2
B E I N G
●
H U M A N
Reaction
with
an
opposite.
in
an
The
overly
examples
hidden
●
formation:
might
deviant
perfectly
useful
other
their
For
passionate
of
Repression:
This
the
the
in
the
is
ego
one
of
it
a
as
the
extreme
ego
a
his
way
deals
version
homosexual
master
of
or
in
staples
its
behaves
feelings.
of
of
Other
offsetting
a
that
the
basic
creation
is
of
it
can
form
inappropriate
drives
them
art,
thought
for
aggression
into
socially
science,
by
a
impulses.
Freud
or
any
to
be
the
transformed.
mechanism
a
central
a
When
to
is
a
role
difcult
key
in
in
the
feeling
of
psychoanalytic
mental
or
illnesses.
impulse
desires
are
by
that
anxiety.
exposure
The
emotional
In
forcing
repressed,
unconscious
or
treat
part
most
inappropriate
neurosis
order
of
in
socially
transform
activity,
tension
some
unusual
we
the
suppresses
sexuality
the
to
with
form,
plays
a
is
expressing
energy
create
expression
repressed
of
raw
unconscious.
they
an
when
moralism
dealing
defence
repression,
into
of
example,
sexual
because
however,
severe
vocation
philosophy
it
is
attempt
mechanism
way
instead
in
energies.
expression
●
This
healthy
sexuality
to
mechanism,
asserting
example
way
include
defence
by
behaviour.
sublimation,
and
this
truth
often-cited
“macho”
Sublimation:
In
In
uncomfortable
may
problems,
explode
of
for
example,
psychoanalysis.
Conclusion
Freud’s
The
psychoanalysis
part
of
reasoning,
than
a
tricks
that
ourselves
objective,
confused
and
lies
really
is
an
that
part
argument
rationalists
that
passenger.
that
controls
Our
to
us
–
conscious
that
are
used
control
our
behaviour.
help
we
identify
us
is
are
as
for
mind
live
irrational
our
core
Freud
is
–
animals.
the
nothing
made
up
of
more
irrational
with
the
animalistic
well-formed,
and
my
drives
The blank slate
Give
me
world
and
to
a
train
lawyer,
dozen
bring
him
artist,
healthy
them
to
and
any
his
talents,
race
ancestors.
I’ll
guarantee
type
merchant-chief
of
his
infants,
in
become
regardless
of
up
of
and,
specialist
yes,
penchants,
to
even
take
I
own
any
might
select
beggar-man
tendencies,
specied
one
abilities,
at
–
and
random
doctor,
thief,
vocations,
and
28
—John B. Watson
So
far
we
have
considered
irrational
to
or
idea
looked
view
creatures
consider
The
the
is
that
impulses
is
the
we
two
we
accounts
are
dominated
idea
are
often
at
that
that
not
by
there
born
referred
as
human
beings
unconscious
is
with
to
of
rational
no
human
any
the
the
forces.
We
view
What
have
that
we
we
have
are
yet
nature.
signicant
tabula
nature.
and
rasa
behaviours,
or
blank
preferences,
slate
28
John B. Watson, Behaviourism, with a new introduction by Gregory A . Kimble (New Brunswick , NJ: Transaction
Publishers, 1998), p. 82.
58
H U M A N
philosophy
empty
of
mind
human
that
is
nature.
lled
In
with
this
ideas
view
from
human
our
beings
are
born
with
N A T U R E
an
experience.
Empiricism
During
the
17th
underwent
period
their
ideas
During
that
this
we
argues
that
provides
period
our
second
is
as
scientists
based
on
European
the
philosophy
Enlightenment.
began
to
provide
observation
or
During
this
justications
reason
instead
of
for
on
knowledge.
two
in
in
schools
the
reason
is
of
rst
the
as
philosophy
section,
source
justifying
known
the
centuries,
known
and
at
certainty
our
emerged.
known
our
as
The
rst,
rationalism
knowledge
and
that
and
it
beliefs.
empiricism
rationalists
of
is
and
believed.
involves
Empiricist
the
rejection
philosophers
of
argue
following:
●
We
●
Everything
are
the
born
world
Because
of
without
we
as
about
is
limited
ideas
and
source
the
already
believe
in
our
comes
mind.
from
our
experiences
of
us.
rejection
the
sceptical
very
know
around
their
experience
a
of
looked
everything
18th
were
sources
which
the
and
revolution
philosophers
religious
The
a
of
of
certainty
and
rationalism
all
and
knowledge,
of
the
uncertain
things
source
of
their
focus
empiricists
we
can
on
tend
know.
to
be
Experience
knowledge.
Locke
For
The
blank
slate
view
of
human
beings
can
be
traced
back
as
far
on
Aristotle
famous
In
his
and
a
number
account
An
Essay
(1632–1704)
characters”,
was
of
offered
Concerning
describes
and
his
by
the
Human
the
claims
contemporaries.
mind
that
British
However,
a
“white
experience
is
rst
Locke,
information
see
Chapter
5.
really
empiricists.
Understanding
as
the
more
as
(1690),
paper,
“from
John
void
of
whence
Locke
all
all
the
ideas
we
29
have,
This
At
or
is
can
the
birth
“tabula
we
experience
we
naturally
are
have,
rasa”
empty
begins
to
do
(Latin
vessels
inscribe
spring”.
for
–
blank
our
on
slate)
mind
the
mind
axiom
contains
with
of
empiricism.
nothing
every
sense
at
all
–
and
experience
have.
