How do you fuck up something so simple

how do you fuck up something so simple

Other urls found in this thread:

really makes you think

You realize they're posing the question so they can answer "no" right? It's like the first rule of leading headlines

The speaker posits that human nature actually makes socialism preferable, which is some dumb, its pretty evident we are shaped by our material surroundings and have no fixed "nature" other than to be social creatures.

We are not entirely shaped by history though. If a case can be made that capitalism puts the survival of our species at risk, you should better keep that
to yourself. I'm pretty sure your saint Marx (PBUH) didn't actually have the view of human nature entirely being a social construct either, else he would have never talked about alienation.

This is wrong. There are all kinds of biological traits unique to humans, most of them relate directly to our abnormal brains. Many of these manifest in psychology. They don't make socialism impossible or capitalism preferable, but they do make people susceptible to ideology. Humans are the only animals known to have language, and our use of language has huge implications when it comes to how society operates.

We are not social creatures, and that's human nature.

I'm pretty sure they didn't say human nature was a social construct. Human nature is based on material realities. There's no reason to be greedy unless the system rewards it, no reason to kill someone for resources unless you need them, etc.

Does autism make socialism impossible?

human nature exists th



I think an objective "human nature" probably does exist (as in common predispositions in humans that aren't in other species) but that human nature is either so susceptible to socialization that the material conditions override any innate "human nature" and that also epistemologically our understanding of what "human nature" is is almost impossible to wholly figure out given that we are socialized creatures.


This. I'm sick of the "human nature doesn't exist" meme.

They did nothing wrong. The whole point is for them to debunk this. How are you this fucking stupid?

The lecture:

The ABCs of socialism PDF:

human nature probably does exist but if it does it is extremely malleable.
Muh human nature arguments just let righties pretend their ideology is something that's natural and can't be opposed.

Human nature is just a function that maps material conditions to certain psychological patterns. Put people in weird conditions and they respond weirdly. Put people under the constraints and pressures of current society, and you get capitalists. Free people from those constraints and communism becomes appealing.

the idea that environment completely overrides biology is nonsensical and anti-science. If nurture has an effect on neurology then its not more than .5.

literally can't say genetics or neurology because you're secretly an idealist like all good Leftists. Embrace idealism and stop being inconsistent and confused about what you mean by mind/brain. None of you believe mind is based on neurology or genes, you all think its a collective and environmental process. Just embrace a strange form of idealism, because that's what all of you functionally believe in. If you didn't we would never use the words psychological or social or any nonsense like that and would stick to species, population and organism. Just stop playing pretend that you guys are materialists.

I completely agree. In fact that's pretty much what I was saying.

I also completely agree with this. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. There's no other good explanation for why psychedelics (and other drugs) have the effect they do. It still doesn't explain why I experience qualia, but the causal link must exist.

Hell, I even accept some of the race-realist stuff that Holla Forums believes in, although I draw very different conclusions of what we should do about it.

Now stop fighting strawmen. Both of the posts you responded to were me.

actually there is, the Britbongs have been doing excellent research on this and there are some vids on YT giving preliminary (key word) but in-depth causal mechanisms for the psychedelic experience (or at least a strong picture of the physical correlate for it). I am not a materialist, I am not an idealist. It doesn't matter to me what exactly is being affected mind/brain, I just want epistemological and semantic consistency when we talk on this board about the mental/neurological. Its very disturbing talking with someone who believes in Darwinian Evo and the Big Bang who doesn't understand the physicalist theories of mind (which I don't accept, but I refuse to be ignorant of because its a sign of weakness intellectually to be unaware of dominant philosophical beliefs in academia).

Qualia is the epiphenomena of mind, the physicalists think mind is an illusion. Its a sort of mirage, and qualia exist in this mirage of subjectivity and mental-space that doesn't exist. The actual space for inner experience and thinking does not exist, it only has physical and electro-chemical correlates. This is spooky and is the source of the hard problem. I think the epiphenomenal explanation is spookier than the dualist or "i don't know fam" explanations.

I also accept tons of the race-realist shit that Holla Forums says along with things they don't (for instance blacks are legitimately better athletes and asians and jews are legitimately more intelligent than whites, whites are just better leaders and better killers/inventors). But that doesn't mean we have to hate other people for their genes, and you even said that environment has a strong effect on the mind. Which it must, because epigenetics is real and is only going to grow in importance.

I think my main point is that we should be very, very careful about how we code-switch between early 20th century psychological understandings of society and mind and then 21st century neuro-biological understandings of society and mind. I think they're both useful, but they're not exactly consistent or even compatible. And clever right wingers often point out that denying the probable 50% impact of genes on behavior is tantamount to being an idealist. Which i think is a fair criticism.

Sorry, this is just a subject that triggers me deeply as I think about this matter on a daily basis.