The Instigator
Kefka
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Tabula Rasa and Jungian archetypes can be intertwined into a single idea.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,791 times Debate No: 8319
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

Kefka

Pro

Through some pondering, I have proposed an idea that intertwines and makes both Tabula Rasa and the Jungian archetypes correct, to an extent. Since there is little 'hard' evidence towards this discussion, the debate will be purely based on the perceptions of my opponent and I towards Philosophy, Psychology, and Logic. I will admit that I am not an expert in Analytical Psychology or Theoretical Psychology (both Jung's fields), though I am very much interested in these. Back to my hypothesis. I believe that through our past life times, a plethora of possible archetypes has been imprinted onto our conscious, and from there Tabula Rasa takes control on deciding which Archetype we will fulfill. The particular archetypal 'requirements' will be fulfilled during our critical period in development.

I am, myself, still questionable on how my argument can be refuted. I wish for my opponent to be someone who believes in the superiority of one of the ideas mentioned in my Topic, though my argument could also be refuted by proving wrong, any one of the ideas I have proposed (i.e. Archetypes, Tabula Rasa, Reincarnation and the Collective Consciousness, which go hand in hand to an extent in my opinion.)
But this small dilemma will be resolved when someone accepts the challenge; from there we can come to an agreement.

Tabula Rasa- http://www.wisegeek.com...
Jungian Archetypes- http://www.iloveulove.com...
Puck

Con

"I believe that through our past life times a plethora of possible archetypes has been imprinted onto our conscious and from there Tabula Rasa takes control on deciding which Archetype we will fulfil."

Ok...let's start here. Tabula Rasa is the biological blank slate of a child i.e. at the moment of birth 'nature' determines its actions - there is no 'nurture' (environment) imprinted.

For the purposes of this debate 'past life' is environmental influence. One cannot be both in a state of Tabula Rasa and not. A is A. Memory is not Tabula Rasa. Imprint is not Tabula Rasa. At the moment where the infant begins to interact with any environment and start to form a conceptual process - Tabula Rasa ends. It's important to note the capacity for development of concepts, emotions is there at birth - it is set at Tabula Rasa - one's cognitive ability determines the content though. Tabula Rasa cannot "choose". It is a state, not an action or process. Moreover *specifically* a state of non action.

Past life times is an unfounded assumption of cyclical existence. Here's why it doesn't work. Life A is born and proceeds. Life A experiences are entirely biologically coded in nature. One's memories, experiences, thoughts, concepts are all 'imprinted' on the form on neuronal connections that an individual has, in the biological brain structure that individual has. Life A ends. There is no more capacity to 'carry', 'hold', 'transport', 'store' what Life A was.
Life B is conceived. Life B is made up of a split of genetic components from both parents. There is no Life A inherent in any parent. There is no specific capacity for Life A to be gene coded into B (short of similarities if A is a being biologically relative to B e.g. a sibling - for this purpose though they are not). At birth B will not be A. There is no capacity for B to be A. B cannot be both B and A. There is no biological B and capacity for imprint A. Even if there was B would not be B but be A in B's body - B's structurally different body would then make it again..non A. There is not the biological capacity to 'hold' A where A is not first present.

Collective unconscious in Jungian terms is the shared unconsciousness of our genetic past. Present amongst all. He cites common themes/imagery in this support.

". . . but in the inherited possibility of psychic functioning in general, i.e., in the inherited structure of the brain. These are the mythological associations the motifs and images that can spring up anew anytime anywhere, independently of historical tradition or migration. I call these contents the collective unconscious. (Jung, 1921/1973)"

Why that fails: genes encode proteins - it's the information of the DNA that will lead to the type of protein produced. There is no protein for 'female archetype shape imagery' or 'image of large tree.' Imagery is a product of the individual - after conceptual processes. Shared concepts relate to both the culture an individual is in - e.g. African pottery has X common theme in the shape of women. People see women so they dream of women. No great shock there. People see trees so they dream of trees - still no shock. Nor is it mysterious as to why such similar images would be produced in geographically isolated populations - they are part of the environment. A woman gives birth so she is given caricatures relating to that position. Jung's 'common imagery' (not always common) is an expression of artefacts that individuals develop in a cultural context.

"The particular archetypal 'requirements' will be fulfilled during our critical period in development."

