What's the point
After reading Darwin, is it possible to believe that a single human person and/or all of humanity has any real purpose or teleological end?
Moral Progression Thought Piece
Charles Darwin provides an extensive and detailed look into the physical evolution of man. He describes the advantageous variations that species undergo physically, but he does not believe that there has been moral progress made by man. In fact, he shows that morally the more depraved procreate and subsist in larger numbers than the morally virtuous because of their procreative habits.
But has man as a whole really undergone no moral development of the course of his existence? Darwin writes about the primeval species: “Our early semi-human progenitors would not have practiced infanticide or polyandry; for the instincts of the lower animals are never so perverted as to lead them regularly to destroy their own offspring, or to be quite devoid of jealousy” (p 644). These modern developments, for Darwin, demonstrate a regress in human morality. Though for the primeval humans lack the moral capacity of today’s humans, this only makes the situation worse; the early humans acted primarily on instinct while current humans have developed the ability to determine if something is morally wrong or right, yet continue to practice immoral acts.
Darwin writes that people want to believe in a moral development of man, but history proves otherwise. Obviously, this contradicts Hegel’s entire argument that history progresses toward the most perfect society. Both of them use history as an example. Darwin’s argument against moral development rests on his claims that the morally depraved members of society procreate with more frequency than the virtuous: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, forseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him” (p 711). Bold stereotypes aside, this statement demonstrates Darwin’s belief that our society will gradually become populated in greater numbers by immoral than moral citizens.
However, Darwin does not define what is meant by a moral person, and it seems as if his ideas of morality differ from the ones we use today. When referring to the lack of polyandry in most of today’s societies he credits jealousy as a positive attribute. Most people today would cite jealousy as a negative attribute that promotes immoral rather than moral actions. Obviously these examples are beyond Darwin’s life, but America has undergone many changes toward a greater morality. Over the past two hundred years we have seen the abolition of slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and suffrage for women and minorities. Are these developments not evidence of the evolution of a moral character in America?
This is not to say that all people posses equal levels of moral character or that history constantly progresses toward a greater moral character. Hegel allows for digression in his theory by referring to history as an ebb and flow. The problem with Darwin’s description is his failure to incorporate moral development while allowing room for stagnation or decline. Perhaps there is a different dimension to morality that cannot be proven in the same scientific way that he sets out to demonstrate his theory of evolution and physical progress. Is Darwin correct to say that mankind is making no moral strides?
(Word Count: 532)
Rhetoric Vs. Evidence Thought Piece
Darwin is considered one of the greatest scientists of all time for his theory of evolution. While reading the Descent of Man, however, an alarming pattern emerges. While personal anecdotes and rhetoric are in abundance, there seems to be a lack of scientific evidence to support his argument.
The use of rhetoric is found throughout the work. Phrases such as "Everyone has seen," "The fact that lower animals are excited by the same emotions as ourselves is so well established that it will not be necessary to weary the reader by many details," "Few persons any longer dispute," are found throughout the text and use the reader's common sense to draw conclusions that may or may not be supported by scientific data. There is no place for rhetoric in modern scientific investigation. Emphasis is placed on empirical evidence and results of experimentation. The use of rhetoric seems to indicate some flaws in the argument that Darwin is attempting to gloss over.
The personal anecdotes used by Darwin are also troubling. One example of this that occurs frequently in the text is the use of dogs and Darwin's experience with his dog. His dog is mentioned in the sections on sociability, memory, and imagination.
The issue, of course, is not that anecdotes or single experiences are not useful in terms of examining patterns, however using an incident that happened on a hunting trip to offer evidence of reasoning in animals is not exactly scientific. The text does refer to other documents, which apparently document more closely the studies performed and results gathered, however Darwin's own evidence does not seem to be the result of any prolonged study.
This evidence seems more typical of a work like Thucidides or a political treatise in which rationality and logic are used more than empirical evidence. These "soft" sciences, history and politics, use this type of evidence because often times it is impossible to conduct experiments to prove conclusions. Darwin's topic, however, contains many aspects that could be tested by the scientific method.
If this if the type of evidence used, it begs the question, what type of text is The Descent of Man? Is this a scientific work, as most people assume it to be because of the fame of its author? Is this work a treatise of Darwin's own ideas, more literary in nature because of the unproven assumptions he presents? Can these ideas about animals having imaginations, and the difference between levels of rationality in men be proven using the scientific method or are they things we must examine on a more abstract and philosophical level?
In his introduction, Darwin explains that he had never attempted to apply his principles of evolution to a specific species. His attempt to do so with man is a culmination of information gathered about other types of animals and is used as a test to see if his theories hold up. Was it a mistake to publish this book about a species on which typical experimentation is limited by ethical boundaries? Is it possible that this is as much as Darwin can do given these limits, and thus his hypotheses still stand up to scientific scrutiny?540 Words
Natural Selection
"The early progenitors of man must also have tended, like all other animals, to have increased beyond their means of subsistence; they must, therefore, occasionally have been exposed to a struggle for existence, and consequently to the ridid law of natural selection. ...Man in the rudest state in which he now exists is the most dominant animal that has ever appeared on this earth." (645, like 16 pages into chapter 2)Considering modern conveniences, modern weaponry, modern medicine, humanitarian laws, and general christian(-like) kindness, I would venture to say that natural selection no longer occurs in the human race. Is this a fair assessment? Would the lack of natural selection be a bad thing? Are we no longer the "most dominant animal" in our rudest state, is the human race weakening? Sure we have to deal with hardships in life, but even in the undeveloped third world it isn't as bad as it could be because aide etc. from developed countries like ours. I would like to say that perhaps we have simply stopped the physical track and have moved on to the mental, however it is impossible to ignore the giant supply of stupidity in our world. Have we reached our highpoint (...Germany?... haha)? Are we on the decline? IS THE WORLD GOING TO END IN 2012!?!?!?
