"Man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the condition of his material existence, in his social relations and his social life".
In other words, unlike animals, we have a history that socially, materially and consciously evolves. Far from being the case that human nature cannot be changed, the capacity for change and development is an essential part of human nature. It is one of the key things which distinguishes us from other animals.
In short, it follows that the "human nature" of competiveness is therefore a product of a moment in time that is shaped by specific socioeconomic relations attributable to class and the social divisions that is implied by it.
I hope you now understand.
This could be an argument in favor of moral relativism perhaps, but I don't feel it proves in favour of competitiveness being a symptom of a class system. Though, from what I've read of your arguments so far, it really seems like you're focusing on "violent" form of competition, as opposed to more subtle forms of competition, such as competing for a mate. _________________ A dick that's bigger than the sun.
I think he's onto something, that you can live in a world with no competition, but it's definitely not going to happen any time soon. That being said, I also thought his post had a few contradiction in it including: 'law of genetics' myth vs. humans have a distinct genetic code, and humans asserting a will to social consciousness vs. participating in greed, competition, and selfishness.
I doubt that the poster would be in favor of moral relativism due to his strong concern that "Morissey is an idiot and he needs to think differently blah blah blah!"
And then there was the part about humans being strictly the only social animals... 🤡
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
