Human nature is certainly not a sharply defined concept, nor does it have to be. If one accepts the evolutionary view of things, than one does expect fuzzy boundaries for pretty much everything in biology, including whatever characteristics are supposed to be species specific. Nonetheless, I maintain that to reject talk of a human nature out of hand, as especially continental philosophers have been doing (think of the historic debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, not to mention my Stony Brook colleague’s attitude), is fundamentally misguided. Recognizing a “nature” to humanity does not imply some sort of rigid determinism about human behavior. Talk of human nature also does not entail a silly form of reductionism that trivializes the complexity of human culture. Then again, to reject the idea of human nature despite the advances of science means trivializing the biology of being human, and we do that at our own peril. The Delphi oracle’s imperative was to know thyself, and that knowledge surely must include a hefty contribution from biology.
My name is Nick "Saij" Horton and I'm a graduate student studying mathematics and mathematical biology through the use of quantum evolutionary game theory.
This blog is at the intersection of my interests in Evolutionary Science and Political Theory. That makes for a bit of a messy blog! But, hey, what else are blogs for :)
And don't forget to check out my podcast below, Math for Primates, that I host with Tom Henderson.
Relevant Quote:"I believe that the playwright should be a kind of public intellectual, even if only a crackpot public intellectual."
Some More Topics
All the Rest
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.