I make a distinction between the biological entity, Homo sapiens, and the
social entity, Human. I never denied that we are natural. This was even
implied in my admission of capacity due to morphology. But these physical
things are not human. What is human is socially bestowed, that is thru
language, culture, motivations, social action, etc.. I specifically
produced this dichotomy in my writing to avoid the naturalization of
social production so common in appeals to "human nature." If we are to
say that humans have a nature, then we have to recognize that nature as a
product of social interaction and history and not the product of nature
in the biological, genetic, morphological sense. If we are to talk about
the scientific musings on the biological entity Homo sapiens, then we
need to specify that this is the subject at hand. By recognizing the
distinction between social being and animal nature we avoid extremes of
idealism and materialism. Moreover, I disagree with the assertion that we
are naturally social. Homo sapiens are not human or social outside of
society. Thus natural being is not sufficient for human (or social)
being. Another way to say this is that society, a social product, is a
necessary condition for social being. Homo sapiens learn to be social. If
it is learned it is not natural in the sense that I understand natural.
Andy