> I had written: > >> Ajit writes: >I still don't understand what an "abstract human nature" > >> could mean.< > >> > >> I can't help it if you can't understand what I said before. > >> > >> But put it in a different way: just as Marx talks about "abstract labor" by > >> abstracting from all of the particular characteristics of the various > >> concrete labors (skill levels, the product produced, etc.), abstract human > >> nature can be sketched by abstracting from the particular characteristics > >> of the perceived concrete human natures -- i.e., the people we see in > >> various places and times, of both genders and all ethnic groups, etc. > >> "Human nature" (HN), as I said before, is the constant in the welter of > >> various human characters. > >> > >> Some things that seem constant amongst people are much of the human body, > >> the human mind (e.g., Chomsky's universal grammar), and the way in which > >> people are societal creatures. It seems best to define HN relative to the > >> beasts. But given your apparent method of universal and indiscriminate > >> skepticism, I don't see any point in getting into a deeper discussion of > this. > > Ajit writes: > >Of course people like myself are utterly incapable of getting into > >"deeper discussion" on such abstract subjects with you sir! > > Exactly: those who practice universal and indiscriminate skepticism (people > like you) are extremely frustrating to talk to (and in the end not worth > talking to) _____________ I'm not writing to Jin Devine, and do not expect a response from him. If he thinks that a person like me is "not worth talking to", all I can say is that the loss from now on is all his. I have decided not to simply ignore his arrogant and insulting remarks this time, as I have done several times in the past and have also given him some compliments to show that I consider these discussions as friendly, because there are some theoretical principles at stake here. Last time when we were discussing some philosophical issues, I did not respond to his last posting, which was full of nonsense, because I was too busy preparing to leave for Cambridge. But i remember, to my questioning of his reference to the "objective reality" of a *book*, he tried to ridicule me for questioning the example of *Capital* as a "book" as an objective reality. He does not even understand that "book" is a generalization and so a product of mind, and therefore, is particularly a bad example of "objective reality". This is the kind of depth he speaks from! which i cannot descend to. He keeps saying utter nonsense that since I critiqued "reason" as understood by the Enlightenment tradition, I have no right to speak anymore because meaning or sense etc. has no meaning for me--I'm now sort of a mad man! If his criterion is taken seriously, then most of the great thinkers of modern times-- not only just postmodernists, but Gadamar and many others-- will have to be declared as people "worth not talking to". And why stop there. Even Descartes will have to be declared not worth talking to since it was he who proposed universal skepticism as correct method for investigation. The problem is pure and simple. Jim Devine has got a mumbo jumbo idea of a kind of Hegelian Marxism which he is unable to defend when serious questions are posed to it. As you can see in his last missive below, he has no answer to my simple question, what is the content of "abstract human nature". But the whole missive is laced with such arrogance that if you read through it quickly you will get the impression that Ajit is kind of a retarded person who does not understand the enlightened Jim Devine's simple points, and he should not be allowed to ask any question anyway. But the fact of the matter is that Jim tries to intimidate and drive those people who have serious problems with his mumbo jumbo off pen-l. The first victim, to the best of my knowledge, was Herb Gintis. After that, you would have noticed that many people who do not agree with Jim Devine's mumbo jumbo of a Marxism have fallen silent. I'm quite conscious of this fact, and refuse to be silenced. And that is what is becoming quite furstating for Jim Devine. His authority as the philosopher and theoretician of pen-l is not going unchallenged. Pen-l is a cite which is not free from power politics, by the way. He uses pejoratives for every other kind of thinking he considers himself opposed to, such as "pomotistas" and for many others including Roemerians. I'm sorry I had to write this. But I did not have much option here. I have considered Jim a friend all along and have also helped him whenever I could in the real world, a lot of which he has no knowledge of. But I value my self respect, and so I had to respond to this one. Ajit sinha _____________ Jim D: because they criticize and criticize without ever taking the > risk of putting forth their own alternatives. (Of course, every defense of > the criticized theory evokes further criticism, ad infinitum and ad > nauseum.) They never allow others to be skeptical of their own ideas > because they don't reveal what these ideas are. > > I think skepticism is a good thing, but it should be complemented with the > suggestion of alternative theories and working hypotheses. > > BTW, if you insist on seeing me as being in some sort of position of > authority (thus calling me "sir"), I'd rather be called "your royal > highness" or "Grand Poo-Bah of the West." AS: > >But > >still, I remain unconvienced even at the superfecial level. JD: > In the previous thread, you seemed to reject reason. This indicates that it > is _impossible_ to convince you. So I'll leave that task to someone who has > a different estimate of your convinceability. AS: > >Though > >the meaning of "abstract labor" in Marx is debatable, when it > >comes to giving it some content he identifies it with expenditure of > >physical and mental energy; i.e. Marx's "abstract labour" is not > >empty of all content. What is the content of your "abstract human > >nature", that is my question. Now, as far as I understand it, and I > >could be quite wrong here, that Chomsky's idea of "universal > >gramer" or human's ability of language could be understood in a > >similar fashion as human's ability to stand up and walk erect after > >certain age. JD: > Chomsky's theory is _one_ theory of only _one aspect_ of the meaning of > human nature (one that seems plausible to a non-linguist such as myself). > The idea of the universal grammar (as I understand it) is that there is a > template innate in our minds (presumable based in genetics) but there is > not actual language or grammar. There is the option of putting the noun > before the verb (as in English) and the option after (as in German) as part > of the template. This choice is built-in. But which is chosen is learned. AS: > >Now, is that what "human nature" is for you? If so, how > >does this help you in making "sense" of the "dialectic of history"? JD: > The idea that there is some constant in human nature means that people's > characters are not simply "dependent variables" (determined entirely by the > social structure, as for some structuralists, or by the automatic process > of History, as for some Hegelians). If people aren't totally dependent > variables, that means that they can "make history" in a meaningful way. > > How this works in practice depends on what kind of content one assumes > "human nature" has. Chomsky's theory may be a necessary component of this, > but it does not seem sufficient. (As I said, his theory only deals with one > aspect of human nature.) That's a big question, which as I said I don't > want to get into. > > in pen-l solidarity, > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & > http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html >
