The "human nature" argument. Idk why this line of argument pisses me off more than others. It just feels disingenuous on too many layers maybe.
Anyways I feel like I've seen it come up a lot in the last few days. It would be funny to see if the ones arguing it can be classically trained into abandoning it
My first philosophy paper I started with an appeal to human nature and rightfully the prof did destroy that with big bold red markings. I did use the snappy start since I learned from the Economist and the big newspapers, be it Die Zeit or some Anglosphere ones that it is interesting and intellectual to do it.
It is mostly used to strengthen hegemonic ideology, it isn't scientific and many people using it have no clue about what "natural" is and neither do they have concepts about what did happen in pre-history, but they think they do - as I did, too. It is a scourge.
The "human nature" argument. Idk why this line of argument pisses me off more than others. It just feels disingenuous on too many layers maybe.
Anyways I feel like I've seen it come up a lot in the last few days. It would be funny to see if the ones arguing it can be classically trained into abandoning it
My first philosophy paper I started with an appeal to human nature and rightfully the prof did destroy that with big bold red markings. I did use the snappy start since I learned from the Economist and the big newspapers, be it Die Zeit or some Anglosphere ones that it is interesting and intellectual to do it.
It is mostly used to strengthen hegemonic ideology, it isn't scientific and many people using it have no clue about what "natural" is and neither do they have concepts about what did happen in pre-history, but they think they do - as I did, too. It is a scourge.
deleted by creator