'Yes there is no clear divide between homo sapiens sapiens and our ancestor species. Development of culture and civilization was a gradual process. There was an explosion somewhere around the time of the agricultural revolution. And yet for most of the history of homo sapiens we did not develop what you call civilization until very recently. '
Yes, and that is the beginning of human history proper. We might have been the same species biologically, but we are as different as chalk and cheese from those prehistoric human animals, because they did not have civilisation (you can have culture - it is not a question of sematics).
The introduction of civilisation is no incidental thing, it introduces the possibilities of rational thought, of abstraction and higher thining precisely because it creates a realm of freedom that is not reactive to the day-to-day.
The following speaks volumes about the pessimistic underpinning to your failure to understand the unique character of human civilisation:
"For most of the history of homo sapiens we lived as hunter gatherers. "Civilization" is a relatively recent phenomena. It is too soon to know whether what we call civilization will be a success for our species or not. But that is just my pessimistic conclusion, which is neither here nor there in this debate. I don't know if the human species will last a very long time."
Well, talk about biting the hand that feeds you! Seriously Jerry, you owe your existence, as I owe mine to this "recent phenomenon". Were there no civilisation, the human species would numerically be a thousandth the size it is now, i.e. you and me both would never have been born. More to the point we would not be talking about whether cognition was genetically pre-ordained or a social construct. We would not have the words to express such concepts. Certainly we would not be bouncing these ideas back and forward between continents in a matter of hours.
You say you are pessimistic about whether the human species will last a very long time. I am offended. Who would you like to put to the slaughter first? Let's start with the jews, or maybe gypsies.
You say:
"The question of periodization of human history is a separate question from that of "culture". I am not questioning that society has become more and more complex since the agricultural revolution. ... most of our cognitive capacities have developed in the course of evolution and that most of them developed before the speciezation of homo sapiens."
I think you are, because you see only quantitiative change, the addition of more knowledge, but early humans, still less Bonobos, are not people with less information. The do not have concepts like personality, freedom, honour, or all the rest of the things that make us human. To get those things you need social institutions - what you concede to be civilisation.
Jerry says:
"homo erectus "possessed" culture but not civilization. The current evidence is that chimpanzees display the cognitive capacities for culture and in fact do have cultural differences between themselves -- in this case, learned behavior producing physical artifacts that we call tools that differ between chimpanzee groups."
But do we care what you call the differentia specifica of modern humans? If it is civilisation, not culture, then civilisation is what is important, the human essence to use the word that so offends you. If you want to use the word culture for what modern humans have in common with earlier humans and Bonobos then, please, be my guest. All that means is that culture is less interesting to the understanding of what makes human society unique than what you call civilisation.
'I don't refuse "objectivity" to the concept of culture. I just don't think there is any good scientific-theoretical definition for the term. The same with "politics." I do think that they refer to "something" "objective."'
But you assimilate these historically specific features of modern human existence to pre-human animal interaction, which says to me that you have annihilated just what it is that makes us human, our human institutions. You render down the rich study of language, economics, history, politics, philosophy etc. to mere parroted instints, such as one would find in a malcontent tribe of Bonobos. You utter philistine! You should be made to study Bonobo literature, and hey, let's face it, Bonobo science for the rest of your life. Go and talk to the Bonobos, I say. For that matter, I think I would rather be talking to them.
[Just a note: The subject/object, subjective/objective division is not something I accept. I think it is a confusing philosophical holdover. On one hand I would rather talk about the experiential and the non-experiential, while assuming that both of these are "physical" phenomena. On the other hand I would like to talk about levels of certainty and knowledge. It seems to me that the words "subjective" and "objective" have both meanings, one referring to the "experiential" and the other referring to lack of certainty. I prefer to keep these meanings separate. ]
I have to say, that does not surprise me in the least. I wonder whether you use a knife and fork.
You say:
"I do wish that you would deal with some of my specific questions...."
I think I have, you just don't like the answers.