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

If you believe that Earth is flat, would that make it flat? If you live like Earth is flat, would it make it? The problem is that sociologists examine different epochs and notions in history and claim that human nature has changed when it may just be that our understanding has changed