[Marxism] Re: apes

mds zenporcupinegrind at breathe.com
Mon Dec 27 15:46:23 MST 2004


>
>> I'm no natural or anthropological scientist, as I think I made quite 
>> clear;
>
> Neither am I, but this is basic materialist knowledge.
>
>> all I'm questioning is the ideological attachments that are often 
>> found with regards to the latest findings in the field of genetics 
>> &c.
>
> Again, such as which attachments?

This is beginning to get tedious; to quote what I originally said:

	'Indeed, Dawkins provides quite an interesting rational perspective; 
the problems begin to emerge when attention is turned towards the 
biological/genetic determinism that I understand underwrites parts of 
his approach to the question of evolution, and led to conflict with 
Gould.'

The above should make my original point quite clear - that, as I 
understand it - there is a conflict within the field between Dawkins 
and Gould. As for you 'basic materialist knowledge', such 'ABCs' seem 
to be entering the realms of didactic regurgitation of stagnating 
terminology - feel free to do so, but I'll pass.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill; all I meant to 
draw attention to is that biological perspectives can of course be 
fetishised, leaving us with a conception of man that can be as 
paralysing for a movement for progress and social change as that of the 
theologians. Let's not simply laud 'basic materialism' without looking 
at its own ideological convictions.

-M





More information about the Marxism mailing list