Jungian archetypes (similar to Freud's archaic remnants) are not 'you are one or the other' they are all expressions of the unconscious. His, frankly stupid, obsession with dreams and myths gave him the idea that the unconscious had 'personality' or common thematic structure. He proclaimed to want to make Psychology scientific - but he was really just spewing ideas with little basis except on whatever mystical interpretation he found exciting for that year - including modifications and contradictions.

So what do we know of the psychodynamics of Jung? It's rubbish. It's unsupported. There is a good reason why it has been largely dropped from within Psychology - there is simply not much in it that bears looking at.

Jung made two arguments on archetypes:

1. Archetypes are developments from a distinctly Lamarckian perspective of evolution. In this, traits develop because of the experiences of successful generations is directly encoded into our genetic legacy e.g. giraffes grew longer necks because they stretched to reach leaves. This theory was discredited and superseded by Darwin's natural selection. Jung never caught on.

2. "The collective unconscious is the sediment of all experience of the universe of all time"; "...are not mere objects of the mind but are also autonomous factors."

Apart or combined we see they really don't work at all. If archetypes are the deposits of repeated human experience then they would reflect human experience - cultures, apart from the modern age of communication have been relatively isolated - experiences then, as per evolutionary traits, are influenced by geographic location and isolation - in other words we should expect to see distinct archetypes evolve - this is distinct from presence i.e. a genetic 'early' component of archetypes and a difference in trait expression. Thus the idea of a large number of universal identical, psychological traits violates basic principles of variance (see language).

Argument 2 basically arose from his inability to ascertain images he held and environmental origin relative to himself. Despite being a horrendous non sequitur - he then went onto a process of confirmation bias whereby he also applied this to his patients dreams. Person A has dream image. Myth has image >> common origin. It ignores coincidence -that given enough patients, images will occur that are recognisable - and also that both sets of imagery can be formed outside of a base singular source.

In short, Jung is fun for those literature inclined (archetypes appear readily there), or non empirically concerned. Actually explaining an actual phenomena however, he fails. Utterly.

This will do for now. :)
Debate Round No. 1
Kefka

Pro

I thank my opponent for posting a well constructed rebuttal. Now, I will attempt to refute his argument.

1. My opponent begins to refute my idea of 'past life times; which I tried to convey as the idea of 'Reincarnation', in terms of a person's 'soul' is 'transferred' to another body. My opponent, as he states "For the purposes of this debate", defines a 'past life' as environmental influence. Which I disagree with, though I understand. But, I will attempt to break his use of a theoretical situation, that he uses to refute my theory, in which 'Life A' goes through life, and then dies. After which, Life B is born; with a different structural build and a different set of "memories, experiences, and thoughts". The problem with this situation, is that it does not include this unknown concept of our 'soul'. Which comes back to the collective consciousness. Our past is encoded into us spiritually, possibly genetically. Although this is very much a theory, it can be observed through many cases, in which individuals will experience a dream or 'flashback', in which an event not physically experienced, is relived (Jung experienced one himself, in which he traveled back through the ages of his past 'reincarnations'; the ages being represented by the different levels in his house, going from Roman times, to that of a 'primitive' culture, in a cave with broken pottery).
Also a strong example for the collective consciousness, can be seen by Joseph Campbell's 'The Masks of God'. A series of volumes, that explore the very many similarities between myths of cultures, thousands of miles apart. Extremely similar stories and themes, of the Hero's Journey of life,exploration,leaving of the conscious world,death, and rebirth, can be observed in cultures, great distances apart (i.e. Greece's King Minos, to Jesus, to Buddha, etc.). This, could be a small contribution to the idea of the existence of our collective consciousness and reincarnation. If Life B is a descendant of Life A, then it is possible that they contain the same 'soul', and their 'soul' contains all of the past reincarnated lives' experiences. This may be, and very much could be, an appeal to ignorance. Though, since this debate is largely based on theory, this theory may be accepted.

"Jungian archetypes (similar to Freud's archaic remnants) are not 'you are one or the other' they are all expressions of the unconscious"- I disagree with this, as my understanding of archetypes, is that they are the dominance of a possible expression of unconscious. Which comes back to my idea of Tabula Rasa, being the blank slate that is inscribed upon, by the individual's personal experiences, having an effect on which archetype becomes dominant.