Locke
spends
cognitive
whole
the
rest
of
development
range
of
ideas
the
is.
Essay
He
from
explaining
gives
general
an
what
account
names
to
of
essentially
how
logical
we
child
acquire
a
principles.
Associationism
As
we
apply
of
saw
earlier
empiricism
problems.
sense
in
the
and
How
experience?
is
it
As
discussion
the
tabula
that
in
our
on
rasa
ideas
Descartes’
Hume,
we
can
Wax
when
come
be
up
we
come
against
derived
argument,
only
it
a
to
number
from
seems
that
we
29
John Locke, An ssay Concerning Human Understanding (New York: Prometheus Books, 1995), p. 59.
59
2
B E I N G
H U M A N
understand
more
than
how
come
to
do
we
what
the
is
idea
given
that
experience
differing?
Descartes
in
effectively
interpret
order
before
These
The
to
and
after
questions
empiricist
experience
is
and
According
to
a
cat,
the
over
for
time
When
experience
a
I
of
general
been
In
have
name
fact,
this
develop
which
a
–
cat.
account
critique
we
looked
at
can
also
So
the
naturally
innate
mind
ideas
or
I
on
reason
uses
and
needing
and
is
that
to
have
the
that
blank
the
other
wax
development.
from
a
set
and
are
from
ideas
the
been
occur
shape
sounds,
same
recall
of
to
related
and
time.
mind
the
experiences
experiences
that
Hume
principle
analysis
to
show
of
has
of
complex
there
Ideas
to
causation,
that
experience
already.
without
see
allowed
the
formation
have
etc.).
ideas
on
I
the
they
of
that
sights,
at
set
claws,
come
any
the
experiences
When
this
is
same
slate
our
reason
of
experiences
these
similar,
attack
can
analyse
the
general
this
effect
use
ideas
experiences
sharp
Hume’s
of
philosophical
our
When
give
“cat”
and
build
a
example,
intuition.
experience
are
must
identity
learning
is
in
association.
mind
then
of
by
we
This
are
to
we
the
associated.
to
purrs,
of
claims
by
mind.
that
can
abstract
earlier,
that
that
but
which
tended
idea
reason.
cause
associated
brings
my
philosophy
without
theory
same
and
senses
by
become
(furry,
The
this
argue
ideas
the
objects
of
to
the
our
past
understanding
key
spite
another
of
ideas.
of
of
by
learning
rasa
other
together
For
the
would
process
one
the
associated
bundled
to
to
it
experience.
is
associationism.
they
in
in
wax
experience,
complex
philosophy
that
set
as
example,
I
a
not
the
tabula
colours
same
of
related
this
onto
together,
require
view
approach
organized
written
known
known
psychological
of
is
only
the
our
alone.
ideas
happens
become
needing
to
be
any
experience.
Conclusion
Locke’s
account
becomes
human
and
So
before
we
them
we
nature.
attitudes
xed
are
If
the
are
look
are
but
are
at:
an
This
to
his
theory
the
conclusion
container
means
result
nor
This
and
leads
empty
the
rational
nurture.
rasa
ideas
unxed.
birth
by
tabula
with
we
neither
only
will
of
furnished
of
psychological
was
that
our
our
lives
and
by
how
nature,
developed
the
that
birth,
also
irrational
idea
at
of
slate
there
then
our
behaviours
our
but
into
is
no
beliefs
are
not
experiences.
can
the
become
next
theory
behaviourism
Watson: behaviourism
The
American
long
tradition
ideas,
then
assumed
person
The
we
was
can
quote
born
a
60
–
a
be
made
only
made
into
view.
he
of
B.
Watson
(1878–1958)
associationism.
anything.
man:
It
given
is
If
we
this
the
are
drew
on
born
without
plasticity
right
that
experiences
the
Watson
a
anything.
Behaviorism
slate,
and
nature
into
Watson’s
blank
philosophy
beings
can
from
John
empiricism
the
be
summarizes
is
psychologist
of
is
(1930)
He
entirely
which
claims
that
human
nature
–
the
there
has
at
the
thought
start
that
sum
are
of
of
his
natural
mistaken
this
because
section
a
experiences.
tendencies
learning
neatly
human
for
for
instinct:
being
Any
human
H U M A N
There
are
...
for
psychology.
“instinct”
us
no
instincts—we
Everything
today
is
a
we
result
have
no
been
largely
of
longer
in
the
need
habit
the
of
term
calling
training—belonging
to
N A T U R E
in
an
man’s
30
learned
We
may
raised
Any
behavior.
share
within
human
shared
was
learning
animals
and
and
unitary
He
of
with
other
culture
by
are
result
the
people
people
of
who
a
but
this
also
similar
is
because
share
that
we
are
culture.
environment,
not
a
nature.
sceptical
perspectives.
notion
things
same
universals
human
Watson
the
many
the
of
both
rejected
reason
as
a
behaviour
man,
scheme
the
idea
or
of
and
“The
in
but
faculty.
the
exact
behaviorist,
response,
irrationalist
instincts,
“higher”
produced
that,
animal
rationalist
very
special
are
saying
of
the
recognizes
he
He
no
his
rejected
that
way
both
same
in
also
argued
in
efforts
dividing
to
line
get
a
between
31
man
The
and
“dividing
human
and
A
brute.”
line”
beings
human
further
children
Watson
were
and
human
nature.
