Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Will on November 16, 2012 at 1:51pm

Seems to me the abstract is saying "Baboon nature, and probably human nature, is evolved so that strong personal relationships are significant."

I'll have a go at some of the questions:

1.)  Biological determinism?  Is man just an animal?  If he is just a product of his genes and biology then what stops us from moving toward nihilistic ideas like eugenic management of society?

You can have an inborn tendency toward something without giving in to it.  For example, we have an inborn tendency to marry; some don't.  To be gregarious; some aren't.  To eat sweets; some limit them.

2.) Why are the universities so determined to prove that we can be good without God?  What is their purpose? 

Although that may be true, I don't see strong evidence that these academics are doing that here.  They may simply be curious about human nature.

3.) What value does man add to his existence by his will?  And how is that will to stand if we have decided that there is no firm foundation?

Not sure how that relates to the abstract -- unless this is about 1.)

4.) If women are the natural communicators and relationship builders, and relationships are more rare in modern society and need to be rebuilt, and the world is changing to modes of communication that women are more naturally "wired" for (i.e. written/verbal language communication) ...

What will happen to men as the Internet and traditionally female communication styles  become more dominant?  Will men be relegated to irrelevancy?  Will we change?  If we do change, what will we lose?  What will humanity lose?  Can we change?  (Is it even true that men are less language oriented than women?)

This research is about female baboons, not males; to say that the females form deep bonds doesn't mean the males don't, or that human males don't.

I don't think it's true that men are inherently less language-oriented than women; or if it is, the difference is so miniscule we can't measure it well enough to establish it.  

And as for relationship -- we are mostly Western here.  Arab and Indian men don't seem to have this same relationship-being-rare thing.  As one Indian friend told the American writer Robert Johnson, "I can't talk to you about what loneliness is like, because you see I have never been lonely."  I think the perception of men as genetically friendless only works for us because we're Westerners.  People of other cultures, or ours in the past, would wonder what the heck we're talking about.  And discuss it with their friends!

It's an interesting question, though, whether increasing wealth increases social distance -- and how that will affect other cultures.  But we started out more distant, at least in terms of physical distance.  So maybe it is just us.

Permalink Reply by Clint Connolly on November 16, 2012 at 3:19pm

Hey Will,

Thanks for taking a whack at it - yes, you are definitely tracking with me and your answers are interesting. 

I agree about the fact that men are not naturally less language oriented than women.  '

The only thing I disagree about is that the purposes of our communication causes men and women to communicate differently.  Men naturally are action-oriented so we speak in order to mobilize and build so we use words that are more divisive but are more clear.  Women speak to nurture and preserve so they tend to use more passive language, that unifies and blurs distinctions.

Or rather, this is the strength of men vs women - it's been lost in postmodern language usage.

Also, I disagree that the University is benevolent in this - they are intentional, however very passive in their method.

It is an honorable way of speaking to clearly state your position and hold fast to it.  I respect "liberals" who do this - but there can be no useful discourse when both sides are speaking passively.

At the best it is unhelpful - at the worst it is deceit. 

There is a movement that is sweeping the intellectual community to stop speaking passively and begin speaking actively. 

When I was in school, teachers still used to teach that the "passive voice" was always a wrong way to write.  But when I got to college this seemed to be the only way to write that got me good grades on my papers.  I got so good at it, I forgot I was doing it and I would try to speak boldly (as I felt) while using passive language (which seemed to be required by society), which would just annoy people (it has happened here on AoM) - I'm still recovering.

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on November 16, 2012 at 3:24pm

I agree about the fact that men are not naturally less language oriented than women.

 

Says the guy with the Eastwood avatar.  Clint's a regular motormouth.

 

JB

Permalink Reply by Clint Connolly on November 16, 2012 at 3:32pm

Hey, I didn't say I was typical - I'm just the model everyone else should follow...

Ain't nobody like Clint, baby.

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on November 16, 2012 at 3:41pm

That's the point.  You're not typical.  Men are, on average, less language oriented.  Eastwood is an example ... almost to the point of caricature.

 

You're a talker.  But, most men aren't talkers, at least not to that degree.  Every once in a while you'll come across a prickly woman who's more of an Eastwood-type.  The exception doesn't disprove the rule.

 

Can't be sure whether that's nature or nurture ... but, in my experience, it is largely true.

JB

Permalink Reply by Will on November 16, 2012 at 5:28pm

Thing is, things largely true in your experience -- and mine -- are Western things.  In my experience, largely, men who aren't That Way and in a relationship don't hold hands.  But I'm not Korean, Eritrean, Arab, or Indian. In the experience of someone from those parts of the world, men largely do hold hands. 

Clint, I get that the passive voice is bad writing, but not how it relates to the abstract -- I didn't see it in the abstract.

Also:  men speak to mobilize.  That's one reason I speak.  I also speak to explore; to help me form my thoughts; to learn; to get to know the other person; to instruct; to set a mood...  

Permalink Reply by Nick H on November 16, 2012 at 1:59pm

We have nihilistic management of human already. "Survival of the fittest" just means those who have the most kids pass the most genes onto the future regardless of whether they are "good" or "bad". Eugenic management of would mean we are putting thought and moral reasoning into who we allow to pass on their genes. That is anything but nihilistic. 

Permalink Reply by Clint Connolly on November 16, 2012 at 2:57pm

Good point, Nick.  This is something Chesterton said in his book about Eugenics.  That there's no need to regulate what human beings naturally regulate. 

The nihilism in it is that man puts no value in anything - we forget that to say something is well-adapted to its environment is to say nothing at all.

Such ideas say nothing about what humanity holds most dear, which is what things are worth adapting for, what is the purpose of survival when existence is meaningless.  Who care if we're well adapted if we're on a road to nowhere.

We get so caught up in the mechanisms of the universe we forget that there is also Agency that is that our decisions mean something - or that the actions of the effective agent of the universe (God) mean something. 

The means are not important if there are no ends.

 

Permalink Reply by Nick H on November 17, 2012 at 3:35am

I think we are, depending on your beliefs, on a "road to nowhere" or on a road to somewhere but that somewhere is beyond our control. For atheists, it truly is a road to nowhere. The idea that evolution is a linear path (as in we evolved from A so we must be heading towards B) is wrong. All it states is that we change in response to environment. If tomorrow the world changes in a way that it is advantageous for men to be dumber and weaker, evolution will take us down that path. So for them, why would they try and plan the course of their species' evolution? If the world changes, their changes might be the wrong ones. For the religious, there is the belief that the path is either laid out or guided by god(s). For this belief, what is the point in eugenics? Can we really expect to try and steer god's creation?

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on November 16, 2012 at 2:58pm

How would you propose "moral reasoning" would apply to whether "we allow" someone to procreate?  Who is "we"?

JB

Permalink Reply by Will on November 16, 2012 at 3:05pm

Elites have enough power already, without giving them the authority to "allow" others to pass on their genes.

Permalink Reply by Nick H on November 17, 2012 at 3:28am

Whoa. Answering here to both JB and Will. I'm not proposing anything. I'm just disagreeing with the author's use of the word nihilistic as meaning the same thing as eugenics. Eugenics means we control breeding. In other words, we decide who should or shouldn't breed. That may be evil, but it is not nihilistic, someone still cared about who bred and who didn't. Nihilistic would be the opposite.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page