in Europe among the aristocracy.  One of his points is that Americans are always in a rush to produce; they don’t take time to meditate or ponder their ideas.  Yep, that definitely is true for me many times when it comes to reading. 

Alexis de Tocqueville took a long time to put all this information together.  It is quite impressive.  He looks at many examples as he compares the democratic ideal with the aristocracy or caste system of Europe.  It is interesting to see how culturally different we are from our roots.  So many events went into changing our culture to even make it possible for a different form of government to be instituted.  The more I read this, the more miraculous the founding of the USA becomes.  Wow, so many things that needed to be changed to help prepare for a Republic.  It’s truly amazing!

​“Without property no class can take its true place in the nation. They must devote much of their resolution and self-denial to the steady persistent heaping together of the pence and shilling for this purpose.  As they become possessed of property, they will see a definite goal lying before themselves-one good and useful ambition ever succeeding to another.  The old dreary hopelessness will disappear, they will gain in power and influence; the different between classes will disappear;… (“A Plea for Voluntaryism” Essay by Auberon Herbert)”
 
 
There are many ideas out there on how to make the differences between classes disappear.  Mr. Herbert's view is that it should be done through freedom and voluntaryism.   Those of the Communistic and Socialistic worldview believe it can be done away with through the Dictator of the Proletariat after all property is removed from the individual.   Each group seems to be working on the same problem, just different methods.   The problem is labeled; the solution is much harder to determine.   Is force (compulsion) the best solution? Liberty?  Volunteerism?   What is it that you do to determine which ideas have good pieces but are not complete?  Which ideas are wrong and why?  Which ideas are right?  What a struggle we have here to determine our choices!  What an education we need to find the best solutions and move toward actions that will help make things better.  

Premises of Communism
I have just finished reading The Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousen.  I think this book does a good job of introducing what Communism is and also gives brief histories of the people who influenced and promoted Communism.   One of the areas that I have been pondering a bit more is the ‘Major Premises of Communism’ from the author’s point of view using the writings of those that promoted it (I won’t provide the quoted source below, just the premise.  if you would like to know who said each statement, please see the book for more information).
Major Premises of Communism:

1.  Everything in existence came about as a result of ceaseless motion among the forces of nature. 
2. Human beings are only graduate beasts.
3. There is no such thing as innate right or wrong
4. That all religion must be overthrown because it inhibits the spirit of world revolution.

 
 
I think that another premise should be included, or maybe it fits under #2, and that is the belief in human nature.  This worldview believes that humans should start as a blank slate.  I have been listening to the book: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker. If you believe that man is born as a blank slate than that would also mean that you can fill that slate with information or experiences that will program the mind to create a perfect society; A classless society that promotes universal peace and prosperity.  It would make creating the perfect mind, child, or society a little bit easier if we were just trained to be what is wanted or needed.  Having a complex innate human nature means that not everything is trainable.  Society could / would have flaws that demand correction by the Dictator of the Proletariat; therefore, there would always be a need for government.   Can Communism ever reach its goals without blank slates?