Paddy Hackett Hi Charles Your last reply would suggest that you now share my view concerning the nature of humans. This view is that they form a constituent part of nature just as much as elephants, crows and chimps. This means that homo sapiens adds nothing qualitatively different to reality despite the enormous technology that he has produced.
^^^^^^ CB: I don't follow what you mean. Humans are a "constituent part of nature", but they are qualitatively different than other species in that they have transgenerational connections, symbolic connections to dead ancestors of the species. What are you referring to in my last post ? ^^^^^ Indeed this technology is essentially no different to nature itself. It may not even be as complex as much of nature especially its life forms. Just recall that despite computer technology humans are still not able to produce a product of the complexity of a squirrel. ^^^^^^^ CB: What exactly do you mean that humans are not able to produce a product of the complexity of a squirrel ? Your meaning is not clear. ^^^^^^ Recognition of this fact is highly significant. It means that the human species can no longer be conceived as a being distinct from nature containing some key feature -mind or soul-- that renders it qualitatively different from the world of animals. ^^^^^ CB: See above. Humans have symbols and transgrenerational symbols. This creates a qualitative difference from other animal species. &&&&&&&& No longer is there any valid basis for religion or Cartesian philosophy. ^^^^ CB: What do you mean "no longer" ? Atheism and dialectical materialism are over 150 years old. This is not a new discovery on your part. ^^^^^^ Now all description of man must be grounded in nature. This makes sense. ^^^^^^ CB: Yea, it makes sense , but you are a bit late. This is not a new thought you are having. ^^^^^^ If we were to claim that the human species is larger than nature then we would be logically compelled to provide a source that transcends nature as an explanation for the existence of human nature. ^^^^ CB: Nobody here is saying the humans species is larger than nature. I think you have the wrong list. ^^^^^^ Now this is superfluous. For years either in the form of traditional religion, philosophy and other ideological forms we were always brainwashed with the notion that humans transcend nature. ^^^^^ CB: Humans don't transcend nature. But by learning the laws of nature , humans gain certain freedom. The mastery of nature allows freedom. ^^^^^ Consequently we experienced humans as special. This left open lots of room for religion, magic, superstition and mysticism. This rendered an accurate and reliable description of the human species much more difficult. Such conditions, in many ways, assisted capitalist conditions. Failure to grasp the real nature of the human species investing it with transcendental powers helped obscure the real nature of the capitalist social system. Indeed the way in which capital appears actually tends to reinforce this illusion and thereby perpetuate capitalism. Given that the only thing that exists is nature --matter and energy-- there is no basis for attributing properties to man that transcend matter and energy. To argue that the human species transcends matter and energy it is necessary to introduce a feature that transcends them and is even their opposite. However in the absence of any scientific support for such a hypothesis it can only rely on an idealism which then justifies religion, mysticism and superstition. To realise this is not tantamount to denying that the species is a social tool-making species that engages in praxis. Indeed the very fact that humanity is limited by nature and can never transcend it means that the only way progress is achievable by it is by virtue of its possessing the aforementioned attributes. Traditionally the tendency has been the deification or mystification of the human species because of its achievements in the light of its being fixed in nature. Past inability to correctly explain human development prompted idealist descriptions. Social relations among humans is not something that separates humans off from other species. ^^^^^^^ CB: It is in the sense that humans have qualitatively different social relations than other species. We have social relations with dead ancestors. The original of this is kinship systems, in which the living generation organizes its social relations based on relations to dead ancestors. No other species have this quality of social relations. ^^^^^^^ ^^^ Indeed some animals, such as chimps, engage in social life. ^^^ CB: So, to bees and ants and ALL animals , because all animals have sex, which is social relations. If they don't have sex, they will die out. ^^^^^^^ However it is true that homo sapiens takes social relations to a new complex height. But this does not necessarily generate a bifurcation between humans and the animal kingdom. Even their tool making capacity is not said to be unique to the human species. We can never with certainty concluded that the human species was destined to develop from being proto human to fully human. Contingency, as Gould suggests, may have been a decisive factor in the unfolding of events. ^^^^^^ CB; Correct. It wasn't destined. Humans have more complex and qualitatively different social relations. ^^^^^ Given that it is now realised that the human species is just one other species it is possible for humans to eventually establish their real relation to nature in general and other animals in particular. This raises questions as to the way in hich animals are treated under capitalist conditions. ^^^^^ CB: For humans, humans are _not_ just another species. We are a special species for ourselves. We should relate to other species as if we are special for ourselves. Paddy Hackett _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
