dandelion (she/her)

Message me and let me know what you were wanting to learn about me here and I’ll consider putting it in my bio.

  • no, I’m not named after the character in The Witcher, I’ve never played
  • pronouns: she/her

I definitely feel like I’m more of like a dumpling than a woman at this point in my life.

- Hannah Horvath

  • 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 2nd, 2024

help-circle




  • cannabis finally helped me grok the Kline bottle, took a lot of visualizing and mental exploration but I got there

    edit: I wanted to pass along the insight I had that helped me, basically to not hold the whole Kline bottle in your mind at once, but to instead look at it from a subjective and temporalized perspective, for example imagine being an ant walking along the surface of the Kline bottle (or if you are an American, driving along the surface). Parsing individual moments on the surface is what helped me inch along and traverse the whole thing, and that spatial intuition helped me finally understand the whole much better … 4-dimensional objects can be really hard to reason about.















  • yeah, I think that was maybe my point, it would be a mistake to conclude “human nature is determined by material conditions” and better to say “human nature does not exist, instead human behavior is driven primarily by material conditions” - but I understand if for the sake of brevity a meme might not want to be so verbose


  • hm, there is nothing that is not “nature” - that’s kinda the premise of naturalism … but that’s not the same as the meme’s point about “human nature” - which is not about whether something is natural or not, but rather about whether humans are innately or essentially something or not (in the meme whether they are selfish or altruistic).

    I tend to think altruism and selfishness are probably related to environment and material conditions, but we can’t completely deny the role genetics play in behavior (even as environment helps shape those genetics).

    This reminds me a bit of the Chomsky Foucault debate, where Chomsky took the position that there is such a thing as a “human nature” - using the example of human’s innate capacity to learn language. Foucault takes the position that there is nothing but social influence and environment (though he was less focused on the material and more focused on the structural / social). At least that was my understanding of the positions.

    I tend to agree with Chomsky that our biology results in some “innate” capacities, though I do think we should reject essentialist views that humans are all X or Y, since the biology is so varied and what we get is not necessarily a monolith of human nature as much as a variety of human beings many or even most with some similarities. Maybe most humans are capable of learning a language, but some probably are not for various reasons (and those reasons may be innate as well, such as a genetic condition, or they may be environment such as due to abuse like social isolation during early development, etc.).