[PEN-L:439] Re: Re: sociobiology and right-wing politics

["AK Sinha" <aks1v@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
> What the sociobiologists miss (among other things) are: how "human nature"
> is much more flexible than, say, cat nature; how human cultural, societal,
> and technological evolution (and revolutions) have replaced genetic
> evolution as the main way in which people's character changes; and the way
> in which this non-biological evolution changes the manifestation of "human
> nature" (i.e. determines the concrete appearance of abstract human nature).
>
> IMHO, some concept of human nature is needed. Not only do social structures
> create people's characters, but (as some old German pointed out) people
> make history, though hardly ever as they please. Without some kind of
> constancy (exogeneity) for both social structures and human character, this
> dialectical interaction becomes a mish-mosh. Some (very abstract)
> transhistorical conceptions are needed.
________________

"needed" for what? And what could be an "abstract human nature"?
Cheers, ajit sinha
>
> in pen-l solidarity,
>
> Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &
> http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
> "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let
> people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
>