Feminist Philosophy of Biology

[heiss93]

The Stanford Encyclopedia has just added a new article on the Feminist Philosophy of Biology. I thought it was especially relevant to Revleft philosophy discussions since we have recently had a few debates about the political implications of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. While the article focuses mostly on the impact of sociobiology on gender, it also details the ways in which the values of capitalism such as individualism, competitiveness, self-interest, and egoism are read back into nature. Sociobiology/Evopsych has become something of an official ideology for capitalism, certainly it is the most cohesive atheistic defense of capitalism that claims to be based on natural science, and gender is one of the main battlegrounds where evopysch has regrettably been gaining ground.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-philosophy-biology/

[NewSocialist]

The main characters in field of evolutionary psychologists aren't even subtle in their apologia for capitalism. Almost every leading figure in the discipline (Pinker, Tooby, Gintis, Ridley, Cosmides, Singer, et al.) has, at some point, attempted to prove that capitalism somehow conforms more with our "human nature" than any other conceivable mode of production. The following video is a perfect example of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNW_B8EwgH4

Straight out of the mouths of the founders of this "science" (Tooby & Cosmides): [Socialism leads to] a "hell on earth." :rolleyes:

[Hexen]

The main characters in field of evolutionary psychologists aren't even subtle in their apologia for capitalism. Almost every leading figure in the discipline (Pinker, Tooby, Gintis, Ridley, Cosmides, Singer, et al.) has, at some point, attempted to prove that capitalism somehow conforms more with our "human nature" than any other conceivable mode of production. The following video is a perfect example of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNW_B8EwgH4

Straight out of the mouths of the founders of this "science" (Tooby & Cosmides): [Socialism leads to] a "hell on earth." :rolleyes:

It's also sad that so many people are duped into believing in this (believe me, I dealt with the whole "human nature" nonsense before outside this forum which drove me insane) combined with 60 years of Red-Scare/McCarthy/Cold War brainwashing embedded in their heads which is why we won't be seeing a revolution any time soon as if I feel like this is the Capitalists major victory there.

[heiss93]

The relaunching of the human nature argument actually marks a retreat of the increasingly reactionary bourgeoisie to feudal anti-socialist and even anti-democratic arguments. Capitalists used to actually debate on rational utilitarian grounds about the efficiency of capitalist production. While that is still a big part of capitalist apologetic, increasing the burden is being shifted from economics to biology. Equality is not just inefficiant, it is a bad in and of itself because chimpanzees naturally need to be dominated by the big chief. These so-called biological arguments are in fact the old feudal-scholastic "natural law" arguments against republican democracy based on original sin. So these "new" sociobiological critiques of socialism are not more advanced and sophisticated but instead a regress to neo-medieval thomism. Pinker calls his view of life "the tragic view of life" as opposed to the "utopians", contrast this with the naive optimism of 19th and 20th century capitalism, which promised to technologically over-produce socialism and out-utopia socialism. There is no promise that Fordist technocratic capitalism will solve problems, as there to be, instead those problems ingrained into this tragic life, which is but a veil of tears.

[Queercommie Girl]

The relaunching of the human nature argument actually marks a retreat of the increasingly reactionary bourgeoisie to feudal anti-socialist and even anti-democratic arguments. Capitalists used to actually debate on rational utilitarian grounds about the efficiency of capitalist production. While that is still a big part of capitalist apologetic, increasing the burden is being shifted from economics to biology. Equality is not just inefficiant, it is a bad in and of itself because chimpanzees naturally need to be dominated by the big chief. These so-called biological arguments are in fact the old feudal-scholastic "natural law" arguments against republican democracy based on original sin. So these "new" sociobiological critiques of socialism are not more advanced and sophisticated but instead a regress to neo-medieval thomism.

Yes, capitalism is in its declining phase now, rather than in its rising phase.

[NewSocialist]

It's also sad that so many people are duped into believing in this (believe me, I dealt with the whole "human nature" nonsense before outside this forum which drove me insane) combined with 60 years of Red-Scare/McCarthy/Cold War brainwashing embedded in their heads which is why we won't be seeing a revolution any time soon as if I feel like this is the Capitalists major victory there.

