PET PEEVE: Theorists who use "superstition" as a buck-stopping explanation for broad patterns of human behavior. Below: A passage from "The Origins of Political Order" by Francis Fukuyamapic.twitter.com/gEGTidYCuW
Show this thread
-
However, “love,” as demonstrated independent of analytical contexts, *is* the lowest level. That’s what I’m discussing. The incentive is to synthesize it. The reward is some abstract energy, how love makes you feel, what it teaches, et al. It is not very reductive.
-
-
Organizing around love is entirely rational several levels up. Love is not rational, obviously, so it is a want of explanation that we look for motive. But love is correct to the same effect a reproducible theory is correct. Experiments are not subject to the practitioner.
-
Sorry— I am saying Fukuyama is possibly wrong on both reasons. Worship of dead ancestors in a almost Klingon tradition, and the mere biological instinct, are not wholly sufficient. Love seems to be the missing coefficient.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.