Naturalism vs. Sociology

• The text explores whether humanity is truly revolutionary, referencing Bruno Latour's idea that it may not be.
• The concept of human revolution is tied to human superiority, contrasting humans' ability to make societal changes with other species.
• Naturalism and sociology offer different perspectives on the relationship between society and nature.

Naturalism vs. Sociology

• Sociology views society as a microcosm of nature, explaining nature as a whole.
• Naturalism posits that nature explains society.
• This relates to the nature vs. nurture debate: are behaviors inherent or conditioned by society?
• Nature's changes are explained by science as evolution, a natural progression of natural selection and genetics, not revolution.
• If naturalism is true, societal changes are a natural progression, like evolution.
• Society explained by nature is not revolutionary because change is a natural, life-sustaining process.

Society as a Reflection of Nature

• If sociology is correct, and nature is explained by society, then society could be revolutionary.
• Changes in society often cause discontent because they strongly deviate from the norm.
• This difficulty in accepting change suggests it is not a natural process.
• If society explains nature, change is unnatural, unusual, and thus revolutionary.

Defining Revolution

• If revolution is a shocking, novel change difficult to accept: naturalism suggests humanity is not, sociology suggests it is.
• If revolution is defined by the nature of the idea itself, categorization becomes more difficult.