Thanks for your input, but as I said in another post, I was being flippant here in
response to what I perceived to be a misuse of the term. I really do understand what
human nature refers to from a scientific point of view, which is why it bothers me
when it is used too generally. I apologize for being too cryptic. :-)
--Neal
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Huh? Human nature is simply referring to the obvious fact that human
> beings are creatures of certain defining characteristics (subject to
> some change with better tech eventually) and thus certain types of
> societal practices work better or worse as they are relatively
> consistent or inconsistent with that nature.
>
> It has nothing to do with claiming nothing matters or denying free
> will. But free will has nothing to do with claiming humans effectively
> have no nature and thus are totally malleable to whatever way societies
> and governments wish to treat human beings.
>
> There can be no rational or scientific approximation to the best form of
> social organization for the advancement of human beings without studying
> the nature of the entities involved and matching the organization to the
> requirements implied by that nature.
>
> Does that clear it up?
>
> - samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:37 MDT