Comments on: Natural’s not in it http://critecon.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/naturals-not-in-it/ The lonely hour of the last instance has arrived. Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:47:06 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: JCD http://critecon.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/naturals-not-in-it/#comment-8 JCD Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:51:20 +0000 http://critecon.wordpress.com/?p=10#comment-8 It might be fun to trace out naturalist thought in cultural product, too. I was reading last night on how political economy came to be--it was more or less a result of the English trying to quantify and measure their land-wealth from colonizing Ireland. The surveyor for the conquest, the guy working for Cromwell to see how to break up the land and give it--equitably, perhaps!--to the conquering soldiers, William Petty, wrote in a self-consciously naturalist vein, following Bacon. His book on Ireland is called <i>An Essay of Political Anatomy</i>. Stuff like this is really startling. You see analogous hubris on down the road from there. It might be fun to trace out naturalist thought in cultural product, too. I was reading last night on how political economy came to be–it was more or less a result of the English trying to quantify and measure their land-wealth from colonizing Ireland. The surveyor for the conquest, the guy working for Cromwell to see how to break up the land and give it–equitably, perhaps!–to the conquering soldiers, William Petty, wrote in a self-consciously naturalist vein, following Bacon. His book on Ireland is called An Essay of Political Anatomy.

Stuff like this is really startling. You see analogous hubris on down the road from there.

]]> By: Jim http://critecon.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/naturals-not-in-it/#comment-7 Jim Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:16:26 +0000 http://critecon.wordpress.com/?p=10#comment-7 These are all good strategies for dealing with the hubris of naturalism. It might be fun to do a more comprehensive post. These are all good strategies for dealing with the hubris of naturalism. It might be fun to do a more comprehensive post.

]]> By: JCD http://critecon.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/naturals-not-in-it/#comment-6 JCD Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:34:32 +0000 http://critecon.wordpress.com/?p=10#comment-6 I think there're several tacks one could take when greeted with the 'it's only natural for people to want to take advantage of other people' or the 'humans just <i>are</i> aggressive!'. The first one is just to grant that these both are basic conditions of humanity, and then ask if having a society that is structurally balanced so that not only will this natural propensity not be discouraged, it will be made be omnipresent--but only for one group of people, who no matter what they do, insofar as they maintain themselves as they are, <i>will</i> take advantage of another group without that group being able to do anything about it. So, not only is this natural aggressiveness not taken into account in crafting the laws of society, but for one group of people they don't even get the chance to be the aggressors (on a structural, society wide scale). They are just dupes, seemingly. A second tack would be to grant that perhaps there is a 'human' propensity to be violent, but that this propensity or capacity does not make specific historically instantiated social forms natural, any more than the laws of physics make an airplane natural. A third tack would be to problematize the very notion of natural and discuss the genesis of concepts as relates to specific social forms. You'd have to know your audience slightly to know which one to follow. The third I think approaches the truth, but it takes time, and people are busy. I think there’re several tacks one could take when greeted with the ‘it’s only natural for people to want to take advantage of other people’ or the ‘humans just are aggressive!’. The first one is just to grant that these both are basic conditions of humanity, and then ask if having a society that is structurally balanced so that not only will this natural propensity not be discouraged, it will be made be omnipresent–but only for one group of people, who no matter what they do, insofar as they maintain themselves as they are, will take advantage of another group without that group being able to do anything about it. So, not only is this natural aggressiveness not taken into account in crafting the laws of society, but for one group of people they don’t even get the chance to be the aggressors (on a structural, society wide scale). They are just dupes, seemingly.

A second tack would be to grant that perhaps there is a ‘human’ propensity to be violent, but that this propensity or capacity does not make specific historically instantiated social forms natural, any more than the laws of physics make an airplane natural.

A third tack would be to problematize the very notion of natural and discuss the genesis of concepts as relates to specific social forms. You’d have to know your audience slightly to know which one to follow. The third I think approaches the truth, but it takes time, and people are busy.

]]>