A
human
is
organized
to
Watson,
creatures
all
to
we
response
no
to
nothing
have
apart
behaviour,
is
that
more
human
our
matter
would
than
the
its
place
in
that
and
of
p John B. Watson
our
serious
like
more
internal
properly
any
response.
features.
pigeons,
“desires”,
a
separates
nothing
between
rats,
way.
not
organism
physical
is
same
rejection
stimulus
complex,
Watson,
could
no
an
separation
For
“feelings”,
they
nature
incidental
how
is
have
to
the
in
because
things,
according
no
from
is
reason.
behaviourism
they
behave
on
behaviours
observable
therefore
being
learn
of
rejected
based
believed
not
studied
Watson
animals
component
processes.
“beliefs”
that
and
us
and
be
science
other
that
According
from
other
Therefore
than
of
a
all
trained
stimuli
Classical conditioning
The
process
by
which
conditioning.
of
associationism
developed
any
it
According
to
behaviour
that
fear
is
another
a
theory
a
response
we
in
stimulus
repeatedly
place
and
uffy
animal.
learn
of
said
by
to
in
response
to
loud
we
example,
the
The
called
took
our
result
learning
response
a
stimuli
respond
was
the
basic
principle
experiences
was
the
–
claim
and
that
stimuli.
conditioning,
for
learn
associating
behaviour.
do
–
to
behaviourists
already
presenting
takes
we
were
other
that
classical
behaviour
and
–
into
behaviour
people
Watson
with
noises
rat
or
to
–
to
a
taking
stimulus
and
other
together.
fear
involves
then
small
sight
of
a
for
example,
p Animals and human beings
associating
uffy
Eventually
the
–
a
animal
–
by
conditioning
rat
or
other
are essentially the same for
the early behaviourists – all
small
behaviour is a matter of
training.
30
Watson, Behaviourism, p. 74.
31
John B. Watson, “Psychology as the Behaviourist Views It”, Psychological Review 20 (1913): 158.
61
2
B E I N G
Watson
argued
language,
a
H U M A N
or
conditioned
mass
of
our
complex
that
what
every
is
behaviour
often
response
enormous
to
described
stimuli.
we
as
We
do,
have
experience
into
writing,
argued,
philosophical
he
including
complex
all
been
of
the
is
a
the
use
reasoning,
trained
things
by
we
of
amounts
the
do,
conditioned
to
subtle
and
even
response.
Critique
These
the
two
classic
subject
of
philosophy
presented
nature.
and
the
experience
brilliance.
an
be
one
of
in
all
and
for
the
and
the
way
goal
many
reducing
blank
are
people
thoughts
that
both
of
our
view
largely
Both
philosophers
all
slate
now
sciences.
human
audacious
However,
impossible
shifts
reduction
was
of
criticism
behavioural
fascinating
The
cannot
presentations
fearsome
Locke
think
and
nature
in
Watson
about
human
behaviours
task
to
been
and
thinkers
the
have
unpopular
was
our
to
pursued
with
always
an
experiences
just
done.
Kant
One
of
Reason
he
the
argues
criticism
attempt
are
earliest
(1781)
by
that
ultimately
to
any
be
meaningful
information
and
experiences.
and
it
turns
into
meaningless.
never
be
would
able
it
is
a
for
of
we
both
Locke
mental
from
Critique
Immanuel
insufcient
blank
a
the
words
of
our
experience
dealing
with
information.
and
hears,
and
to
Kant.
explain
Watson
mechanisms
already
the
from
built
same
of
In
Pure
this
thought.
in
their
with
book
This
mutual
which
we
could
we
an
way,
processes
Consider
You
a
more
we
out,
because
(1890).
able
out
rather
to
thoughts
data
on
its
own
we
experience.
would
would
We
always
confusion”
confused
requires
passively
sorting
happen
receiving
deriving
slate,
something
that
than
start
must
the
do
of
data
experience
to
process
–
having
blank
buzzing
occurs,
slate
receive
sense
a
from
When
have
it
of
simply
than
“blooming
active
as
blank
precondition
points
we
a
experience
meaningful
senses
be
a
our
model,
forever
–
an
the
must
is
Kant
mind
sorting
w he n
ma d e
identify
have
is
Lo ck e
b e c a us e
unans we r e d
recognize
must
as
thought,
than
out
us
to
it
it
innate
–
be
soaking
what
through
totality
with
up
sees
faculties
in.
