ANTITHESIS TO THEORY

It has been pretty hard to conceive of an adequate argument to counter your thesis, seeming that you have been full proofing it for many years. Although I have one to one instance in which perhaps your theory is not applicable. That is the aspect of man that is purely animistic, one in which is raised through survival instinct, or has been perhaps dropped into a survival of the fittest type scenario in which fight or flight becomes an aspect of daily life . For the theory you propose is one in which human action is based on the notion that man is entirely rational and civilized, basing judgments on logic and prior experience. This discounts the aspect of man that is innately animistic. There have been accounts of people for example who's airplane has crashed in the mountains and they have absolutely no prior knowledge of how to survive in the freezing cold of winter in the wilderness of the mountains that have survived against all odds. These survival actions are in my opinion not based on personal philosophy, craft, art but if you really wanna stretch it mostly science. Even though the actions that were undertaken to survive such a scenario are sheer desperation of the will and animistic survival instincts that have kicked in.