Message from @Draco
Discord ID: 508407090214338560
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
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
Uh
Wow
Okay
human nature is essential
This is really silly, it's not sociology, which is materialist and thus believes in an objective material reality, that thinks existence is subjective
Er reality not existence
Why did you jump to existence? You are the one saying that human nature changes and I am asking you to prove that. You implied that it changes because we have had different notions of what it means to be human. But we have had different notions of what is the shape of Earth too
Like I said, the way humans behave has already been shown to be constructed from their environment
Again, essentiallists do not deny that
Yes, but they believe in a metaphysical, or mystical, human essence
Which has never been shown to exist
Social constructivists claim that human behaviour is acquired, which can be shown to be false by just proving that genetic makeup affects behaviour and passes on generationally
You are jumping the gun. What is your criticism of essentialism? Is it that human nature has changed, or that human nature has not shown to be real?
You've mischaracterizing constructivism
Since constructivist don't claim that the material body one has doesn't influence the ideal
Obviously it does
What is that ideal?
Uh
Is that existant?
The mind