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

Which is material

on materialism

It arises from the material

Doesn't mean it has to be material itself

Are you an epiphenonmenalist?

All materialism means is that the material is a first order reality

You cannot claim that a second order reality is more ideal than first order reality

Lord

The ideal is subject and secondary to the material

I don't think you know what "ideal" means. Ideal =/= mental

It is the realm of the mind, consciousness and *ideas*

The question of idealism vs materialism is the question as to weather matter is an extension of, created by or subject to the mind, or the other way around

You seriously are using terms very loosely. Materialists do not believe that ideal is second level reality. They believe that it does not exist.

Mostly that is the case

Well, there might be few exceptions but if we are talking about fringes then it is very hard to use any terms without defining them

It is a capitulation by materialists to even offer ground to mind dependence

The social constructivist can only differ with essentialist if he claims that the ideal human nature changes. But either he does not believe in the existence of ideals or he cannot show that it changes.
We know that social constructivistism is false in the way it is used most often, because we can show that much of behaviour is innate through genetic and biological studies.

However, if the constructivist wants to just claim that humans change, then there is no disagreement with Essentialists as Essenetialists do not deny that

Marx would call that vulgar materialism Draco

It seems to me you haven't really read our positions

I actually have. The point is that you want everything crucial to be defined the way Marx did. AT best you will prove that Marx was coherent.
Marx is not the biggest materialist thinker. Why don't you get your materialist thinking from the biggest names? Why you try to get every position from Marx?

Karl Marx?

Who do you think is the best thinker and proponent of Materialism?

It surely isn't Karl Marx

Wish I knew what you guys were talking about

Social Constructivism and Essentialism

I'm not a materialist nor constructivist in the sense much of the rest of these are