If culture or society are being used in the sense as opposed to nature, there is a strong connotative tradition they are inheriting, one that, in fact, structures most discussions of the two in common & academic parlance.
The polemical thrust of this book is so perplexing. How is the dynamic of Nature and Society supposed to imply a substance dualism, when both are so obviously material? You can be a monist and still believe there is more than one thing.pic.twitter.com/q9FCxM1iF3
-
-
-
It's fine if you think about nature & culture/society as imbricating co-constitutive mixed categories, existing in a material/monist world, but all that means is, effectively, you already agree with the concept of which the author aims to convince you
-
Or, if not exactly that, within the same ontological ballpark.
-
The problem is that the author spends so much time tilting at windmills over this "society-and-nature" versus "society-in-nature" dispute. The metabolic rift folks aren't Cartesian dualists no matter how you spin it, but a third of the book is spent belabouring this point.
-
Yeah, I mean, the first books criticizing the nature/culture divide really caught on about 25-30 years ago, so the point is sort of old hat at this point. That said, Cartesian Dualism, least of all of a conscious aware variety, isn't necessary for the N/C presumption.
-
The cognitivists and evo psych people are definitely not dualists but their nature/culture division game is strong af.
-
It is weird to call the metabolic rift people, at least JBF etc., N/C dualists though, Marx arguably was one, despite his materialism, simply as an effect of the dominant ideas of his time, but the modern eco-marxists tend to be fine, I'd agree.
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.