"His [Jung], frankly stupid, obsession with dreams and myths gave him the idea that the unconscious had 'personality' or common thematic structure. He proclaimed to want to make Psychology scientific - but he was really just spewing ideas with little basis except on whatever mystical interpretation he found exciting for that year - including modifications and contradictions."

-Besides the ad hominem (however understandable it may be), he might be misinformed as to Jung's purpose. Jung did want to make Psychology scientific, but he also believed in the balance of theory and concrete evidence. He believed being too encompassed with one aspect, would distort an individual's perception and judgment.

"Apart or combined, we see they [Archetypes] really don't work at all. If archetypes are the deposits of repeated human experience, then they would reflect human experience - cultures, apart from the modern age of communication have been relatively isolated - experiences then, as per evolutionary traits, are influenced by geographic location and isolation - in other words we should expect to see distinct archetypes evolve - this is distinct from presence i.e. a genetic 'early' component of archetypes and a difference in trait expression."- Refer back to my detailing of Campbell's ideas.
Puck

Con

"The problem with this situation, is that it does not include this unknown concept of our 'soul'. Which comes back to the collective consciousness. Our past is encoded into us spiritually, possibly genetically."

A concept if unknown is not a concept - being that an internally recognised definition is a requirement of its discussion. Collective unconscious for Jung was not the soul - in his spiritual argument it was a component discrete from the individual and part of the universe at large "... the sediment of all the experience of the universe of all time" (Jung 1922).

Genetic argument fails - one cannot "encode memory" into DNA. DNA produces proteins - not conceptual structures. Let alone recoding one's own genetic makeup as a process of basic life experience simply can't occur. In terms of brain structure a 'genetic heritage' has to do with such things as speed and quantity of myelination.

A non physical entity has no capacity to store, record, contain, hold, and transmit a physical component of which an individual is. Simply saying it can is not an argument.

"Although this is very much a theory, it can be observed through many cases, in which individuals will experience a dream or 'flashback', in which an event not physically experienced, is relived."

Contradiction. If it has never been experienced it cannot be relived. Non apparent familiarity with a dream image does not equal a past memory. Dreams are constructs of held concepts.

"(Jung experienced one himself, in which he traveled back through the ages of his past 'reincarnations'; the ages being represented by the different levels in his house, going from Roman times, to that of a 'primitive' culture, in a cave with broken pottery)."

Begging the question.

"Also a strong example for the collective consciousness, can be seen by Joseph Campbell's 'The Masks of God'. A series of volumes, that explore the very many similarities between myths of cultures, thousands of miles apart. Extremely similar stories and themes, of the Hero's Journey of life,exploration,leaving of the conscious world,death, and rebirth, can be observed in cultures, great distances apart (i.e. Greece's King Minos, to Jesus, to Buddha, etc.)."

Myths are anthropomorphised fantasy constructions e.g. pantheons generally follow a family hierarchy. It does not demonstrate a shared underlying common influence outside of people wrote about what they knew. Let's put your argument into a syllogism so you can see how it is a non sequitur.

1.Myths are constructed
2.Some myths have a common theme
3.Ergo there is a common basis.

Basic common human experience accounts for archetypal imagery, across disparate populations. Take for example the 'old man' - associated with wisdom. In patriarchal societies men are the store houses of tribal history and myth. An old man then, is of venerable wisdom. That's not some universal archetype that makes him so. It is a basic facet of his existence - shared amongst those of his family and larger community.

"If Life B is a descendant of Life A, then it is possible that they contain the same 'soul', and their 'soul' contains all of the past reincarnated lives' experiences."

No. Ones genetic makeup is of both parents. Is a soul in the sperm now? Or lodges in a woman's ovaries? How does it get there? How does it choose? How can one be a 'descendant' of one's self given one can only genetically impart � of one's genetic makeup to a zygote - and each generation the dilution is compounded. It's nonsensical and doesn't solve how non physical can retain physical at all.

"This may be, and very much could be, an appeal to ignorance. Though, since this debate is largely based on theory, this theory may be accepted."

Appeals to ignorance are never a valid argument. Doing the proverbial 'because I say so' is not an argument.

"I disagree with this, as my understanding of archetypes, is that they are the dominance of a possible expression of unconscious. Which comes back to my idea of Tabula Rasa, being the blank slate that is inscribed upon, by the individual's personal experiences, having an effect on which archetype becomes dominant."

