Principes généraux de l’évolution culturelle

Crops on the only human species, and can identify in living in close connection they have with the symbolic language and with specific forms of organization, techniques and technologies that arise are changing constantly since their emergence, there are several hundreds of thousands of years. They are a continuation of the cultures of primates who were our ancestors, and that looked plausible in part to those who remain as "our cousins" the great apes. However, between the use of voice (in the aria of gibbons) or the use of simple instrumentation, or even days of complex social relationships (in chimpanzees), and deriving an interposition of a grid of meaningful communication between individuals of the same company and the world, there is a snap. It is difficult to be denied, regardless of the effort-worthy and useful - to abolish the concept of "own man", yet to explain, in particular for what it has led to an extraordinary divergence between the destiny of our species and those of others, the closer.

It appears two lines of analysis on this issue conflicting: one focuses on the legitimate ownership of humanity to nature, defies religious prejudice (preferring the origin of man in a decision divine), or the widespread reluctance to accept that we are as a species. The second, basing the humanities and social sciences, attempts to resist a "natural" reductant defending their own, irreducible to other levels of reality: the field of anthropology, which finds its territory in the study what man does not share with other animals. Clearly this is beyond the dogmatic forms of the inevitable antagonism to define more precisely the relationship between "natural continuity" between the cultures of primates and human cultures, and the appearance of a specific discrepancy. To do this, we can resort to a certain point the analogy between the "long history" (Life) and "very short" (human culture): biologists (like Jean Claude Ameisen) studied history of bacteria, in order to understand the incredible complexity of life and death of cells in multicellular organisms. They contend the need to reconstitute the "missing time" to interpret the situation, and understand key phenomena cancer. Other biologists are more interested in the history of the species themselves: in all cases, the analogy with the human stories is heuristic, even to pay the price of anthropomorphism providing the genes or cells intentional human traits as "interests" or "strategies". In contrast, social scientists use little recourse to biological knowledge. They probably wrong in part, but their arguments have nothing to do with a variant of "Creation": they are trying only to develop analytical tools that are not first imported from other disciplines, while in their own area (including the period of less than 30 000 years for which they have indisputable evidence of culture symbolic funeral rites, representations, systems of signs), diversity and the confluence, the movement of short crops appears to obey a priority to special laws.

Comments

[Term Papers help]

I have been visiting various blogs for my term paper help research. I have found your blog to be quite useful. Keep updating your blog with valuable information... Regards