>>
|
No. 7001
[Edit]
>>6998
OK, stop... and think about how many claims about social behaviours, over history, have been said to be merely "natural" (like war, inequity, explotation and slavery) and how many others still could be called so with some improvised mimetic/inherited ethological pretext (like murder and rape). Now, go even further, and think about how many times we've been supposedly able to say what the very structure of the human mind, nature and the universe must be (aristotelian physics of the graves; ptolemaic geocentrism; Descartes's theory of the vortex; copernican heliocentrim; Newton's Universal Gravitation and its absolute concepts; Kant's trascendental subject; the discovery of our own and other galaxies; Hubble's law and the Big Bang theory; Einstein relativism safe from inertial referential frames Democritus's atomism, Mendeleiev's atomism, quantum theory's uncertainty principle, Husserl's phenomenological horizons of interpretation, Heidegger's re-founding of methaphysics, Hume or Locke's work over the structure of the mind, english logic-analytical philosophers' figure of the mind, Freud or Jung's psychoanalysis, Neuroscience...); think how many unknown mistakes and fallacies we currently live upon, we may still have to realize about...
We've had a shitload of supposedly solid statements for any matter that have fallen down, so it's BULLSHIT, at this point, to claim anything to be "natural" and pretend to use that as a justification for anything. As far as we can say, it's all just cultural/fictional pictures, concepts, attached by us into whatever things may be (and wich are all we may ever get to know about any of them).
|