If one inherits a past one is not a blank slate. It's as basic as that. An inheritance of past, of preference, of recorded experience is not 'blank.' A is A. If archetypes are present and dormant it is still not blank.

"He believed being too encompassed with one aspect, would distort an individual's perception and judgment."

Evidence is evidence. Validity is validity. Whatever his views on what they were, were; that does not change the nature of what evidence is nor what validity of theory is. He fails on both accounts.

"Refer back to my detailing of Campbell's ideas"

Which doesn't dispute principles of variance in the least. If it's genetic it will obey genetic principles - which the theory doesn't. It doesn't follow population variance - which imagery does. If imagery is constructed in shared cultural concepts it will follow as such - and it does.
Debate Round No. 2
Kefka

Pro

I thank my opponent for his rebuttal.
---

"A concept if unknown is not a concept - being that an internally recognized definition is a requirement of its discussion. Collective unconscious for Jung was not the soul - in his spiritual argument it was a component discrete from the individual and part of the universe at large "... the sediment of all the experience of the universe of all time" (Jung 1922)."

Who is to say this isn't what he believes to be the essence of our 'soul'? It could be our connected 'soul's that comprises the collective consciousness.

------------

"Genetic argument fails - one cannot "encode memory" into DNA. DNA produces proteins - not conceptual structures. Let alone recoding one's own genetic makeup as a process of basic life experience simply can't occur. In terms of brain structure a 'genetic heritage' has to do with such things as speed and quantity of myelination.

A non physical entity has no capacity to store, record, contain, hold, and transmit a physical component of which an individual is. Simply saying it can is not an argument."

If the Collective Consciousness and memory is genetically, not spiritually, transfered ( though I don't see it as genetic), then how can you say that it can not transfer memories of past lives? DNA transfers physical and mental attributes like physical aptitude, intelligence (Biological Determinism), mental capacity etc. What's to say it [DNA] cannot withhold
information from the previous ancestors? All a memory is, is the bonds of neurons, from a genetic perspective. It could very well be transfered from parent to child with all of the other attributes in our 46 (23 pairs) chromosomes.

As to the latter quote. Again we are dealing with something that can only be speculated and observed from personal experience, analysis of dreams (i.e. Interpretation of Dreams ,Sigmund Freud) etc.
-----------------
"Although this is very much a theory, it can be observed through many cases, in which individuals will experience a dream or 'flashback', in which an event not physically experienced, is relived."

"Contradiction. If it has never been experienced it cannot be relived. Non apparent familiarity with a dream image does not equal a past memory. Dreams are constructs of held concepts."

It's not a contradiction when you take into account my entire argument.
----------------

"(Jung experienced one himself, in which he traveled back through the ages of his past 'reincarnations'; the ages being represented by the different levels in his house, going from Roman times, to that of a 'primitive' culture, in a cave with broken pottery)."

"Begging the question."

Persecution of fallacy is wrong. I was simply naming an example from Jung. http://www.nizkor.org.... I did not assign Jung as the authority and final verdict on the argument.
-----------------
"If one inherits a past one is not a blank slate. It's as basic as that. An inheritance of past, of preference, of recorded experience is not 'blank.' A is A. If archetypes are present and dormant it is still not blank."

It is less of a 'blank slate', than more of a nature (Archetype, in this case) vs nurture (environmental effects) combination. Yes, this contradicts my exact wording in my resolution, but arguments evolve, and may deviate from the original theme in order to convey what is the importance. Nurturing (environmental effects), directly affects what archetype is prevalent and dominant in the individual.
----------------
"Basic common human experience accounts for archetypal imagery, across disparate populations. Take for example the 'old man' - associated with wisdom. In patriarchal societies men are the store houses of tribal history and myth. An old man then, is of venerable wisdom. That's not some universal archetype that makes him so. It is a basic facet of his existence - shared amongst those of his family and larger community."

This has some merit, when dealing with a patriarchal society. Though, how does one explain situations of heroines? In a patriarchal society, how does a female hero emerge? In this type of society, a myth should only include women as the temptress, or the one who pulls the hero from the other world, back into the normal world.