“associations”
leaves
baby
that
–
nothing
James
the
data
it
anything
William
world
A
from
slate
that
more
processing
empiricist
but
the
and
of
newborn
hits
showing
nothing
were
derive
in
experiencing
the
ideas,
If
to
remain
what
means
In
of
given
Some
we
to
is
innate
consists
impossible
experience.
he
comes
philosopher
born.
argument
In
empiricism
alone
applies
eliminate
would
be
on
German
experience
Kant’s
is
62
attacks
the
inna te
in
th e
q ue st io n.
r e l a ti o ns hip s
anythi ng
some
explains
of
the
our
Ho w,
b e twe e n
raw
ideas
r e l a t io n s h i p s
if
we
se n s e
un pr oc e ss e d
ma c hi ner y
th a t
t a ke s
as
the
r es ult
bet we e n
we r e
da t a ?
a
bl a n k
H ow
da t a ,
slate,
could
i nfor m a t i o n ?
raw
of
sense
We
i n fo r m a t i on
and
it.
a
might
metaphor:
think
that
learning
you
how
don’t
to
need
play
to
football
know
for
anything
the
rst
already,
time.
but
H U M A N
N A T U R E
sought to resolve many of
Biography: Immanuel Kant
the outstanding debates,
(1724–1804)
especially in epistemology
Kant was a German philosopher of the
focusing on the role of
18th century, who wrote during the Age of
reason in the human
Enlightenment. He was born in Konigsberg,
experience of the world.
Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia) and famously
In the process he combined
never travelled more than 20 km from his bir thplace
rationalism and empiricism into
even though he lived for 80 years. In fact, unlike
a single system. In the process, he redened
many other prominent philosophers he led an
the western philosophy’s conceptual framework
exceptionally unremarkable life. The only aspect
through his “Copernican revolution” arguing that
of his life wor th noting seems to be his diligence
the mind already has necessary structures for
and time keeping and the fact that he was a witty
understanding the world. His arguments had a
and engaging host. While he was accomplished
profound impact of western philosophy and he is
in mathematics and science he established his
considered the father of modern philosophy. His
reputation as a philosopher, publishing inuential
most impor tant contribution was his belief that an
work on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics,
individual should always be treated with respect -
political philosophy, and aesthetics. Late in his
the precursor to modern human rights. Nearly all
life Kant was awoken from his ‘dogmatic slumber ’
subsequent philosophy in the western tradition has
after reading David Hume’s sceptical philosophy.
either worked within the framework he established
In response he wrote his most famous works, and
by seeking to rene it or has consciously sought to
in par ticular, The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant
over turn it.
actually
for
it
to
know
there
be
is
lots
possible
what
a
game
absolute
minimal
football.
For
of
“learning
paradoxical
skills
this
to
–
of
is
you
and
to
learn
what
reason
my
The
order
to
that
acquire
are:
the
need
play
they
at
refer
can
the
very
can
to
we
this
how
must
order
need
least
the
the
about
problem
learn
have
to
are
learn
as
to
in
You
you
learn
learning
already
football.
before
often
we
you
to
required
students
idea
that
how
rules
understanding
learn”.
in
understanding
for
is
those
already.
The categories
The
question
that
remains
experience?
What
is
already
to
able
Kant’s
for
answer
already
ideas,
but
substance
The
two
mind
and
to
in
be
that
in
tools
experience.
order
is
present
organizing
or
us
are
to
have
must
mind.
dealing
these
unity,
with
most
basic
categories
space.
We’ll
to
look
or
space
are
the
prerequisites
minimum,
in
he
calls
are
the
a
in
the
of
mind
are
provides
ways
of
are
things
have
the
an
that
world
like
“ categories”
very
They
concepts
experience
at
bare
data.
already
experience.
us
what
sense
that
we
what
a
categories
categories
which
is
as
ideas?
have
sense
for
this
be,
These
have
order
all
must
mechanism
Among
and
from
that
we
the
for
a
it
basic
not
dealing
cause
set
with
and
effect,
understanding
must
the
be
way
present
we
of
knowledge
do
of
in
are
and
in
our
time
detail.
63
2
B E I N G
Space,
Kant
Without
as
it
related
mind
H U M A N
is
Space
argues,
we
to
one
able
is
to
not
is
would
one
be
another.
interpret
an
of
…
it
is
the
alone
intuition
most
to
Space
basic
identify
is
a
preconditions
objects
concept
or
or
to
of
experience.
recognize
category
by
them
which
the
experience:
empirical
experiences
the
unable
concept
which
subjective
has
condition
been
of
derived
sensibility,
from
outer
under
which
32
Kant’s
and
outer
argument
understand
is
is
possible
powerful.
objects
in
It
for
us.
does
terms
of
seem
space
it
that
because
cannot
we
perceive
be
derived
of
space,
from
ourperceptions.
We
can
never
we
can
quite
regarded
as
represent
well
the
to
think
ourselves
it
as
empty
condition
of
the
the
of
absence
objects.
possibility
of
It
must
though
therefore
appearances,
and
be
not
33
as
a
determination
Furthermore,
whether
being
in
any
our
dependent
experience
dreams
understood
in
or
in
terms
upon
of
the
world
fantasy,
of
them.
is
only
events,
imaginable
objects,
and
spatially:
actions
require
space.
Conclusion
What
we
human
because
the
interpret
in
can
other
it
the
as
it
–
on
in
must
to
process
innate
so
we
our
that
to
concepts.
in
we
argue
experience
and
much
must
is
attempt
We
Freud
–
to
have
argue
a
way
a
in
have
and
that
of
must
for
and
psychological
philosophers
that
meets
argument
Nietzsche
which
earliest
this
empiricist
according
interpretation;
world
from
The
subject
forms
foundations
among
take
nature.
doing
seen
here
insight
every
seeing
have
blank
so
this
we
is
an
of
which
fails
must
view
nd
built.
act
innate
slate
the
Kant
looking
changes
was
is
an
the
mind.
