AccueilMes livresAjouter des livres
Découvrir
LivresAuteursLecteursCritiquesCitationsListesQuizGroupesQuestionsPrix Babelio
Rejoignez Babelio pour découvrir vos prochaines lectures
EAN : 9780199291151
384 pages
Éditeur : Book Club (01/01/2002)

Note moyenne : 4.67/5 (sur 3 notes)
Résumé :
In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker explores the idea of human nature and its moral, emotional, and political colorings. He shows how many intellectuals have denied the existence of human nature by embracing three linked dogmas: the Blank Slate (the mind has no innate traits), the Noble Savage (people are born good and corrupted by society), and the Ghost in the Machine (each of us has a soul that makes choices free from biology). Each dogma carries a moral burden, so... >Voir plus
Acheter ce livre sur

FnacAmazonRakutenCulturaMomox
Critiques, Analyses et Avis (1) Ajouter une critique
neutrinou
  11 avril 2016
"...J'ai souvenir que j'évoquais entre autres exemples des gestalt qui me semblaient innées, comme celles des courbes qui font le succès de revues comme Playboy - sans qu'on comprenne vraiment pourquoi. On connait tous l'histoire de la tache rouge sur le bec du goéland qui permet au bébé goéland d'interagir dès la naissance avec sa mère pour se faire nourrir. Nous avons nous aussi nos taches rouges."
Retrouvez l'intégralité de la recension de ce livre fondateur pour moi sur mon blog.
A bientôt !
Lien : http://brikbrakbrok.blogspot..
Commenter  J’apprécie          10

Citations et extraits (9) Voir plus Ajouter une citation
gazellllgazellll   24 septembre 2020
If behavioral genetic studies show no lasting effects of the home, and studies of parenting practices are uninformative, what about studies that compare radically different childhood milieus? The results, again, are bracing. Decades of studies have shown that, all things being equal, children turn out pretty much the same way whether their mothers work or stay at home, whether they are placed in daycare or not, whether they have siblings or are only children, whether their parents have a conventional or an open marriage, whether they grow up in an Ozzie-and-Harriet home or a hippie commune, whether their conceptions were planned, were accidental, or took place in a test tube, and whether they have two parents of the same sex or one of each.
+ Lire la suite
Commenter  J’apprécie          00
gazellllgazellll   21 septembre 2020
Anyone familiar with academia knows that it breeds ideological cults that are prone to dogma and resistant to criticism. Many women believe that this has now happened to feminism. In her book Who Stole Feminism? the philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers draws a useful distinction between two schools of thought.11Equity feminism opposes sex discrimination and other forms of unfairness to women. It is part of the classical liberal and humanistic tradition that grew out of the Enlightenment, and it guided the first wave of feminism and launched the second wave. Gender feminism holds that women continue to be enslaved by a pervasive system of male dominance, the gender system, in which “bi-sexual infants are transformed into male and female gender personalities, the one destined to command, the other to obey.”12 It is opposed to the classical liberal tradition and allied instead with Marxism, postmodernism, social constructionism, and radical science. It has became the credo of some women’s studies programs, feminist organizations, and spokespeople for the women’s movement.

Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive—power—and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups—in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender.
+ Lire la suite
Commenter  J’apprécie          13
gazellllgazellll   21 septembre 2020
There is, in fact, no incompatibility between the principles of feminism and the possibility that men and women are not psychologically identical. To repeat: equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.
Commenter  J’apprécie          00
gazellllgazellll   01 juillet 2020
THE GREATEST MORAL appeal of the doctrine of the Blank Slate comes from a simple mathematical fact: zero equals zero. This allows the Blank Slate to serve as a guarantor of political equality. Blank is blank, so if we are all blank slates, the reasoning goes, we must all be equal. But if the slate of a newborn is not blank, different babies could have different things inscribed on their slates. Individuals, sexes, classes, and races might differ innately in their talents, abilities, interests, and inclinations. And that, it is thought, could lead to three evils.

The first is prejudice: if groups of people are biologically different, it could be rational to discriminate against the members of some of the groups. The second is Social Darwinism: if differences among groups in their station in life—their income, status, and crime rate, for example—come from their innate constitutions, the differences cannot be blamed on discrimination, and that makes it easy to blame the victim and tolerate inequality. The third is eugenics: if people differ biologically in ways that other people value or dislike, it would invite them to try to improve society by intervening biologically—by encouraging or discouraging people’s decisions to have children, by taking that decision out of their hands, or by killing them outright. The Nazis carried out the “final solution” because they thought Jews and other ethnic groups were biologically inferior. The fear of the terrible consequences that might arise from a discovery of innate differences has thus led many intellectuals to insist that such differences do not exist—or even that human nature does not exist, because if it did, innate differences would be possible.

I hope that once this line of reasoning is laid out, it will immediately set off alarm bells. We should not concede that any foreseeable discovery about humans could have such horrible implications. The problem is not with the possibility that people might differ from one another, which is a factual question that could turn out one way or the other. The problem is with the line of reasoning that says that if people do turn out to be different, then discrimination, oppression, or genocide would be OK after all. Fundamental values (such as equality and human rights) should not be held hostage to some factual conjecture about blank slates that might be refuted tomorrow. In this chapter we will see how these values might be put on a more secure foundation.
+ Lire la suite
Commenter  J’apprécie          00
gazellllgazellll   12 mars 2020
The anxiety about human nature can be boiled down to four fears:
1. If people are innately different, oppression and discrimination would be justified.
2. If people are innately immoral, hopes to improve the human condition would be futile.
3. If people are products of biology, free will would be a myth and we could no longer hold people responsible for their actions.
4. If people are products of biology, life would have no higher meaning and purpose.

Each will get a chapter. I will first explain the basis of the fear: which claims about human nature are at stake, and why they are thought to have treacherous implications. I will then show that in each case the logic is faulty; the implications simply do not follow. But I will go farther than that. It’s not just that claims about human nature are less dangerous than many people think. It’s that the denial of human nature can be more dangerous than people think. This makes it imperative to examine claims about human nature objectively, without putting a moral thumb on either side of the scale, and to figure out how we can live with the claims should they turn out to be true.
+ Lire la suite
Commenter  J’apprécie          10

Videos de Steven Pinker (2) Voir plusAjouter une vidéo
Vidéo de Steven Pinker
Vidéo de Steven Pinker
autres livres classés : natureVoir plus
Acheter ce livre sur

FnacAmazonRakutenCulturaMomox





Quiz Voir plus

Pas de sciences sans savoir (quiz complètement loufoque)

Présent - 1ère personne du pluriel :

Nous savons.
Nous savonnons (surtout à Marseille).

10 questions
329 lecteurs ont répondu
Thèmes : science , savoir , conjugaison , humourCréer un quiz sur ce livre