>Most importantly, however, when people spoke (speak) of human nature or a
human
>essence they are seldom referring to the facts of our biology.
Why should they not? If we acknowledge having biological facts, why should we deny their influence on us? How do we know what we are, essentially? How can we be sure it's nothing to do with our biology? Why should we assume our "essence" is divorced from our "facts"? I should think there's a bloody good case to be made for biology playing a part in who we are -- which is to say in who we think we are -- and it's a short step from there to saying that what defines us (for that's how I'd think of our essence) is partly biological.
(Except for those
>Panglossian idiots who think they can find an evolutionary (biological) basis
>for rape or for older men marrying younger women.) And what they are
speaking of
>tends to be something very hard to specify except in almost mystic terms
(as in
>Ken's positing of a "essence" that language alienates us from).
Mystic, schmystic. Since the field is open, everything we come up with by way of definition of human nature has to be taken with a grain of salt, whether we call it essence or not.
Same goes for finding an evolutionary (biological) basis for rape. What do WE know? There certainly is a biological basis for rape in the chicken house -- the rooster that hops on the most hens gets his genes in the pool and the hens don't have a whole lot to say about it. Thankfully we're more complicated than chickens but a few years ago I can imagine there was a fairly fine line between the presence of sufficient testosterone to ensure the bloke didn't shit himself and run before the mastodon, and sufficient grace to ensure he asked the lady, first.
Considering some of the situations I've found myself in -- perfectly nice guys, you understand -- that line is still pretty fine. Maybe it gets finer when there are no mastodons around, who knows? Certainly doesn't hurt to ask ourselves, does it. I'm all for expanding the field of wonder.
Of course I'm assuming our history includes our biology.
Well you have to admit we had no history before we were biological, don't you. I figure there'll always be interplay between the two.
When it comes to there being a biological basis for men's preference for younger women and women's willingness to couple with older men, in view of the fact that for purposes of procreation and gene-pool improvement this scenario makes all kinds of sense whereas the reverse does not, the burden is surely on anyone who denies it to come up with reasons why that wouldn't be the case, not the other way 'round.
In the most ridiculous of all possible worlds heretically yours, Joanna
www.overlookhouse.com