What's even more remarkable is that several well intentioned people on the far left have bought into this dogma as well. A good example is a YouTube user I like, 'mr1001nights' - who typically produces very good anti-capitalist videos from an anarchist perspective, but who has bought into these evolutionary psychology arguments nonetheless:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0I1SaJ2ef0

[Hexen]

What's even more remarkable is that several well intentioned people on the far left have bought into this dogma as well. A good example is a YouTube user I like, 'mr1001nights' - who typically produces very good anti-capitalist videos from an anarchist perspective, but who has bought into these evolutionary psychology arguments nonetheless:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0I1SaJ2ef0

mr1001nights would have been restricted if he joined here.

Also at a side note have you ever noticed that the human nature argument also keeps popping up in our games/films/etc?

For example:

xBeoreJr4Yc

Also the ending to Watchmen has the whole "because of human nature" argument as well...

Has anyone noticed this?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The relaunching of the human nature argument actually marks a retreat of the increasingly reactionary bourgeoisie to feudal anti-socialist and even anti-democratic arguments. Capitalists used to actually debate on rational utilitarian grounds about the efficiency of capitalist production. While that is still a big part of capitalist apologetic, increasing the burden is being shifted from economics to biology. Equality is not just inefficiant, it is a bad in and of itself because chimpanzees naturally need to be dominated by the big chief. These so-called biological arguments are in fact the old feudal-scholastic "natural law" arguments against republican democracy based on original sin. So these "new" sociobiological critiques of socialism are not more advanced and sophisticated but instead a regress to neo-medieval thomism. Pinker calls his view of life "the tragic view of life" as opposed to the "utopians", contrast this with the naive optimism of 19th and 20th century capitalism, which promised to technologically over-produce socialism and out-utopia socialism. There is no promise that Fordist technocratic capitalism will solve problems, as there to be, instead those problems ingrained into this tragic life, which is but a veil of tears.

Surely capitalism has always had subsidary arguments for its existance knockin around, aside from mere efficiency? In the 19th century; the scantity of "free assocation" and property rights, religion, etc. Its a good point but I don't see how you can show that the economic argument has declined in importance significantly over last twenty years relative to various other "moral" arguments? It seems of late, in the recession, there is even more focus on the economic good of capitalism; with the cappies desperately (and mostly suceeding) trying to shift the blame for the crisis onto government spending and welfare scroungers etc.

[the_red_pickle]

What's even more remarkable is that several well intentioned people on the far left have bought into this dogma as well. A good example is a YouTube user I like, 'mr1001nights' - who typically produces very good anti-capitalist videos from an anarchist perspective, but who has bought into these evolutionary psychology arguments nonetheless:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0I1SaJ2ef0


Wow, he's kinda an ugly mofo. :D



Edit: Oh right, on this topic...why talk about what feminists do in the bedroom...why is there a need to resort to this as the final "goal" of feminist work? Rather pathetic, I'd say. As far as sexual desires, humans beings like versatility, it's "human nature" *rolls eyes* lol. Perhaps one day a feminist want to be dominated, but next month it's all about dominating her partner, and another time an entirely different fantasy or varieties of different fantasies. Psychology Today article is quoting what those women said as if set in stone and speaks for all women. Pretty sure someone like Rhianna would be saying something different when she's promoting a different song. I'm sure she was quoted as saying what she said while she's promoting her S&M song. LOL.

Personally, i think males should focus on not being dominant but on looking "dominant", hot with a chiseled face (high cheekbones are a must)and being muscular and tall. This should be all kinds of fun in the bedroom for all kinds of role playing. How do ya like them apples?

Theoretically, I'm sure that if there were some kind of mass genocide of all the alpha males on the planet and only the "betas" were left, as long as they are hot, females would carry on mating with them and life would go the hell on.

[Revy]

Personally, i think males should focus on not being dominant but on looking "dominant", hot with a chiseled face (high cheekbones are a must)and being muscular and tall. This should be all kinds of fun in the bedroom for all kinds of role playing. How do ya like them apples?



