So socialism

[Gorbles]

Hu, no. We are acting exaclty like other social mammals, just with more flourish and more power.

The separate established concepts of territorialism in both humans and (other) animals (as linked) suggests otherwise. There are animals that can act more like us, and animals that act less like us. But nowhere near "exactly", across the board.

 

[Traitorfish]

Hu, no. We are acting exaclty like other social mammals, just with more flourish and more power.

This seems to suppose that "other social mammals" all act alike, that I could look at a herd of cows and a troop of baboons and say "they're the same", which seems untrue on the face of it. Any commonalities you could find between all or even just most social mammals (and I don't doubt that they do exist) are going to be so broad that they couldn't possibly point humans towards any specific plan of social organisation.

 

[Farm Boy]

It forms a baseline for whereabouts most cells of the superorganism start. Socialization is lost and retaught and lost and retaught and lost...

Which helps to know what must be taught depending on where we want to go.

 

[Lohrenswald]

@Traitorfish I get if you don't care and my "writing" is basically nothing but do you have anything you're willing to say broad strokes wise or kinda fundamentally

 

[Narz]

Any commonalities you could find between all or even just most social mammals (and I don't doubt that they do exist) are going to be so broad that they couldn't possibly point humans towards any specific plan of social organisation.

I don't think any1 is suggesting we structure society based on any specific animal society but we can learn about ourselves from animals

 

[Gorbles]

We've moved the goalposts from "territorial like animals" to "we can learn about ourselves from animals". Alright!

 

[Lexicus]

You're the one flatly telling that everything is cultural

Quote me saying this lol

Care to share how you reached that conclusion?

I looked up animal territoriality and noticed that humans don't behave that way. I also noticed the main argument I've seen for human territoriality is circular.

but what makes you think there has been a late and radical turnaround in human behavior?

Probably the fact that the Neolithic revolution clearly represents a radical turnaround in human behavior

I will say it's fascinating to see the loudest voices condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine arguing here that we're just territorial animals who kill and fight each other because it's in our nature to do so. I don't see how it's possible to make moral condemnations at all if you believe humans are "no different" than other animals. Unless of course the condemnations of Russia aren't about morality but actually just because you think Russia is "the other team" and you would prefer your team to be doing the killing and raping.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, the magic transformation, belied by marks of violence on skeletal remains, before, and after.

 

[Narz]

We've moved the goalposts from "territorial like animals" to "we can learn about ourselves from animals". Alright!

No. They're both correct.

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, the magic transformation, belied by marks of violence on skeletal remains, before, and after.

This might be a good point if the transformation was from no violence to violence, but that is clearly not the case.

Also as a separate point I'm guessing your idea of "marks of violence on skeletal remains" relies on very poor scholarship e.g. Stephen Pinker.

 

[Narz]

I don't see how it's possible to make moral condemnations at all if you believe humans are "no different" than other animals.

We can acknowledge our animal origins while striving for optimal morality. That's a strange dichotomy

 

[Gorbles]

No. They're both correct.

Incorrect!

I'd say more, but I've put the work in already, and provided the links already, etc, et al, yadda yadda, and so on. I've done what I can.

 

[Lexicus]

We can acknowledge our animal origins while striving for optimal morality. That's a strange dichotomy

Several of you are not merely "acknowledging our animal origins" but going further and saying we're no different than any other social or territorial animal.

If that's true then calling the Russians "orcs" for acting according to what you say is human nature just seems odd to me, that's all.

 

[Narz]

Incorrect!

Perhaps I've should've put the caveat 'some' as in some people can learn. One has to want to learn.

 

[Farm Boy]

This might be a good point if the transformation was from no violence to violence, but that is clearly not the case.

Also as a separate point I'm guessing your idea of "marks of violence on skeletal remains" relies on very poor scholarship e.g. Stephen Pinker.

Well, stone tool marks on bone and spiral wrist fractures on women must have totally been driven by some mysterious influences, then. Clumsy cadaver eating cannibals, likely. Some form of savage pagan rite. <shrugs>

 

[Narz]

Several of you are not merely "acknowledging our animal origins" but going further and saying we're no different than any other social or territorial animal.

Of course we're different than other animals. But it's a matter of degree not some quantum leap

 

[Gorbles]

Perhaps I've should've put the caveat 'some' as in some people can learn. One has to want to learn.

That's not what I was calling incorrect!

But it's a matter of degree not some quantum leap

I said literally this in my last mega-quote reply post. I guess you missed it.

Though, again, this is not evidence that animal territorialism is what humans do. Because it's not.

 

[Lexicus]

Of course we're different than other animals. But it's a matter of degree not some quantum leap

Well, let me know when an animal designs a computer with an internet connection. I'll respond to this post then.

 

[bernie14]

Not only is it not absurd, "globalization" stringly backs it. How else do you explain the doing away with differences due to past history, culture, religion, etc, the tendency towards uniformalization across the world?
It is a matter of what drives things. Economic interestsm, the clash of those, are in the center of it. A fan of capitalism should be able to see that plainly...

I would explain it as confirmation bias of banal circumstances, similar to how the religious crazies point to current events as "end of times".

Interestingly, the kolakowski quote above, almost by sheer magic, is followed by the following paragraph...

If, on the other hand, the theory is taken in a weak, limited sense, it merely says that the history of culture has to be investigated in such a way that one should take account of social struggles and conflicting interests, that political institutions depend in part, at least negatively, on technological development and on social conflicts. This, however, is an uncontroversial banality that was known long before Marx. And so, the materialist interpretation of history is either nonsense or a banality.

for anyone interested in the short piece the quotes are pulled from it is here.

 

[Hygro]

My only critique of materialism is when proponents don’t take it far enough; eg Laschian cultural narcissism is in part driven by the material reality of peoples times spent like how the very unique and particular nature of television, a technology, changed peoples thoughts, behaviors, and norms.

Obviously the workplace is not 100% of our consciousness. But our environments and minds are, our workplace and things surrounding it is a big and shared part, and all of it radically changes with tech.

So anyone stuck on modes of production as the whole of it is missing how much more it is than that within the same paradigm.