Chomsky
Recent
to
psychological
Noam
Chomsky
language,
as
a
what
refutation
behaviourists
of
trial
and
he
of
the
error
like
noticed
Language
involves
of
(1928–
calls
)
we
appear
“universal
is
a
any
that
unique
a
reinforces
behaviourist
language
Chomsky
number
research
skill
to
have
grammar”.
theory
learned
of
a
possible
nite
learning
64
innate
His
According
capacity
argument
language
set
of
sentences.
had
is
learning.
conditioning
words
unique
to
Children
Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, p. A23 / B38.
Ibid., p. A24 / B39.
an
through
32
33
argument.
for
intended
For
processes
other.
language
using
Kant’s
characteristics.
generate
master
an
innite
language
without
H U M A N
formal
task
training
(natural
Apple’s
it
is
Siri,
that
apply
it
in
beyond
this
ways:
situation
Instead,
are
able
is
enables
very
is
far),
which
their
alone
would
to
an
be
enormously
has
only
be
got
underscores
understanding
experienced.
we
have
that
is
just
it
of
were
the
far
how
as
amazing
has
and
trouble
mechanism
unprepared
to
complex
as
language
Behaviourism
conditioned
and
to
use
respond
to
born
able
use
language
also
on
to
us
some
more
language
to
easily.
the
how
each
or
This
capable
much
of
argues
for
sentences
one
we
–
are
makes
the
more
Chomsky
involves
them
system
empirical
element.
It
quickly
apply
network
explain
being
for
and
innate
course
learn
words
an
languages.
Of
of
language
suggests
compose
to
with
seems
learn
that
all
example.
explanation
use
born
We
grammar
best
are
this
underpins
for
the
limited
depends
allows.
required
nouns,
and
skills,
that
their
to
much
use
universal
structure
are
This
computers
conditioning
they
them
language
other
take
that
survival
we
have
suggests
to
that
what
if
would
Our
and
they
that
take
acquisition
terms
of
all
to
because
evolutionary
The
isn’t
ease.
in
appropriately.
that
acquire
startling
processing
able
what
we
situations
brain
are
Chomsky
children
with
that
language
novel
new
and
children
explaining
behind
and
language
N A T U R E
is
a
the
very
born
in
cooperation
easilythan
basic
the
sense
evidence.
we
basic
understanding
distinctionsbetween
not
in
in
knowing
a
verbs
language,
quickly.
Ideology and human nature: Marxism, feminism,
and postmodernism
In
this
So
far
is,
section
we
including
Our
next
human
set
our
ideological
These
of
Rather
essence
beliefs.
systems
canon.
been
that
of
power.
In
this
section
knowledge
agendas
as
that
The
are
do
nal
have
an
to
concept
many
look
at
ideology.
may
that
truth
roots
of
then
our
of
the
begins
the
are
who
comes
on
theories
his
of
with
of
from
a
theories
to
ideas
human
by
and
wars
in
power.
or
and
Marx’s
thought
knowledge
afrm
classic
of
and
political
Marxist
beliefs
slates.
isolate
scepticism
order
offers
blank
to
nature.
nature
ideological
pursuit
identify
in
human
our
substantial
attempt
nature
in
of
what
naturally
offer
that
idea
on
Nietzsche’s
to
build
are
very
untruthful
Foucault,
We
in
ideology
contexts
underpin
the
human
use
systematically
we
we
emphasis
about
their
that
themselves
argue
attempt
critique
perspectives
argued
involves
in
a
not
they
Debates
used
at
competing
have
theories
philosophies
has
look
that
philosophers
cultural
but
will
explored
some
nature.
identify
which
we
have
some
account
exploring
form
of
the
nature.
Reason as a power discourse: Foucault
Foucault
is
referred
philosophical
critical
of
starting
are
Marxist
point
to
canon.
in
ideologies.
as
He
a
post-structuralist
was
thought,
not
but
understanding
a
his
Marxist,
approach
the
claim
and
and
to
that
a
postmodernist
was
in
fact
knowledge
theories
of
in
the
frequently
is
a
useful
human
nature
p Foucault
65
2
B E I N G
Foucault
that
are
uses
grounds,
that,
their
Foucault,
arguments
reasoning
as
it
necessary
nor
universal
they
uses
cast
doubt
that
claims
of
a
power.
on
to
of
argument
time.
or
or
dependent
that
agendas
What
Many
on
of
on
that
the
is
a
of
of
for
and
they
are
This
allows
“objective”
is
the
able
us
to
and
and
seeks
sum
of
human
beliefs.
their
Foucault
towards
passions.
are
Our
and
a
the
or
as
a
other
to
that
way
of
nature
scorned
to
over
as
cut
arguing
all
writing
the
source
away
that
our
our
the
By
ways
our
so
The
values
and
dependent
it
on
on
power.
the
origins
to
explain
as
an
illness.
an
agenda
their
own
the
seeks
with
that
rejects
presenting
claims
of
–
power
of
of
thought
sensual
sin
animal
in
is
moral
religion
and
an
evil.
the
In
as
be
idea
there
natures
you”
then
everyday
is
world”,
of
may
sensual
and
sexuality
and
can
and
Christian
the
These
power/discourse.