Also, Brennan, well done with the comic link. That was ridiculous. On both sides.
Although I do want to talk about Darwin, I think it is necessary to bring up all the books at this point; our last class of the year.
Starting with War and Peace and ending with the Descent of Man, what is the connection we can make with all these classics? What is the underlying message of this seminar, and how can we compare this class to others?
General question, I know, but I felt it necessary to ask...
Nobility in Mere Living
"Thus we have given to man a pedigree of prodigious length, but not, it may be said, of noble quality. The world, it has often been remarked, appears as if it had long been preparing for the advent of man: and this, in one sense is strictly true, for he owes his birth to a long line of progenitors. If any single link in this chain had never existed, man would not have been exactly what he now is. Unless we wilfully close our eyes, we may, with our present knowledge, approximately recognise our parentage; nor need we feel ashamed of it. The most humble organism is something much higher than the inorganic dust under our feet; and no one with an unbiased mind can study any living creature, however humble, without being struck with enthusiasm at its marvelous structure and properties" (Darwin 731).
In the above passage, Darwin tries to placate those who may find his ideas on the descent of man from "lower" species offensive. Essentially, he says that any living being is more noble than inanimate matter. Although this claim seems rather obvious, how can it necessarily be justified? Would it really satisfy his detractors? Wouldn't they simply say that humans are more noble than the sorts of "lower" species from which Darwin claims they have descended?
Darwin on Race
In chapter 7, Darwin analyzes whether or not the different races constitute different human species. When he published The Descent of Man in the 1870s, this was a radical hypothesis. Do we think that the evidence he uses to support his conclusion would convince his readers that humankind is all one species (thus eliminating some of the grounds for racism)?
Darwin's Dog
Darwin seems to mention dogs frequently as examples in support of the humanity of animals in the third chapter. He mentions the dog that licked the hand of the scientist vivisecting the poor thing (661), the dog with a sense of humor (662), dreaming dogs as evidence of imagination (664), and his own dog who has some concept of hunting (671).He even suggests that the dog might have a concept of some invisible force:
As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved [in the wind], tje dpg growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and that stranger has no right to be on his territory.
--679
He uses other animals as examples, but no other so frequently. Much of Darwin's argument on the nature of human beings requires that we accept that animals are close to us in reason and other faculties than we usually admit. But especially because much of Darwin's evidence seems to stem from such a personal source-- his own probably beloved dog-- could all this 'evidence' just be projection? Cesar Milan, the Dog Whisperer, bases the concept of his training on the idea that dogs are animals, and you have to treat them as such, not as though they were people (at least according to his cameo on South Park). Anyway, it really seems a strong possibility that when Darwin looks at these apparently convincing cases of animals acting with reason, imagination, playfulness, and so on, it could just be projection. Is his evidence really convincing? If so, what implications does this have for humans? Does it change anything?
Reading Mill in Light of Hegel: Negative and Positive Liberty
(Unrequired thought piece)Although Mill’s and Hegel’s philosophies ground themselves in the idea that liberty is the end of history, these thinkers espouse diametrically opposed positions on the manner in which this liberty is realized. In order to understand the possible consequences and applications of Mill’s political theory, his ideas on liberty must be read in light of their radical break with Hegelian thought.
In his work The Philosophy of History, Hegel implements a positive concept of political freedom, positive liberty. He writes that “the History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom” (19). Using Reason as the absolute measure of progress, he defines liberty as obedience to the law due to a realization that the law itself is rational. In other words, in the state of liberty, there is no possible conflict between the rational individual and the state. Hegel thus implements a positive concept of liberty in his writings, concluding that freedom can only be realized in the State through its public institutions: “Rather, we affirm, are Law, Morality, Government, and they alone, the positive reality and completion of Freedom” (38).
In his essay On Liberty, Mill inverts the positive liberty of Hegel and presents a negative concept of political freedom, negative liberty. He defines civil, or social liberty as “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” (3). In other words, Mill’s conception of liberty revolves around the protection of individual rights from the interference of society: “To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society” (86). He divides the liberties of the individual that must be protected into three branches to demonstrate the necessary precautions for a free society: Liberty of Thought and Discussion, Individuality, Limits on the Authority of Society on the Individual. In contrast to Hegel, negative liberty is not a consequence of the State but a prerequisite for a State that will not succumb to despotism. But Mill seems to extend the protections of liberty from governmental affairs to social, cultural, and religious norms: “Even despotism does not produce its worst effects, so long as individuality exists under it; and whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called, and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men” (73). This expansion of the realm of despotism leads to a wide range of possible applications of negative liberty.
If Mill’s proposed applications range from forced labor to support one’s children to privatization of education and public institutions, is this conception of liberty better than the positive liberty espoused by Hegel? Hegel’s notion of a teleological history acting through the cunning of reason leads us to an ideal State of peace, freedom, and morality. Where does Mill’s negative liberty lead us? Does it effectively defend against despotism and ensure peace and morality?
[498 words]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
1 comments:
Post a Comment