Message from @Draco
Discord ID: 508405588850376714
But why? Constructivism is demonstrably false.
Oof
History disagrees
Everyone believes their opponent's position is demonstrably false
*who's trying for senior citizen here hmmm*
This is true
It is not a question of history. It is a question of biology
I had a conversation about this earlier
Marxists make it about history to perform a class analysis.
Actually
No
The claim of constructivism is about inheritance of social traits
Constructivism is just about the adaptability of human nature
What has history to do with it?
This can he explained by biology
Neural plasticity for one
It's also evolutionarily advantageous for humans to have some degree of malleability in order to survive better
Well we can see how many characteristics of human nature have changed based in the conditions people were subjected to
Now, like Marx I think there is a core human nature and that the specifics of this are molded by society. I'm not entirely constructivist
But human nature was in slave based societies like Greece to be different from ours or that of Feudal societies
Honestly, it is just a word game sociologists play. If you really define Constructivism as adaptability to surroundings, then essentialists do not disagree. You present a dichotomy with essentialism and then give a lighter definition.
Essentialists do not say that humans are not affected by sorroundings
The whole idea of Plato's The Republic was that they are
Yes, but you also claim there is an essential being
Yes, and essential being is not full of all properties of humanity
Some metaphysical component to a given thing that makes it that thing
It is mere minimum that makes you a human
Like four wheelers having four wheel does not mean their wind shields do not get scratched
I don't think "human" is a constant unchanging thing however
Humans today are defined not just their their biology but the technology they create which is an extension of themselves
You presented a critique of Essentialism. Have you read what it is?
Yes I have
I quoted what it was a second ago
So, why do you think that Plato did not know that humans in his country did not adapt different lifestyles with changing technology
I'm saying it's more than that and that human nature changes along with these changes
Including what it means to be human
This actually gets into post human thought
That actually is just a question of tautology on what "human" means.
You can say that "human" means killing people relentlessly so empathy would be non-human.
```Cultural posthumanism: a branch of cultural theory critical of the foundational assumptions of humanism and its legacy that examines and questions the historical notions of "human" and "human nature", often challenging typical notions of human subjectivity and embodiment and strives to move beyond archaic concepts of "human nature" to develop ones which constantly adapt to contemporary technoscientificknowledge.```
Well essentiallism vs constructivism is based on the question as to whether human nature is constructed or essential
It is just a deconstructionists' way of making things more complex than they are