>>92013This is going to seem like a bashing, but its in my best interest to show you the faults of your argument, not in the hopes of making my dick harder, but in hopes of you argumenting it better and adding to the codex.
>put man in nature alone and he will die in daysNote: its a individual modern human being in wilderness with no equipment at all.
Now:
>You misunderstood the intention of a self explanatory observation>You disagreed with "me">You later on unintentionally agreed with "me">Your post corroborates the same field of thought >You shown little knowledge of philosophy>Denounce philosophical method>Confuse the scientific and philosophical method>Provide a lackluster philosophical argument to corroborate it>Ask for a primary phenomenal example of a noumenal function (which cannot have a primary phenomenal output)>Claim its a "broken model"Only once have i seen such inconsistencies, and it was when a 17yo kid dropped in the middle of a debate (by two atheists) between Augustines and st. Thomas' ontological argument as the one being more viable, and started quoting Dawkins.
There is nothing wrong with what you're saying, you're just have a very conscripted view.
No offense i hope.
>>92022In a certain sense you described social darwinism, and that requires a huge amount of definition on the question of "power". Take note, the social phenomenons of "bullies" cannot be a natural construct.
Also, keep in mind that lions kill cubs of rival lions, and if that was a model of "society" stemming from "nature" it would mean that we would envision systematic murdering of a widows children.
Society and nature are two very different thing. And no one, in any case shape or form said that "nature" is mans problem. "Human nature" is what is on the agenda. The only problem man has are other men.
And lastly:
>almost every civilization ever in history is patriarchalThat "Almost" is enough to make it arbitrary yet facilitated, but in no way "natural"
