[Marxism] Re: apes
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
> 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
> 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
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.
More information about the Marxism