New Yorker Radio Hour, David Remnick with Rob George, October 4, 2025
I'm disappointed and maybe a little bit shocked by George's views, and by Remnick's lack of questioning of those views. At least to clarify things that I think are very diffuse and ill-defined.
1) "Human Nature" the definition.
George points to human nature but does not say what it is. He falls back on some kind of default assumption of it without defining it.
What is 'human nature' specifically? Anything? Maybe it's just what we think at the moment, and not anything concrete.
2) The need to fight if we disagree.
Professor George seems to think that if, for example, a Chinese factory worker and a Princeton professor disagree about something, they need to fight about it, because there is only one truth, and if we don't agree, we will fight.
This seems to be nonsense. Truth should always elicit battle? Where is his understanding of the subtleties of life? The realities of existence? Not here, it appears. He is some kind of weird absolutist, and not just that, but a warrior about it.
Professor George does not like secularism, or also, our age of 'feelings'. So how we feel is of less importance than faith and realism. His view that faith and realism are good and that secularism is bad, is the truth? Well all creatures on this earth are motivated by their feelings, and Neuroscientists are exploring the connections between our physical feelings and our rational thinking and decision making. That's biology. Whether George wants to believe that HIS faith and rationality is above, or beyond, our biology, nature and the world, is up to him, and up to us to debate, but he goes further. He believes that we have to battle to find one truth, obviously HIS truth, and there can be no other that is relevant in this, or his, world. In view of the multitudes of human experiences? Is this a reasonable view?
This is what's shocking or very uncomfortable, to me.
I think his view that 'human nature' is somehow central to his ideas, indicates that conservatism, and a delusional view of 'human nature', are intimately connected. We think human nature, whatever it is, is bad or needs to be suppressed. We can't abide with any flexibility or fluidity in outlook, our inner selves, sexualty, etc.
The problem with "Human Nature" is his assumptions, that our basic human nature predisposes us to think or do certain things. His opinion about this has no factual analysis, definition, or evidence. His 'certain things' are specifically whatever supports his viewpoint.
Maybe he thinks that human nature is the need to fight over ideas, or for men to abuse women or lower class individuals. Maybe I believe Human Nature is to love others and be kind, and to avoid war at all costs. Possibly "human nature" is many different things, depending on who the human is. Does George admit to this possibility or is he an absolutist, that it must be some definite, specific thing that HE thinks? But he never says what that is. To be warlike if I am male, and loving and mothering if female? This is obviously garbage. There are loving men, and warlike women. He does not like LGBTQI+ either, even though that is supported by science, that we have a spectrum of fluid sexuality, and that hypocrisy really exists, in that a male who wants to deny a feminine side can over compensate and be overly and overtly mean and cruel. To think that faith and rationality are on his side and (literally) battle others about it.
Todd.
No comments:
Post a Comment