What is your opinion on nature vs. nurture? Define the differences of the two. Do you think it best for an individual to be nurtured by biological parents or family members? OR does it matter as long as they are supporting? Do you think that it matters if one just lets nature takes its course and help mold the person?
Remember these questions? Now apply them to the "individual" Victor created. Has he been shaped more by nature or nuture?
The creature has definitely been shaped by nature. Victor had nothing to do with how the creature was raised. He wasn't there to help him with anything, or teach him things, like how to read or speak, and he did nothing for him aside from bring him to life.
ReplyDelete-Jade
Has he been nurtured at all?
ReplyDeleteThe creature is shaped more by lack of nuture. He had to find things on his own, he had to learn the ways of life on his own, and he also has to deal with the constant segregation amongst humans because of his abnormailties. Throughout his constant battle for survival he has no one to guide him, to feed him, and to shelter him. Thus, he has been shaped by lack of nuture.
ReplyDeleteC^2 Carlson
Well, in my opinion, although he hasn't directly been nurtured, and most certainly not by Victor, I believe he has been nurtured to a certain extent. I know he was driven out by the cottagers, but while he lived in his hovel, he learned important life lessons from them. He witnessed love, sadness, happiness,and learned from the books of these people and even though it's not the same as being loved or cared for, did he not feel the emotions of the cottagers? So I believe that he does lack in nurturing but he has recieved a small form indirectly.
ReplyDelete~Brittany Rowe
We can clearly see that Victor had no part in the creature's upbringing. He learned speech from listening to other humans, he had to scrounge food and clothing for himself, and he had to piece together which triggers causes which emotional reaction. A vast amount of everything he's inferred about life came from his interactions in nature, and not from Victor, his "father."
ReplyDelete~Julianna
Good observations Brittany - while he observed their love and shared in their emotions...his only practice with real people has consistently turned out disastrously
ReplyDeleteThe creature has been molded purely by nature. He has not had the slightest bit of nuturing because everyone is too scared of him to even come close. The creature learned everything he knows from living in the wilderness, and being observant.I feel that he may have witnessed from the cottagers what nuturing was, but he never has felt the benefits of being nutured directly.
ReplyDeleteTaylor Quella
The creature has been shaped mostly by nature. He learned about food and water, heat/fire, animals, senses, and the elements all by experience. He had no one there to tell him no when he stuck his hand in the fire. There was no one to feed him when he became tormented by the hunger he felt. But in spite of that, he stilled learned. But he was also nurtured to a degree. The De Lacey's taught him even if they weren't aware of it. They taught him mentally: books, language, geography, history, labor, but also emotionally. They showed the monster what love was by loving each other. As well as respect, sorrows, affection, gentle manners, and what a family is.
ReplyDeleteThat was Cassie
ReplyDeleteThe creature has been shaped more by nature than nurture. The creature learned everything by himself. Victor was not around. Although the villagers did impact the way the creature turned out it was not enough for him to learn everything he knows from them.
ReplyDeletetori
Connor - shaped by a "lack of nuture" - I think that this is absolutely correct...but teh questions is...shaped into what?
ReplyDeletethe question is
ReplyDeleteThe lack of nurture the creature received shaped him into something fitting of his appearance. A monster bent on revenge and anger.
ReplyDeleteLord McMuffin Ze Pirate
(or Thomas)
I agree with Brittany. The nuture was definitely there.
ReplyDelete