You still haven't even named a single person alive today who has a better understanding of human nature than Tolstoy ffs

You also seem to be constantly conflating political elites with cultural elites.

Why not start by naming some of the cultural elites who were used to justify evils of the past? Locke? Hobbes? Milton? Jane Austen? Name some names.

Dude we did this already:

Remember?

I also dealt with the above, again you have referenced CE in the aggregate, not the specific, having lost the aggregate battle you are desperately backpedalling onto the specific.

Well that's unfortunate for this discussion because cultural elites produce works of art not political systems. We can blame Dunyain for that

Well nope because that has been the discussion from the beginning, maybe try and keep up with the foundational post that created the discussion. It has already been pointed out to you on one occasion already.

Also its not as clear cut as that, there is huge overlap between elites, and cultural elites can have huge amounts of political power and again are able to justify cultural norms.

Also as pointed out, who we consider cultural elites from two hundred years ago are not the same as who was considered culturally elite at the time, the artist/author and philosopher/intellectual not recognised in his own era is hardly a rare occurrence.

If you want to show that cultural elites today have a better understanding of human nature than past cultural elites, the burden is ultimately on you to compare and contrast some elites from today with the elites of yesteryear.

Given the breadth of history, it is you making the extraordinary claim that we're somehow living at the pinnacle of our understanding.

imo my list had some comparatively good names

I have not been making that claim, I am simply pointing out the social and economic system created by cultural/political and intellectual elites two hundred years ago specifically via arguments about human nature.

If our understanding of human nature is better than a specific point in time 200 hundred years ago, that is not the same as saying now is the pinnacle.

However that claim is in no way as extra ordinary as you make it out to be.

Humanity is at the pinnacle of its understanding on so many things, why should human nature be any different?

We understand the "nature" of so many things better than ever before and tomorrow will bring a new pinnacle and so will the day after that.

Its completely on you to prove that claim is extra ordinary and that human nature is obscure to the forward march of human understanding that reveals new truths daily.

In general the understanding of human nature is magnitudes superior now than it was 200 hundred years ago, its not even remotely a debate in anyway and to suggest otherwise is simply absurd and ridiculous.

If you want to argue their are specific cultural elites from two hundred years ago that have led to the current understanding that is a completely different discussion to the one we have been having.

Luckbox,

How would describe Tolstoy's theory on human nature?

I'd call it insightful.

Yes but what is his specific theory?

Do you think he agrees with you that gender is a social construct?

Gender was invented in 1959, so probably not.

Is knowledge not cumulative?

How would anyone involved in this discussion attempt to show one person has a better understanding of human nature than another person? How are you coming to that determination?

I was going to ask the same question. It is nearly impossible to quantify who among Derrida, Mark Twain, and Aristotle has the best understanding of human nature.

I will say that there were some very sophisticated things written about human nature 2000 years ago, even though many institutions and practices from that era seem barbaric by modern lights.

Yes, but I don't think knowledge about basic philosophical questions (e.g., how should human beings live?) is cumulative in the same way that knowledge about math is cumulative.

Pretty much a metric designed to let you pick exactly when the peak of understanding was which will just conform to your own biases

Carrot Top has a great understanding of human nature imo

Let us assume that at sometime in the past our understanding of human nature was at a higher level than we have now. How would we know?

If they wrote books, we could read them.

FWIW I am conflating cultural and political elites in a way Luckbox isn't. I admit I dont see the clear distinction he does.

IAMTHISNOW does have a point that who we consider cultural elites in the moment may not be who people 200 years from now consider. For all we know, Joe Rogan and Elon Musk will be regarded much the same as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin in hindsight.

And?


Do you see people sitting around after reading saying, "You know, those people were pretty smart and had a better understanding than I do, but I guess I'll just keep thinking the way I do because it's easier."?

WISDOM is the virtuous application of KNOWLEDGE.

KNOWLEDGE can be used to cure and it can be used to kill.

In short, KNOWLEDGE itself is neither good nor evil.

I'm not saying it's a clear distinction but certainly we should make a distinction between the sort of influence that a person like Hillary Clinton has versus the sort of influence that a person like David Lynch has--they just aren't operating in the same domain at all. I'm sure there is going to be some amount of overlap though perhaps more in the past than now.

Why is it not cumulative?

In your example above someone born now can read Derrida, Mark Twain and Aristotle, someone born in the ancient greek period can only read Aristotle et al.

Someone born now has a vastly broader range of concepts and ideas to draw from when thinking about such issues.

Its only reactionaries who might want to suggest more contemporary ideas inhibit rather than inform, and if we are talking history of ideas, you will always find those at the bleeding edge of new ideas being criticised and denounced, being made to drink the hemlock.