> > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] & > 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. >
