BothAndBlog Forum

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/363359

I'm currently reading a book on Human Nature, that raises the volatile question of Essentialism. I'm only superficially familiar with that worldview, which seems to go back at least to Plato's "Forms", and the "Kinds" of Genesis. Apparently, Essentialism was the default assumption of science up until Darwin's theory of evolution blurred the boundaries between Species (Kinds)*1.

After a brief review, I get the impression that today the notion of fixed categories in nature is held primarily by Conservatives, both political and religious. But I suspect the topic may be vociferously debated among philosophers of various political & religious views. Non-philosophers may be expected to prefer a simple black or white scheme for Human Nature, but deeper thinkers tend to dissect their topics into smaller chunks, and into rainbow colors. Yet those fine distinctions are not so easily verified by evidence or by appeals to authority, hence leading to an infinite regression of unresolved debates.

The Human Nature controversy in recent years seems to be centered primarily on Gender issues. If God created Man & Woman for distinct roles in the world, then where do LGBTQ humans fit into the scheme of things? Are those who refuse to remain in their rigidly-defined physical and social niches, somehow defying the law of God? Even for those who are not concerned about the laws of God, what about violating the laws of Nature?

Although my moderate worldview does not divide the world into simplistic dualistic categories, it also can't abide the absurdity of infinite regression. So, before I bring my own Intrinsic Biases to this polarizing book, I'd like to see what others on this forum have to say about Essentialism in general, and Gender Categories in particular.


*1 Natural Kinds : In biology and other natural sciences, essentialism provided the rationale for taxonomy at least until the time of Charles Darwin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

Human Nature, David Berlinski; author of The Deniable Darwin

Theory of Human Nature : https://aeon.co/essays/theres-no-philos ... man-nature

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/363359

'God'/Bible gets shown up again, as always. — PoeticUniverse

I can understand why the Bronze Age Bible condemned homosexuality. First, they had no knowledge of genetics, and judged gender only by obvious characteristics. Second, at least 90% of the human population seemed to fit neatly into the two basic sex categories --- both physically (innies vs outies), and behaviorally, (masculine vs feminine norms). So those persons who didn't fit their normal natural niche, were deemed abnormal unnatural perverts. Third, humans and animals have an innate revulsion or disgust reflex toward strange (queer) or suspicious (dangerous) things and behaviors. Consequently, until modern science began to study such atypical anomalies in detail, the safest course for people was to avoid them, to quarantine them, and to label them as taboo or cursed. Most world cultures had similar attitudes toward perceived perversions and deviations from cultural norms : gender/behavior misfits, left-handedness, extremes of skin color, witch-like improprieties, and so forth.

Therefore, those who didn't fall into the middle of the normal Bell Curve of common experience were treated with wariness at best, and those on the extremes (flaming queers) could trigger subconscious reactions of disgust, that we now assume are evolutionary products of experience with dangerous snakes, spiders, and poisonous plants. From our scientifically-enlightened modern perspective, we can regard those negative attitudes --- common to 98% of homo sapiens existence --- as primitive, benighted, and wrong. However, a majority of the human population today still treat the novelties of empirical Science with suspicion, and when faced with cognitive dissonance, may prefer the security of their traditional black & white beliefs over the multi-valued precepts of Science. That's a common turtle-defense mechanism for challenges to settled beliefs.

Liberal attitudes toward the varieties of human nature may be the norm on a philosophical forum. But such open-mindedness may be the exception, rather than the rule, in the rest of the world. And Conservative intellectuals, such as David Berlinski, can make a convincing case for the validity of Essentialism, and the dangers of modern Relativism. Ironically, the best-selling author is an agnostic secular Jew, who denies the validity of Intelligent Design, but who works for the conservative think-tank, Discovery Institute (purveyors of ID). So, I will be interested to see how his reasoning comports with my own middle-of-the-road philosophy. Presumably, his arguments will not be appeals to the authority of the Torah, but exercises in Greek reason. We'll see about that.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/363359

The second problem is ethical. Even if it were possible to distinguish innate from acquired, there is no rule that innate is better. — David Mo

Yes. "Innate is better" is a nutshell version of the Naturalistic Fallacy. But that seems to be a very common assumption ("pervasive and persistent"; "ubiquitous and irresistible") throughout history, even among philosophers and scientists. Aristotle's appeal to the authority of nature (Causes) has been assigned that judgmental label by some modern philosophers.

Apparently what has changed in recent years is our attitude toward Nature itself, since Darwin discovered its fallibility and amorality. Ironically, the current Climate Change debate seems to be a face-off between ancient and modern attitudes toward Nature. Some view it as fragile and in need of protection, while others treat it as all-powerful (i.e. God's Will in action), and impervious to human damage. Hence, both sides view their behavior as ethical. Relative to the topic of this thread, Naturalism would find homosexuality to be, not only unnatural, but unethical. So, who's to say what's right : Darwin or God?


