5/09/96, Andrew W. Austin wrote:
>Please refrain from building strawmen about my text.
But Andrew, you said plainly:
>Moreover, I disagree with the assertion that we are naturally social.
I never pursue obfuscation intentionally, I prefer to elucidate
rather than confuse.
>Chickens have a normal heartbeat, body temperature, and breathing rate.
>Chickens are not humans. You want to so naturalize ideology that you are
>calling a basic function of animal life "human nature." At this point the
>dialogue has passed reason.
I believe this helps me make my point. You recongize that chickens
have a heartbeat, and therefore you wouldn't claim heartbeat as being
uniquely human -- it belongs to man-as-animal. My point is that
socialization -- to some un-quantified extent -- is also part of
man-as-animal. This animal-part of socialization is extended by a
cognitive uniquely-human part -- as evidenced in our more complex
societies.
Human nature includes both our animal-part and our post-animal
part. My point is that our social aspect includes both innate and cognitive
components. I believe you have denied this, when for example you said:
>But these physical
>things are not human. What is human is socially bestowed, that is thru
>language, culture, motivations, social action, etc.
The portion of our behavior-tendencies that is innate is NOT a
"physical thing".
>Can we stop learning or thinking now and just
>relax because we have solved all the mysteries of the universe?
Now isn't THIS obfuscation and straw-man creation? Recognizing a
few facts about human nature is hardly solving "all the mysteries of the
universe".
Hope to pick up the thread when I return,
Richard