According To Plato's Argument Of Nature Or Nurture?

In all schools of social science, the debate between "nature vs nurture" is consistently revisited when explaining human behavior. While nature relates to facets of your biologically pre-determined makeup, such as genes and brain chemistry, nature refers to social and institutional influences that contribute to your behavior and the construction of your persona. When looking at the works of Plato we have read and discussed in class, it becomes clear that, had Plato entered this long debate on where human activity and character originate, he would favor the argument of nature. More specifically, Plato would most likely contend that stories shape our character. This conclusion can be derived from Plato's ideas about learning as a child, cross-generational

This statement supports this idea of stories forming our character, as it suggests that we begin our lives as “blank slates”. In other words, if memories or lessons endured during childhood are more impressionable and influential than memories we garner later on in life, as Plato claims, then perhaps it would make sense to envision our character personality to be this “blank slate”. When we are born the slate is blank, as life goes on however, the slate begins to fill; this would explain why childhood memories and lessons tend to stick with us while newer memories and lessons ultimately become less enduring because have no place to go. These newer memories and lessons then either take up the little space left on the slate or disappear completely. This “blank slate” demonstration of Plato’s claim that old memories are more impressionable than newer memories support the idea that stories create who we are and this identity stays with us for the entirety of our