I agree, men should focus on becoming tall and changing the natural appearance of their face through the sheer power of will.


Wow, he's kinda an ugly mofo.

And...now you're bashing somebody's looks. Nice.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Wow, he's kinda an ugly mofo. :D



Edit: Oh right, on this topic...why talk about what feminists do in the bedroom...why is there a need to resort to this as the final "goal" of feminist work? Rather pathetic, I'd say. As far as sexual desires, humans beings like versatility, it's "human nature" *rolls eyes* lol. Perhaps one day a feminist want to be dominated, but next month it's all about dominating her partner, and another time an entirely different fantasy or varieties of different fantasies. Psychology Today article is quoting what those women said as if set in stone and speaks for all women. Pretty sure someone like Rhianna would be saying something different when she's promoting a different song. I'm sure she was quoted as saying what she said while she's promoting her S&M song. LOL.

Personally, i think males should focus on not being dominant but on looking "dominant", hot with a chiseled face (high cheekbones are a must)and being muscular and tall. This should be all kinds of fun in the bedroom for all kinds of role playing. How do ya like them apples?

Theoretically, I'm sure that if there were some kind of mass genocide of all the alpha males on the planet and only the "betas" were left, as long as they are hot, females would carry on mating with them and life would go the hell on.

No offence but are you drunk?

[the_red_pickle]

I agree, men should focus on becoming tall and changing the natural appearance of their face .
Women do it all the time with plastic surgeries, cosmetics, skin care regimes and heels. It won't hurt a guy to put effort into improving his appearance.



No offence but are you drunk? No.



I just think that instead of guys like that positing whether it's better to be alpha or beta males, perhaps they should work on looking better, it will improve their chances a lot more.

I meant to say I think smart women tend to be good at seeing through a facade thus the efforts to appear alpha or beta, omega etc do not work.

[heiss93]

Surely capitalism has always had subsidary arguments for its existance knockin around, aside from mere efficiency? In the 19th century; the scantity of "free assocation" and property rights, religion, etc. Its a good point but I don't see how you can show that the economic argument has declined in importance significantly over last twenty years relative to various other "moral" arguments? It seems of late, in the recession, there is even more focus on the economic good of capitalism; with the cappies desperately (and mostly suceeding) trying to shift the blame for the crisis onto government spending and welfare scroungers etc.

I suppose the shift has been more specifically from optimism to pessimism. Of course the optimistic and pessimistic defense of capitalism have existed since the 19th century and both continue to coexist today. So perhaps, it is a bit inaccurate to neatly divide optimism into the philosophy of progressive capitalism and pessimism as the philosophy of reactionary capitalism. And the reactionary offensive of 1973-2011 is by no means unique historically, the Fascist offensive 1930s was complemented by the pessimistic nihilist ideas of Spengler and the idea of decay. None the less I do see BF Skinner's behaviorism as the psychology of the Keynsean consensus period 1945-1973, and Sociobiology as the philosophy of rampant neoliberalism 1973-2011. Sociobiology was published in 1975, the same year Saigon was liberated. So the years coincide pretty nicely. Indeed the behaviorist solution for psychological depression "just do something, anything, to get out of a funk" is basically a psychological version of Keynes' solution for economic depression. The pessimistic argument is a "moral" argument only to the extent that it says humans are intrinsically immoral therefore they deserve or can only tolerate an immoral system. Dostoevsky's underground man broached that defense when he said he would give up utopia if he could only preserve his right to be an irrational sadist. The slogan of neo-liberalism "there is no alternative", makes no promises about the future, but is based on the pessimistic view of human nature that we are flawed by original sin, and that the Soviet and welfare-capitalist alternatives have been tried and failed.

Lukacs wrote an interesting book post-WW2 about how the pessimistic dark philosophies of Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzschem Husserl mirrored the growing fears of finance capital at the prospect of proletarian revolution, and the impossibility of solving the contradictions of capitalism within the system. The bourgeoise of the Englightenment believed all capitalist contradictions could be resolved with increased rationalization, the philosophy of finance capital instead celebrated the irrationality of life itself as a virtue.