their
political
to
as
monopoly
which
rationalist
a
set
a
its
itself
thinking.
invented
interest
“real
society.
discourse
have
and
of
not
labelling
linked
“the
true
entirely
the
undertakes
do
that
discourse,
time.
perspectives,
of
that
is
absolute
is
on
as
it
system
power.
criticism
body”,
in
is
afrming
other
rules
truth
“rational”
by
an
analysing
perspective
preserving
and
he
pursuit
that
at
the
counts
to
assumption
the
place
by
dependent
rationalism
religious
the
Christian
“sinful
of
true
and
conclusions.
almost
Christian
the
their
rationalists
were
reects
of
is
always
and
rationalist
power
particular
does
objective
not
dependent
the
makers
its
language
text
irrational
criticism
on
a
to
the
and
that
and
forces.
arguing
any
are
currently
neither
Nietzsche
by
what
the
necessary
with
in
of
we
are
created
and
actually
one
securing
is
claim
what
is
which
because
according
attempt
unnecessary,
of
doubt
views
animal
continually
rationalists
so
acquire
Throughout
hostility
do
the
a
exposing
In
truth
purpose
rationalists
rationalism
world.
cure
the
argues
nature
The
on
in
at
that
but
of
govern
culture
therefore
is
as
agenda
existing
govern
that
aren’t
and
The
virtue
historical
begins
“Truth”
culture
focus
story
“rational”
negatively
In
a
and
that
casts
non-European
is
disciplines.
generate
to
which
being
He
grounds
that
or
of
perspective
Foucault
standard
books
to
For
scepticism
as
that
they
cultural
systems
is
if
perspective
a
the
rules
particular
this
conne,
so
and
a
modern
they
judged
to
psychiatry
control,
rules
to
on
and
The
truth.
of
and
in
conventions
terms
society.
discourse
rational
Foucault’s
point
be
sets
a
it.
given
that
in
rationalist
not
culture
for
language
of
argument
universal
Foucault’s
truth
the
central
from
on
roots
do
organized
generates
to
man
assumptions
66
but
of
linked
the
language
nature.
structure
tools
views
the
exists
these
because
assumptions.
it
that
was
reasonable
and
human
theories
Foucault
rationalism
be
–
secondly,
always
criticizes
is
pertinent
or
history
to
dominant
as
to
behind
of
and
people.
such
seems
force
ideas
of
prejudice
contingent
analytic
are
of
explanation
the
criterion
arises
reality
and
an
full
the
sets
systems
sciences
rstly,
same
truth
is
and
is,
the
that
objective
and
require
that
particular
claim
point
us
the
describe
to
what
operating
and
to
on
always
to
power
belief
argue
the
universal,
Foucault’s
culture,
are
is
reasoning
Foucault
“discourse”
is
appears
of
and
they
philosophy
discourse
granting
ideas
reasoning
Foucault’s
Foucault
of
of
of
while
power
of
conventions
accept.
concept
means
sceptical
thought
For
the
secretly
extremely
he
H U M A N
ongoing
the
and
the
evil
feeling
same
way
supplemental
spiritual
and
rational
H U M A N
being
underneath.
behind
For
rationalism
objective
appraisal
●
founded
●
an
on
Foucault
and
of
shaky
authoritarian
it
is
this
is
founded
reality.
So
reasoning
attempt
to
the
real
the
is
a
far
underlying
pursuit
rationalist
that
use
the
on
from
discourse
power,
is
both:
objective,
as
a
agenda
of
view
N A T U R E
not
on
an
and
means
of
power.
Horkheimer and Mannheim
The
is
German
credited
group
of
culture
and
means
science.
of
the
means
the
linking
which
monarchy
or
by
argues
that
The
very
suggest
when
Often,
is
and
they
and
and
of
other
God,
also
perspective
ideology
with
rationalists
structures
lay
and
(1895–1973)
neo-Marxists,
ideas
in
a
on
by
on
a
critique
human
developments
helped
keep
in
could
eliminating
to
nature
in
maintain
place
ideological
bourgeoisie
Church
the
no
social
and
are
uses.
there
in
are
man’s
of
the
power
divine
in
was
modern
the
duty
foundations.
wrest
of
It
toGod.
was
away
a
from
favour
of
the
the
this
a
is
terms
a
any
and
can
attempt
it
for
will
“truth”
and
is
is
be
to
goes
even
ideology.
untangled
use
and
truth
the
usually
by
totalitarian,
end
“ideology”
irreconcilable;
accompanied
dogmatic,
plea
truth
of
eventually
of
He
from
always
by
or
or
claims
all
in
of
may
indeed,
who
truth
ideology
be
and,
writers
misrepresentation
attitude
ideology
the
truth
assumptions.
together
it
(1893–1947)
between
which
antagonistic
that
is
Mannheim
Therefore
political
absolute,
that
Karl
distinction
way
treated
moreover,
usually
rationalist
English
the
is
alleging
prediction
to
sociologist
they
impractical,
Marxism
Horkheimer
School
ideas.
the
critique
juxtaposition
that
ideology,
man
Max
Frankfurt
world.
there
moral
the
religious
power
collapsing
political
involves
of
that
the
and
real
Hungarian
further
its
argues
philosopher,
of
applied
history
empiricist
practical
The
who
Church’s
by
and
founder
reconciling
By
Christian
Locke’s
the
thinkers
Horkheimer
a
sociologist
as
deplore
reality.
that
ideology
these;
politics,
or
a
overcome.
