Home > Notes from the Underground
I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it.
All of the ephemera that is far too trivial to be bothered with elsewhere on this site or, depending on your point of view, a meta-commentary on it. This ephemera includes, but is not limited to art, music and literature. Most of the content here will be discussed in terms that are as abstract as possible, reality being a singularly overrated concept.
Friday, November 01, 2002
One of the more important points usually overlooked from debates regarding evolutionary psychology is a historical one; it does not seem incidental to me that the founder of political liberalism (in the pre-socialist meaning of the term) was also the inventor of the idea of the blank slate, whereas, conversely, the view propounded by Hobbes that we are automata dictated to by our own passions (memes would be the modern phrase; I wonder if Dawkins and Hobbes have been compared before?) was accompanied by a distinctly more authoritarian form of politics, in whuch, for example, rights are not a meaningful notion. In truth, civilisation has always been conceived of as a defence against the Hobbesian state of nature, which is why I tend to be deeply suspicious of claims that nature should be considered a cardinal factor in political discussions. Not to mention the fact that to observe that genetic and environmental factors are mutually interdependent; it is more than a caveat to observe that innate characterisitics may not manifest themselves without environmental stimulus, which may influence how they manifest themselves in certain areas; it is a statement of fact. In which case, one feels minded to dismiss the whole affair as a false dichotomy.
Addedum: Interesting TNR piece about Pinker's misinterpretation of Locke.
Regarding John Gray, I do not think the waters are anywhere near as murky; it is a less a matter of straw dogs and more to do with straw men. The simple fact is that we do have a special status in nature, if only because we are the only species able to drastically amend and adjust nature (our environment) to fit our needs. It is precisely this ability to alter the environment and, consequently, the pressures of natural selection that means said pressures cannot apply to us in precisely the same way they do to the rest of the animal kingdom. If this is not survival of the fittest, I do not know what is; so why the sentimental (or perhaps more accurately, appropriated Rousseauism) view of humanity as a plague against the innoncence of nature?
posted by Richard 3:32 pm
