Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John McCreery on April 3, 2012 at 1:29pm

I would like to challenge Holly Wilson's claim that, " it is hard to have a social science of something that can always change." Why? Is it hard to have a science of a vector that can always be altered by the application of another force? Is biology ruled out because now extinct species were the ancestors of still surviving ones? 

Permalink Reply by Huon Wardle on April 3, 2012 at 1:45pm

Here is Holly Wilson's post in case people can't find their way back to the original: 

Dear Thomas, of course it is not either or.  We do form our own character.  But it is hard to have a social science of something that can always change.  It is also difficult to make generalizations about something that is just unique to one or two people.  But yes I agree with you that we construct our reality with rules that are common to many people and we can come to understand truths that way.  Still my question is only if Kant's theory of human nature could make a difference in the world of anthropology.  I am very sympathetic with  your work!

John McCreery said:

I would like to challenge Holly Wilson's claim that, " it is hard to have a social science of something that can always change." Why? Is it hard to have a science of a vector that can always be altered by the application of another force? Is biology ruled out because now extinct species were the ancestors of still surviving ones? 

Permalink Reply by John McCreery on April 4, 2012 at 1:12am

In Allen Wood's comments, to which Huon provides the link above, Wood writes,

"Kant’s anthropology and philosophy of history presuppose that although we cannot solve the transcendental problem of freedom and natural causality, we can investigate human actions empirically on the assumption that they are free – not causally necessitated or by the empirical impulses that may motivate them or by natural causes of any kind."

The question I would like to ask is what, if anything, makes free choice different from random choice. We could, I suppose, imagine a freedom like that of God Almighty when He creates the world ex nihilo in Genesis, a willing that comprehends both a world and the rules that constitute and govern it. But this unlimited freedom is hardly likely to be discovered by empirical investigation. In the usual case, we assume that those whose lives we share choose from possibilities defined by the culture whose rules we are trying to infer. Or, historically speaking, we wish to examine how the rules may change to adapt to changing circumstances: ecological catastrophe, power shifts, contact with other cultures, etc. Unfettered freedom, unconstrained choice, unlimited imagination—all are hypothetical, never realized in empirical reality. When we study or try to model empirical data, "free" implies a set of options and a choice that, from the observer's perspective, appears to be random. We can sensibly talk about degrees of freedom, describing the range of choices, or model thresholds where habit breaks down and randomness appears. But "free" in a metaphysical sense that doesn't imply Divinity, what in the world is that?

Permalink Reply by Ronald Stade on April 9, 2012 at 8:27pm

‘Nous croyons que le but dernier des sciences humaines n’est pas de constituer l’homme, mais de le dissoudre’ (Lévi-Strauss, La Pensée sauvage). Half a century later, some of us no longer share this conviction. If we are back to talking about human nature - and I see no reason why we shouldn't - we may as well (a) include the few insights that neuroscience provides, (b) avoid the trap of categorical definitions and (c) acknowledge the unsolvability of the most basic of human problems, our finitude. Also, the human has no sharp boundaries, so we don't need guards patrolling the outer limits of humanity. - Freedom, rationality, responsibility, accountability, on one hand, and causation, on the other: what do they have to do with human nature?

Permalink Reply by Huon Wardle on April 10, 2012 at 2:10pm

Freedom, rationality, responsibility, accountability, on one hand, and causation, on the other: what do they have to do with human nature?

I agree with your comment, Ron. Even so, I suppose, speaking for myself, I have never thought of these concepts as natural limits; more as signs that allow us to talk about certain human potentials which most people think are important. Most people are worried or interested in the quality and extent of their own freedom(s), their responsibilities, how things are caused, what it is reasonable or rational to do or say and so on. I suppose I would be worried if I thought you meant that we should somehow excise these words from our vocabulary; but I doubt that is what you do mean.

Permalink Reply by Ronald Stade on April 10, 2012 at 3:28pm

'Freedom, rationality, responsibility, accountability, on one hand, and causation, on the other: what do they have to do with human nature?' - I meant this to be a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I struggle with the question of human nature (or whatever we want to call it). While acknowledging the many arguments against the notion of human nature, I cannot help but care about our species and its fate. The freedom/causation issue is one of many that deserve our attention. My own inclination is to adopt an undogmatic attitude and be strategically undecided.