Circumstances make the man

"[2]No man is an island, / Entire of itself, / Every man is a piece of the continent, / a part of the main. .. " - John Donne [2] . http://www.poemhunter.com... Donne originally wrote this poem referring to mankind's intrinsically connected nature. Despite his original intention, this poem also serves as an excellent illustration of man's dependency upon his culture to define him. No man is an island unto himself, and no man can be evaluated independent of the things which define his culture. A Samurai raised in feudal japan would not have the same prestige in a Victorian society, and in the same way, a Victorian gentleman would not hold the same value in feudal japan. The circumstances surrounding a man's existence and placement in society are instrumental in defining him. Effectively, circumstances make the man. A person's value is ultimately dictated by his respective culture. And that culture is ultimately a conglomeration of circumstances which have been grouped into the things that signify it. If Bill Gates had been born two-hundred years earlier on a ranch in south Texas, we wouldn't remember him as such a great innovator because the skills he possessed wouldn't have made him out to be a great man in a ranching society. Said society would instead place great value on men with stronger frames who could do a better job taking care of animals and raising cattle; the technological ingenuity of Bill Gates wouldn't have done him much good in this kind of society. However this is assuming that we took Gates as he existed in our modern world and placed him in 1813; had he been rightfully born in this time period, he would have probably still been a successful business man because business is one of his strengths. He would have done business in things relevant to his culture, but he would probably be a successful businessman all the same. The circumstances of his life in 1813 would have made him a different man. I was born and raised in the dirty south. My father is about as much of a redneck as you can get without owning a tractor. Up until a few years ago I would spew out canned, culturally appropriate responses to hot button issues because those responses where what had been conveyed to me as good and acceptable. I didn't have a framework for libertarian free choice to argue that same-sex marriage is acceptable on the grounds of personal autonomy. I just knew 'gay was bad', and repeated the sentiment devoid of a context I could understand. Even now I personally hold moral resignation against homosexual acts because of my upbringing. I understand that such things really aren't any of my business. Whatever happens behind closed doors between two consenting adults is their business and theirs alone. Nonetheless the circumstances of my upbringing still guide my moral compass to think such things are immoral. Is such a moral stance justified? Maybe, maybe not. But the fact remains that my moral compass says as much because of the circumstances by which I grew up. Had I been raised in a different part of the world, or even by different parents, I would probably think differently, even if only slightly. I would be a different man because my circumstances would be different But I wasn't. And I don't. In closing the argument here is very simple, no man is an island to his cultural influences. By necessity or whatever else, the circumstances which surround a person define him and make him who he is. Circumstances make the man.