34
—Willard A. Mullins
Not in our genes
Science
is
the
ultimate
legitimator
of
bourgeois
ideology.
35
—R. C. Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon J. Kamin
34
Willard A. Mullins, “ Truth and Ideology: Reections on Mannheim’s Paradox”, History and Theory 18, No. 2
(May 1979): 141.
35
R. C. Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon J. Kamin, Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature
(New York: Pantheon Books, 1984),
67
2
B E I N G
H U M A N
During
the
human
nature
The
biological
class
in
justied
by
suggests
that
means
position
In
a
implies
the
Rose,
evolutionary
If
and
the
people
the
owners
of
called
as
determinism
research
means
Kamin
are
faculties
a
Not
is
a
are
Our
the
is
and
the
property
biological
aggressive,
control
an
will
in
help
in
approach
and
order
irrational
that
is
to
animal
preserving
is
a
the
Genes,
the
Richard
Lewontin,
neo-Marxist
rejection
of
ideology:
weapon
weapons
differences
implies
production.
reiterated
capitalist
of
man
which
of
in
system
that
reinforces
that
theory
power
of
agenda.
that
arguing
biological
more
theories
capitalist
ideology
By
Furthermore,
theory
book
an
a
self-interested,
require
Leon
universities
the
proletariat,
the
biological
pushing
system.
have
innately
The
1960s,
as
“natural”,
they
psychology
biological
then
to
the
contains
class
capacities.
being
lies
and
the
some
that
of
attacked
argued,
are
violence.
controversial
Steven
is
natural
people
selling
of
it
justies
which
chaotic
of
ercely
beings
their
competitive
prevent
and
human
hierarchy
counterculture
were
theory,
divisions
between
a
radical
in
the
factories,
engineers,
struggle
and
between
their
designers,
classes,
teaching
and
production
36
workers.
The
book
was
that
they
must
panned
was
ridiculous.
be
by
many
working
for
critics
the
who
thought
capitalists
in
an
that
the
elaborate
assumption
conspiracy
Feminism: Butler
Radical
innate
feminists
features
patriarchal
to
oppress
and
not
the
and
of
any
beings.
assumptions,
and
other
view
For
used
a
by
that
sees
feminist
those
marginalized
fundamental
these
with
groups
a
are
based
patriarchal
(such
as
or
on
agenda
homosexuals
people).
biological
simply
sceptical
human
women
intersex
Thus,
are
of
on
fact
view
and
of
Darwin
evidence
and
but
later
riddled
thinkers
is
throughout
based
with
the
p Judith Butler
prejudices
Freud’s
case,
they
ideas
while
assumptions
have
they
been
seem
encounter,
for
Darwin,
example,
points
men
as
for
both
to
in
shocking
the
the
with
barriers
36
Ibid.,
that
an
and
exercising
fact
their
be
that
have
included
society.
powerful
theories
argued
passages
and
that
have
elds
science,
IQ
access
abilities.
of
are
Both
Darwin
and
feminist
attacks.
In
simply
cultural
160
The
from
bias
Descent
art,
of
ignorance.
historically
intellectually
of
to
in
stunning
women
women
of
to
deriving
prejudice
estimated
lack
patriarchal
the
is
each
facts
the
real
ideas.
dominant
evidence
man
their
of
subjected
to
feminists
foundation
show
68
and
not
consider
opportunities
the
At
extent
have
etc.,
no
to
(1871)
his
achieved
philosophy,
inferior.
Man
In
book
as
which
prevented
much
and
point
that
he
uses
does
as
this
this
cultural
women
from
H U M A N
Feminists
The
the
idea
of
freedom
The
often
reject
existentialist
“femininity”
that
critique
Butler,
every
by
the
however,
extends
to
notion
of
which
the
the
the
a
as
a
that
there
Simone
myth,
is
de
given
the
being
American
philosopher
idea
deeper.
of
biological
“male”
patriarchal
Her
and
system
an
innate
Beauvoir,
conscious
goes
distinct
subordinated
idea
philosopher
gender
for
identity.
example,
fundamental
N A T U R E
rejected
existential
faces.
and
rejection
sex.
Butler
“female”
keeps
of
argues
sex
those
gender
innate
is
a
theorist
gender
that
even
means
designated
of
Judith
differences
the
control
non-male
with
in
a
position.
Conclusion
In
this
nal
of
doing
nature,
of
either
from
to
ethical
solution
would
If
there
to
we
resist
postmodern
nature
is
Butler
as
or
is
nature.
sinister,
establish
a
loaded
concludes
this
to
the
to
pick
be
a
in
of
a
at
very
argument
by
reject
study
of
and
accept
worthwhile
very
see
one
Human
that
should
that
the
nature
take
a
study
of
human
interpretations.
Freud,
References Cited
Anna.
London:
Breuer,
Josef,
and
Sigmund
Freud.
Studies
(1893–1895).
Translated
and
edited
Strachey,
Sigmund.
with
the
collaboration
of
Psychical
USA:
Cosmides,
Basic
Leda,
Psychology:
A
and
Books,
John
Primer.
and
the
Books,
Mechanisms
of
Defence .