It is a shame that the field of sociobiology has been so monopolized by reactionaries of the worst thought, that any future attempt to build a genuine psychology grounded in biology and evolution will have to be built from scratch. Nothing would be lost by entirely disgarding the works of the Wilsons and Pinkers. EO Wilson wrote that if the "blank slate" was true, it would itself be a biological theory of human nature, since it would have to be defended as having some kind of evolutionary advantage to be selected for. On this I actually agree with Wilson, since I think his challenge can be taken up, and it can be shown that the relatively malleable nature of humanity, and the dependence on learning and nurture as opposed to instinct, was one of the key cornerstones of technological development. Beyond the tired debates about whether monkeys are communist or capitalist, I think the more important work of a evolutionary sociologist would be to study the way in which biological history merged into technological history, and the way in which Modes of production marked a new stage in evolutionary history. Memetics is entirely worthless, in drawing a sophisticated relationship between technology and biology. Engels himself wrote on this theme, in exploring the way in which human nature was shaped by labor. And his work on the Family, was criticized by the radical feminist Catherine MacKinnon as being essentialist because it took for granted the "natural" transition from matriarchal to patriarchal society. This transition was not seen as socioeconomic in the same sense that the transition from primitive communism to slave society was. Engels was in other ways radically relativistic in studying monogamy, incest, and the invention of romance by the courtly love poets of the middle ages.

Capitalists are not entirely universalist nor are Marxist entirely relativist when it comes to human nature. The same conservatives who decry cultural relativism as amoral, will use the most vulgar relativism when defending the clearly immoral actions of Christian Europe, Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, slavery and Indian genocide, imperialism and a host of other crimes. Ironically it was the arch-reactionary anti-communist Bryan Caplan who brought this point home to me, when he wrote that for once he agreed with the far left against the hypocrisy of anti-relativists defending the genocides of Columbus. So when it comes to defending American, European, White, history you will find no one more historically relativistic than traditional natural law conservatives.

Marxists on the other hand, while being historically relativistic, actually do proscribe a relatively universal human nature, so long as it is understood as evolving over time. Thus the variance between different primitive, slave, feudal, and capitalist societies is relatively narrow at its' fundamentals. This suggests that there is a definite limit in the possible interactions between humans as tool making animals, and the natural environment. Marx toyed with the idea of Asiatic despotism, which would be a more culturally relativistic schema, but I think most Marxists generally reject Asiatic society, as it kind of ruins the stage-theory of historical development. If you accept asiatic society, than capitalism and thus socialism is just an accidental creation of a small peninsula off Asia, and there is no inevitability of capitalism or communism.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

better to be alpha or beta males,

thus the efforts to appear alpha or beta, omega etc do not work.

Not sure i've ever tried to appear like an "alpha, beta or omega" male dude :confused::lol:

[Mr. Natural]

Thanks for the thread. It drives me even more insane than I would naturally be that capitalism has enveloped life on Earth and no one I encounter in the US understands or will even discuss The System.

To ignore the reality of the capitalist takeover is to miss the radical effects this malignancy has on human individuals and society. It has shaped us and all we do and think, and to ignore this reality usually results in blaming individuals or human nature for capitalism's malign nature. See sociobiology.

[Hexen]

I also noticed that the whole "Human Nature" argument ultimately leads to Misanthropy (the hatred of humans) which is actually a dangerous world view (a psychopathic/sociopathic one...much like the capitalist themselves as if we just read their mindsets) to hold to any sane person once you think about it.


and to ignore this reality usually results in blaming individuals or human nature for capitalism's malign nature. See sociobiology.

The "Human Nature" argument's sole purpose is exactly the same reason why sexism/racism/classism/ageism/etc exists in our society which is to divide & conquer and shift people's people's attention away from the real problem which is the system; capitalism.

[Queercommie Girl]

People here might want to look at these threads/posts for the issue of "human nature argument" vs. "rational efficiency argument":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2157075&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/thought-experiment-regarding-t157103/index.html?p=2157078#post2157078