The assignment for this module is a 3,000 word essay. “Humans are the only animal which has no nature”, according to Stephen Jay Gould. To what extent can this position be defended, and is it fatal to our goal of understanding human beings?
Some guidance:
-Do not feel compelled to argue Gould’s case itself. The argument is as to what, if anything, can be said in favor of the idea that humans have a nature? If there is such a thing as human nature what it is?
-Are we blank slates (pure learning machines)? Pinker’s book and readings will be very helpful here
-If we are not then what sort of innate features do we have? (structures? Ideas, constraints about learning?) Miller’s book will be very useful here
-Do we have free will? If we do–then does this argue that, to the extent that there is such a thing as human nature, it is distinct from the rest of nature? The material about Dennett that we covered will be important here
-Do humans have non-material minds (possibly connected to the above?) If they do then what can be said for/ against this?
-Are humans like machines? Why? Why not (and what is a “machine” anyway?) The material on Minsky is important here
Do not feel that you have to argue for any particular position–just set out a coherent position and defend it against objections.
**above is the question and tips to follow. You can follow the tips exactly if you like. This is 100% of the module ‘History and Philosophy of Psychology’ in my final year BA. Irish student. Thank you