1993.
“Lecture
XXXI:
Personality”.
The
In
Dissection
New
of
Introductory
Anna
Lectures
Freud.
Ego
by
the
James
The
Karnac
on
Freud,
Hysteria
the
predetermined
human
in
deceptive,
suggesting
instead
that
act
the
least
structures.
and
and
the
thinkers
the
power
theory
we
reject
question
whole
which
variety
her
that
These
or
diversity
impulse
approach ,
may
a
to
celebrate
apply
the
arguments
human
perspective,
rejected.
categories.
seen
nature
maintain
this
be
have
about
human
ideally
we
we
philosophy
philosophy
attempt
section
on
Psycho-Analysis:
The
Standard
Edition ,
2000.
Tooby.
Santa
with
a
biographical
New
York:
introduction
by
Peter
Gay.
Evolutionary
Barbara,
USA:
W
.
W
.
Norton
&
Co.,
1990,
pp.
Center
71–100.
for
Evolutionary
Psychology,
University
of
Graylin,
California,
1997.
Available
at
for
ucsb.edu/primer.html
A.
C.,
and
Richard
Dawkins.
“Evidence
http://www.cep.
(accessed
21
the
Supernatural”.
Oxford
ThinkWeek,
October
2011.
Available
at
http://poddelusion.co.uk/
2014).
blog/2011/02/23/richard-dawkins-ac-graylingDarwin,
Charles.
On
the
Origin
of
Species.
John
discuss-evidence-for-the-supernatural-at-
Murray,
1859.
Now
available
at
http://darwinoxford-thinkweek/
(accessed
21
October
2014).
online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=
Haldane,
F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
(accessed
B.
Charles.
The
Descent
of
Man,
revised
Biology
18
(1955):
B.
S.
London:
Genetics”.
Penguin,
34–51.
Scientist
Sidelights
on
Relativity.
USA:
R.
Methuen
&
August
Career”.
1974).
M.
“The
1922/2004.
Simple
and
Believer,
Falsication”,
in
Appendix:
Essays
on
Religion
Co./Kessinger
and
Publishing,
(8
London/
Theology
Montana,
“Accidental
2004.
Hare,
Albert.
John
edition.
New
Einstein,
“Population
2014).
Haldane,
Darwin,
S.
21
New
October
John
Available
at
Education.
Oxford:
Clarendon
Press,
1992.
http://www.
Hume,
David.
“Section
II:
Of
the
Origin
of
Ideas”.
ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Sidelights/Einstein_
In
Sidelights.pdf
(accessed
21
October
An
Michel.
The
Order
of
Things:
An
the
Human
Sciences,
2nd
edition.
Concerning
A.
the
Selby-Bigge,
Understanding
Principles
3rd
of
Morals .
edition
revised
Edited
by
P
.
by
H.
London:
Nidditch.
Routledge,
Human
Archaeology
L.
of
Concerning
2014).
and
Foucault,
Enquiry
Oxford:
Clarendon
Press,
1975.
1970.
69
2
B E I N G
Kant,
H U M A N
Immanuel.
from
the
Critique
German
of
Kritik
Pure
der
Reason.
reinen
Translated
Vernunft,
Thomas.
2nd
edition.
Press,
in
R.
Our
Nature.
Locke,
Structure
Chicago:
of
Scientic
University
of
Revolutions ,
Chicago
C.,
Steven
Genes:
New
John.
An
Rose,
Biology,
York:
and
York:
and
Books,
Concerning
New
Leon
Ideology
Pantheon
Essay
Understanding.
J.
Kamin.
Human
1984.
Books,
The
Clarendon
of
Thomas
Hobbes,
Oxford
University
Willard
Reections
and
Nagel,
Theory
A.
on
18,
Thomas.
Oxford
70
(ed.).
“Truth
Volume
The
2
and
(May
View
University
from
Press,
3:
Press,
Mannheim’s
No.
Edition
of
the
Leviathan .
2012.
1979):
1989.
History
141–154.
Nowhere.
“Conrmation
in
Psychology
Many
2,
No.
Bias:
A
Guises”.
2
(1998):
Friedrich.
Pollock,
in
Joycelyn
B.
by
Good
R.
J.
and
Evil,
revised
Hollingdale.
London:
2003.
Criminal
Skinner,
Beyond
Translated
M.
Justice,
Ethical
8th
Learning,
F
.
of
“
Dilemmas
edition.
and
Decisions
Wadsworth:
2013.
‘Superstition’
Experimental
in
the
Pigeon”.
Psychology
38
(1948):
168–172.
Watson,
John
Views
It”.
B.
“Psychology
Psychological
as
Review
the
20
Behaviourist
(1913):
158–177.
Ideology:
Paradox”.
General
Penguin,
Journal
Noel
Oxford:
Mullins,
Nietzsche,
Cengage
Human
Prometheus
1995.
Malcolm,
Works
of
S.
Phenomenon
175–220.
edition.
1970.
Lewontin,
Not
The
Raymond
Ubiquitous
Review
1781/1787.
Kuhn,
Nickerson,
Oxford:
Watson,
John
B.
introduction
Brunswick,
Behaviourism,
by
NJ:
Gregory
A.
Transaction
with
a
new
Kimble.
New
Publishers,
1998.