I guess the difference is that you’re viewing history through a philosophical lens, whereas I’m viewing it through an anthropological/archaeological lens.
I admit, I am biased to the belief that for the purposes of understanding history, these are more appropriate academic tools.
I can’t stress this enough: you are continually attributing to me positions that I probably don’t hold (at least in the way that you’re keen to attribute).
My only position is that it is disengenuous to represent human nature as being a certain way by refusing to acknowledge historical context. All (and I mean that, all) I am asking you to do is augment your position by including the reality of history, rather than rejecting the parts of it that you don’t want to deal with. I don’t even believe they’re incompatible, it just demands of you an expansion of your ideas.
My only position is that it is disengenuous to represent human nature as being a certain way by refusing to acknowledge historical context.
That’s what Marx’s historical materialism does.
All (and I mean that, all) I am asking you to do is augment your position by including the reality of history, rather than rejecting the parts of it that you don’t want to deal with.
I have acknowledged the violent past of humanity, but I understand they were shaped by socio-economic conditions.
I don’t even believe they’re incompatible, it just demands of you an expansion of your ideas.
Our genetic speciality is that we are not specialised, not constrained by a range of instinctive behaviour. One result is that human beings can display very different forms of behaviour – ranging from great care for one another to selfishness and violence. The behaviour that predominates is not genetically determined.
I guess the difference is that you’re viewing history through a philosophical lens, whereas I’m viewing it through an anthropological/archaeological lens.
I admit, I am biased to the belief that for the purposes of understanding history, these are more appropriate academic tools.
I can’t stress this enough: you are continually attributing to me positions that I probably don’t hold (at least in the way that you’re keen to attribute).
My only position is that it is disengenuous to represent human nature as being a certain way by refusing to acknowledge historical context. All (and I mean that, all) I am asking you to do is augment your position by including the reality of history, rather than rejecting the parts of it that you don’t want to deal with. I don’t even believe they’re incompatible, it just demands of you an expansion of your ideas.
That’s what Marx’s historical materialism does.
I have acknowledged the violent past of humanity, but I understand they were shaped by socio-economic conditions.
My ideas are expanded by reading and understanding, not by demands. I’ll leave you with an article on Human Nature and the Alternative to Capitalism. It states:
I envy your courage.
I am a coward. But I am aware of my limitations.
I profoundly disagree.