[Marxism] Re: apes ad nauseam
zenporcupinegrind at breathe.com
Mon Dec 27 16:55:35 MST 2004
>> 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.
> And its inverse can also be fetishized. Which is why this discussion
> is not "mountain out of a mole-hill".
Again, read in the context of the original message, which was, if you
> The critique of ape advocates (Goodall, Dawkins) as (pro-capitalists)
> social activists, cannot be confused with their advances as
> scientists, even if they subjectively go hand-in-hand.
Indeed this may be the case; I only posited Dawkins/Gould as a
_potential_ example (which again I believe I made clear) - that is, I'm
not versed enough to be able to draw concrete conclusions until I read
further into their works. You seem to concur that it is of great
importance to separate the biological science from the potential
ideological connotations being attached / vocalised. That's what I was
trying to reflect on in the first place. Circles.
>> Let's not simply laud 'basic materialism' without looking at its own
>> ideological convictions.
> Oh, I agree, which is why I wanted to clarify yours. You see, there
> are much more people willing to deny that we are apes for ideological
> reasons, than people who become genetic determinists. You sounded like
> the former.
I'm not. Shall we move on?
(Apologies to the group for dragging this out)
More information about the Marxism