Weren't 18thc novelists doing the same thing by representing human nature in various settings? Certainly not Evo psychs original theory. https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/909365468556939264 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @stephenbasdeo1
This def pre-dates evo psychs, I think her point about literary moral perspectives is quite interesting though. Some things transcend time
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chadwick_zoe
@HPluckrose thank you. I knew the human nature thing predated modern evo psychs. Reading Fielding (legend!) paid off!2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @stephenbasdeo1 @HPluckrose
Being that evo psychs weren't a thing until mid to late c19 the idea pre-dates them by far. Human morality in lit is always interesting!
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chadwick_zoe @HPluckrose
Yes. Dislike when new-fangled disciplines step on our toes
guess it's too late to discuss that some moral ideals have changed in lit lol4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @stephenbasdeo1 @HPluckrose
The changes in literary moral perspectives are what keeps it interesting. Helen makes a good point about retrospectively re-evaluating!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chadwick_zoe @HPluckrose
Ha! No issue with the morality point, just re: evo psychs passing off Human nature as new in their discipline when authors in 18thc did it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @stephenbasdeo1 @chadwick_zoe
No evolutionary psychologists claim that no-one knew a human nature existed before they came along.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
What I was pointing out that they did was hypothesise why we became a story telling species in the first place. What purpose did it serve?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.