4 ms·
I agree that innateness claims are very very seldom true or even plausible. I make a different claim: hunter-gatherer H. sapiens was a different kind of “human”
by prionassembly 5y ago
I agree that innateness claims are very very seldom true or even plausible. I make a different claim: hunter-gatherer H. sapiens was a different kind of “human” in almost every political and social sense, even if there’s significant biological continuity. And conservatism properly understood (at least when it avoids specious arguments) concerns politics and society, not raw biology.
- random314 5y agoAgricultural societies are very recent; current humans are no different from HG humans 7K years ago. Innateness comes from biology, not politics, evolved over several million years as primates. Conservatism is a very thinly veiled biological argument in favor of a hierarchical society, which is seen as just. The majority of the society is expected to be bottom feeders serving those above them, this is the right way of things. The French revolution which overthrew the feudal lords was seen as a threat to conservatism. Capitalism was seen as a solution to the possibility that superiority might not be fully heritable. However, conservatism inevitably leads to biological justifications, such as white nationalism and objections to inheritance taxes. Conservatism is really a series of polemics against egalitarianism that intend to say that society is hierarchical and those that belong to the top are people who look and act like me. On another note, the philosophy of libertarian socialism comes closest in modern day societies to egalitarianism.