-------------------
I have noticed, that my opponent is attempting to look at theoretical psychology, as something concrete,tangible, and among normal,physically logical subjects. This may sway a voter's opinion in Con's favor, but one cannot look at the collective consciousness/archetypes as something that you can physically see, it's something philosophical, which is only up to debate if one is to let go of their complete need for 'proof' in front of them. Of course Con will respond to this, with "He offers no concrete evidence, therefore his resolution should be thrown out", or something of the sort. And this wouldn't be totally wrong; the problem is, when dealing with Jung, a well known combiner of Philosophy, Theology, and Mythology into his Analytical Psychology, you have to be able to comprehend 'evidence', through personal testimonies, and far fetched leaps of 'faith' into the realm of the unknown.
Puck

Con

"Who is to say this isn't what he believes to be the essence of our 'soul'? It could be our connected 'soul's that comprises the collective consciousness."

Because he said otherwise.
"The collective unconscious is a part of the psyche which can be negatively distinguished from a personal unconscious by the fact that it does not, like the latter, owe its existence to personal experience and consequently *is not a personal acquisition.* ... and therefore have never been individually acquired, but owe their existence *exclusively to heredity.*"

"If the Collective Consciousness and memory is genetically, not spiritually, transfered ( though I don't see it as genetic), then how can you say that it cannot transfer memories of past lives?"

Memories are constructions of neurons, not a component of DNA - the information that is hereditary.

"DNA transfers physical and mental attributes like physical aptitude, intelligence"

Intelligence no. Read R2 as to what DNA relates in terms of intelligence, essentially myelin formation, which is not intelligence, it simply elevates the potential for a higher level of.

"What's to say it [DNA] cannot withhold information from the previous ancestors?"

Withhold?

"All a memory is, is the bonds of neurons, from a genetic perspective."

No from a neuronal, cognitive aspect - genetic only as in the base capacity to form neurons that can relate to a memory. Not to 'store' a memory by changing the DNA code - which is what would have to occur. Memory occurs after the zygote.

"It could very well be transfered from parent to child with all of the other attributes in our 46 (23 pairs) chromosomes."

No. Read above; you are talking about actually taking the formation pattern of neurons (which is distinct from DNA) and then somehow changing ones genetic structure to 'encode' that pattern. It can't happen. There is a reason why DNA forensics is done - one's DNA does not change.

"As to the latter quote. Again we are dealing with something that can only be speculated and observed from personal experience, analysis of dreams (i.e. Interpretation of Dreams ,Sigmund Freud) etc."

Sole personal experience is not a valid basis for theory.

"It's not a contradiction when you take into account my entire argument."

Yes it is. If it's not been directly experienced there is no referent for it being relived. It's that simple.

"Persecution of fallacy is wrong. I was simply naming an example from Jung. http://www.nizkor.org....... I did not assign Jung as the authority and final verdict on the argument."

Eh no. Past lives are true, Jung experienced past lives, therefore past lives are true. Begging the question.

"It is less of a 'blank slate', than more of a nature (Archetype, in this case) vs nurture (environmental effects) combination. Yes, this contradicts my exact wording in my resolution, but arguments evolve, and may deviate from the original theme in order to convey what is the importance. Nurturing (environmental effects), directly affects what archetype is prevalent and dominant in the individual."

Well deviating in debate is a no no. The resolution is what you are debating obviously - arguments may evolve, the resolution cannot.

Nurture is irrelevant to the actual debate of Tabula Rasa - obviously individuals engage in an environment - once a blank slate is gone it is gone. Tabula Rasa is an epistemological position - it relates to knowledge - in particular lack of a priori. An archetype is the collective psyche of the past containing motif/images. Images are concepts, a form of knowledge - a violation of Tabula Rasa dormant or not. Blank slate is a blanks slate. A is A. It does not matter if part is hidden.

"This has some merit, when dealing with a patriarchal society. Though, how does one explain situations of heroines? In a patriarchal society, how does a female hero emerge? In this type of society, a myth should only include women as the temptress, or the one who pulls the hero from the other world, back into the normal world."

Says who? Heroines, non deified, are a lot rarer to begin with, why is there suddenly rules on what form they should be expressed in? In most myth females (and males) were the tools to tell the audience a certain message - normally instructional and warning in nature - it's why myths rarely have happy endings e.g. Medea, Brunhilde.