Aristotle's Fallacy : The naturalistic fallacy appears to be ubiquitous and irresistible. The avant-garde and the rearguard, the devout and the secular, the learned elite and the lay public all seem to want to enlist nature on their side,everywhere and always. Yet a closer look at the history of the term “naturalistic fallacy” and its associated arguments suggests that this way of understanding(and criticizing) appeals to nature’s authority in human affairs is of relatively modern origin.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/67 ... b_contents

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p1

I'm pretty sure human gender identification is a bit of a continuum rather than either an essentialist dichotomy or an infinite array - like a rainbow - you can easily pick out a red bit, but where exactly is the boundary between red and orange? — Siti

Bula!

Good point. I suspect that Essentialists believe the simplest categorization is the truest : Male/Female (two values) versus the confusing loosely-differentiated Rainbow genders (continuous shades of values). Their justification might be Ockham's Razor --- comparing a simple dichotomy to a perplexing infinite array. Yet this is not a question of absolute Truth, but merely of political justice. In a modern Democracy, to restrict people to either/or choices is an unwarranted limitation on their freedom. But many humans seem to prefer a Theocracy, which makes an unquestionable distinction between right & wrong, hence no need to guess, and perhaps make the wrong choice.

I have just started reading the Human Nature book, so it remains to be seen if Berlinski's argument is one of prejudice (purity) or merely of accuracy (clear categories). Strict Conservatives, such as Christian Puritans and Muslim Jihadists, seem to be afraid of the harsh consequences of an error in judgment. Whereas, looser Liberals are more willing to exercise their own reasoning, and don't cower in fear of lightning bolts. Is it better to be safe than sorry? :worry:

How can one violate the laws of nature? I think you're framing nature Nature as another god. — softwhere

Just for the record, I was putting words in the mouths of non-theists, who treat Nature as the ultimate moral authority --- as in the Naturalistic Fallacy. Unfortunately, it's not that simple, because the power of Nature has recently been diluted by the power of Culture.

This is an essentialist view. It isn't the sole property of conservatives. There are progressives who are also essentialists and conservatives who are constructionists. — Bitter Crank

That may be true. But as I said, "After a brief review, I get the impression that today the notion of fixed categories in nature is held primarily by Conservatives, both political and religious". Of course, the majority of people will have attitudes somewhere in between the extremes. Can you point me to some card-carrying Liberal/Progressives who espouse the rigid categories of Essentialism?

The politics surrounding whether x, y, or z is determined by essentialism or constructionism is a swamp one does well to stay out of. — Bitter Crank

Thanks for the warning. I do intend to stay out of gender politics, and any other bi-polar forms of human interaction. At the moment I'm just trying to get some background on Essentialism, to inform my reading of the book on Human Nature.

The world simply doesn't work like that (even if a couple of billion humans think it does) - if anyone doesn't believe me, they should pop down to the local zoo and ask a bonobo. — Siti

What the "bo" will tell you is that, for the practical purposes of reproduction, the gender rainbow is reduced down to three colors : 1. male, 2. female, 3. other. Apparently, they have no religious or political scruples about "other", which is not practical, but just for funsies. Perhaps the fun aspect is not an evolutionary adaptation, but just a "spandrel".

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p2

I believe that recourse to human nature is conservative, irrespective of the fact that this link can sometimes be broken. — David Mo

Yes. Conservative personalities are not all the same, but they generally tend to be uncomfortable with change & complexity, preferring predictability & simplicity. Yet when translated into political or religious positions, the variety of personal expressions gets compressed into a few black & white creedal beliefs. And likewise for Liberals.

An innate conservative may be confused by the alphabet soup of LGBTQ genders, wondering "why don't you behave normally?". But if asked why they are so afraid of novelty and variety, the conservative could only quote Lady Gaga : "I was born this way".

I was probably born with a somewhat Liberal laissez faire personality , but was raised in a Conservative, Fundamentalist environment. So my adult personality is a sort of conflicted Moderate mish-mash. Apparently, your genetic destiny can be influenced by your cultural situation, and vice-versa.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/364217

What is typical of this situation is that conservatives seem to make a statement of fact, but in reality it is a value judgment. — David Mo

Insightful observation! Scientific Facts are supposed to be value neutral, whereas the application of those "facts" as "oughts" is a value judgment based on a particular worldview. That's true of both Conservatives and LIberals though. The judgments may be logical, but the worldviews might be prejudiced by limited experience or by indoctrination. So what ought-to-be will vary depending on innate or received values.

Conventional wisdom says that Conservatives get their values primarily from authoritative scriptures or traditions, while Liberals get theirs from personal experience and inner feelings. Both value systems are retained in memory as beliefs (i.e. facts or truths). The usual distinction that I've seen says that Conservatives judge people as typical of their social or political group (group essence), while Liberals judge them as unique persons (individual essence). But in my experience, it's hard to tell where to draw the C/L line. Maybe that's because I prefer to judge people by what they do, rather than what they are; not as representatives of a group, or a sun sign, or a personality type. or a blood type . . .