Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
Evidently, I didn't get the memo (and neither did most of biological psychology, bio-anothropology, evolutionary biologists, evolutionary psychologists, cognitive neuroscientists... the list goes on....) There's a great deal of productive research being done from a functional biological perspective.
|
First of all, it isn't something as simple as a universal memo. I refer to a bulk of writings on critical theory developed out of the 20th century, beginning mainly in the '50s, hitting its peak in the '70s, and having been refined between the '80s and '90s. It was an international movement and included some interesting critiques of the rhetoric of science of the time, to be sure. The world cannot be defined, evaluated, and conducted on research alone. Scientific research and development on its own is not a slam dunk. It must be left open to be critique before its worth can be known. The last thing we need is another social Darwinist movement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
Also, there's nothing in the questions presented in the OP that suggests that human nature is taboo to apply to a discussion of war.
|
Taboo? No. An outmoded and therefore useless term? Yes. Go on using it if you want, but be forewarned that its on shaky ground that you do so, though I think it is possible that you say "human nature" when you mean something else entirely.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
baraka, sir: does your post mean that i am somehow a "postmodernist"?
|
Actually, no. The post-modern era ended on September 11, 2001 at 8:46 a.m. EST. While your ideas are certainly based on post-modern thought, they appear to fit within the next era of critical theory, which is yet to be defined by any stable measure. I think it has something to do with a combination of quantum theory, degrees of abstraction, and something that might be called post-humanism.
Essentially, you are one who is brave enough to be treading these new waters.