[lit-ideas] Re: Marx and Freud's validity only as 'limiting case' Darwinism
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:15:43 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> What is "a better intellectual/theoretical footing"? I
> don't know.
(You don't?).
Consider: Darwinism as "a better intellectual/theoretical footing" than
Platonic essentialism and Aristotelian teleology, two dominant traditions of
thought that acted as an intellectual straitjacket hindering the development of
Western thought about evolution for 2,000 years. Even here we can perhaps
extract, post-Darwin, something useful in both: the Platonic view that all
forms of existence reflect underlying Ideal Forms _might_ be said to resemble
the genotype/phenotype distinction in some respects and Aristole's search for
teleological aims _might_ be seen as a precursor of the Darwinian search for
useful functions. But it is only from a post-Darwin vantage-point that this
might be said, and that they were a straitjacket to intellectual and
theoretical progress remains a fact. Hence Darwinism as "a better
intellectual/theoretical footing".
Consider: Darwinism as "a better intellectual/theoretical footing" than
Creationism. Why? Many reasons. For one, Creationism isn't really a proper
explanation in terms of putting our understanding of what exists and why on a
"a better intellectual/theoretical footing" - no more than explaining why wars
start, why recessions occur, why splitting the atom can destroy cities etc. is
"explained" as being by 'act of the Creator'. As a research programme
indicating the kinds of explanation in principle that we should be looking for,
Darwinism opens up the world to many detailed, specific and successfully
testable explanations of natural phenomena (including predictions of
intermediates or 'missing-links') - Creationism does not.
>Freud is now largely regarded as a significant
> humanist essayist.
You don't know what is "a better intellectual/theoretical footing", yet you
know this? Even if true, does it not amount (and similiar may be said of Marx)
to conceding that the specific content of much of his theorising is baloney?
(Albeit baloney with a "significant humanist", and no doubt historical, aspect
and impact).
>Evolutionary theory is mired in competing
> theories about genetic expression, including
> neo-Lamarckianism.
It is certainly mired in "competing theories" (e.g. Peter Munz's attack on
Cooby and Tosmides as having Lockeanised Darwin, and so missed the point that
Darwinism is anti-Lockean i.e. not compatible with traditional empiricism of
the "all knowledge is a product of sensory input" kind; a very different kind
of competition is between alternative but nevertheless truly Darwinian
explanations of specific phenomena). But is this any valid criticism? Physics
post-Einstein is similarly mired. Should we therefore ignore Einstein or look
elsewhere? Perhaps Einstein should be dismissed because to do physics in the
light of his work is just
>"building a "world-view church"
> on shifting sands and to boot, spoiling one's sense of
> mystery"
as you put it?
I think not. And that the last quoted commented betrays misunderstanding of
what is at stake here.
Donal
Expecting rain
London
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