"one cannot look at the collective consciousness/archetypes as something that you can physically see, it's something philosophical, which is only up to debate if one is to let go of their complete need for 'proof' in front of them."

This is a rubbish claim to hide that your argument has null validity. The brain is not some magical unexplored component of the body. Philosophy is not some dreamy process of introspection. You are forgetting Philosophies main divisions are logic, metaphysics, and epistemology. Psychology is based on the scientific method.

"Of course Con will respond to this, with "He offers no concrete evidence, therefore his resolution should be thrown out", or something of the sort. And this wouldn't be totally wrong; the problem is, when dealing with Jung, a well known combiner of Philosophy, Theology, and Mythology into his Analytical Psychology, you have to be able to comprehend 'evidence', through personal testimonies, and far fetched leaps of 'faith' into the realm of the unknown."

Which is just speak for no reason to think it is right at all. Reality doesn't work differently just because Jung wished it.
You have failed to show how memory can be hereditary. Your argument is flawed, like Jung, in steeped notions of Lamarckian hereditary. You have failed to argue for a valid notion of Jung's spiritual argument. Or of how the physical can be retained, and transferred through the non physical.

Regards, Puck.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
I meant like disregard my comment cuz I was clearly full of it :)
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
I answered you! lol
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Ignore me, then :D
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
No, Puck said "Well deviating in debate is a no no. The resolution is what you are debating obviously - arguments may evolve, the resolution cannot." I forgot to quote it in my comment to show i was responding to it.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Was the changing of the resolution bit aimed at anyone in particular? I'm having a hard time telling if it was to my RFD, which isn't suggesting anything of the kind. Which is, of course, why I'm clarifying.
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
Well deviating in debate is a no no. The resolution is what you are debating obviously - arguments may evolve, the resolution cannot.

Don't agree. Staying too close to the exact resolution is, in my opinion, ignorant. One could have a resolution, but leave more open. Then change what you are trying to prove as true, since you've understood what you initially wished to put as your resolution. People get too caught up in the debate 'ethics' of, this is my resolution, defend it even if I know it's wrong; if I was playing Devil's Advocate, then I wouldn't mind doing this, but I am truly trying to come up with a reasonable idea, so changing my resolution isn't too big of a deal. But then again, what do I know? (Sarcasm not intended) Lol

"Eh no. Past lives are true, Jung experienced past lives, therefore past lives are true. Begging the question."

Wrong. I was not claiming that Jung's 'experience' was proof of there being past lives. I was using Jung's 'experience' as an example for a situation in which there is a collective consciousness that passes along evolutionary development. I got caught on the idea of reincarnation, which I apologize for asserting as the collective consciousness. They are very similar but I didn't use it well as a reference.

"As to the latter quote. Again we are dealing with something that can only be speculated and observed from personal experience, analysis of dreams (i.e. Interpretation of Dreams ,Sigmund Freud) etc."

Sole personal experience is not a valid basis for theory.

- Bit of a strawman, in my opinion.
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
Actually, I was just checking online and apparently he did draw this too I believe. Hmm, I"ll have to check some more of his art out.
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
No it isn't, but I do know of a Kefka drawing he did. It's on my HD but I liked this one better.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
This debate sort of reminds me of two ships passing in the night :) The problem is that Tabula Rasa is a theory based primarily on empirics (whether they are right or not), while Jungian archetypes require a belief in ethereal properties like souls, reincarnation, spirituality, etc. The reconciliation of the two needs to be forced, and the best way to do that is to update Jung a bit. Which, I think would have been a legit pro advocacy.

Though con asserts that Jung was basing his theory on Lamarckian evolutionary theory, that isn't necessary to still believe the archetypes are observable. You can easily make the case that instincts exist, and that instincts in a rational animal will lead to the same observable archetypes that Jung concluded exist. They can possibly jive if you mitigate Jung using data that he didn't really have at the time.

But, the pro went "collective spirit," which means little clash in the round, because now you have to prove a whole new set of stuff along with trying to get two competing theories to co-exist. Makes your life way too hard.

I tied most of this debate. I think that con makes some mistakes regarding characterizations of Tabula Rasa, but I did give convincing arguments to con, mostly because the two really are, in terms of the foundations presented by the pro, very hard to reconcile.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Is your avatar by Yoshitaka Amano?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
KefkaPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
KefkaPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
KefkaPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03