Richard K. Moore wrote:
> You're not talking about "human nature", you're trying to compute the
> difference "human nature" minus "animal nature"... Otherwise eating and sleeping and
> walking are not part of human nature - and I find that an absurd notion, and totally useless in discussing what people are about.
> -rkm
I would have thought that eating, sleeping and walking were things that
human beings do, not a part of an inherently 'human' nature. If they
were a part of human nature, then the absence of any one would mean the
subject would be less human or not human. Perhaps if you were talking
about the manner in which a person eats, sleeps and walks then you
could invoke, maybe, human nature, but essentially these things can all
be traced back to society/culture and this has been shown in this thread
to be unnatural (in that - I assume - it is a part of a socio-historical
imaginary ultimately dependent on human beings for its creation).