Comment: "many still choose to act

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: reply (see in situ)

"many still choose to act

"many still choose to act based on 'feelings' rather than cold logic."

Many, not all.

Nature implies something inherent, unavoidable.

Like I said, call it a tendency, but don't call it a nature.

Of course the change is not going to be overnight, but that's not for reasons of 'nature' but reasons of agency, complex ethological feedbacks, psychology, and reinforcement.

The fact that (all) people have the capacity for change invalidates nature.

By the way, when you say things 'boil down to semantics' you imply a negative tone. Getting to the real meaning of things is what semantics is about.

Semantics is one of those words that has been completely stigmatised and reversed of its meaning. Semantics has become a common synonym for 'trivalities', because peope want to suggest that searching for meaning is meaningless, whereas the truth is that nothing could be more meaningful.

'Moot' is another example. It has been twisted to mean 'irrelevant or already decided', when it actually means 'up for discussion'.

And the word 'idiot' used to mean 'one who thinks for his self'.

Linguistics has many important insights to offer anyone searching for individual freedom.

But ethology has even more to offer, since in many ways language is a subset of behaviour. Bottom line: everything about a person's personality can be changed. If one employs non-consentient means, the change can be startlingly quick. If they allowed fly-on-the-wall documentaries in boot camps, cult initiations, etc, you'd never think about human nature for longer than a second. Think about Patty Hearst etc.

For anyone wanting to fully realise how much the nurture-nature argument is misrepresented, look at Molyneux's excellent work on human nature, or Robert Anton Wilson's psychology work on the absence of a single, persistent 'self'.