[lit-ideas] Re: Social Darwinism or Darwinian Socialism?
- From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:25:42 +0000 (GMT)
--- Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> JMc:
> >Returning to Geary's original point. Social
> Darwinism is misnamed
>
> Yes, this was my point. One of two. There's no
> Darwinism in Social
> Darwinism.
I suspect it's worse than Hobbesian! BTW I don't know
much about
Darwinism/evolutionary theory (thank you for what you
said about it;
Stan too)but am always suspicious when it's invoked in
social theory.
Evolutionary psychology is another example; and, I
suppose, _The
Selfish Gene_, though people say that's different.
MG> Point two. I was objecting to "Andy's" insistence
that most humans are
MG> stupid and evil and incapable of empathy.
I agree with your objection.
MG> Many people have called me
MG> "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short,"
<joke omitted>
MG> of learning. Are we incapable of empathy? Some
of us seem to be,
isn't (consistent) lack of empathy the mark of a
psychopath?
--
Judy Evans, Cardiff, UK
mailto:judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hobbesianism is far more the apt term, I
> think. Stan (whose
> views I agree with) and "Andy" use the term as it is
> often used, I was
> merely objecting to the use of Darwin's name in the
> term. There's nothing
> Darwinian about Social Darwinism.
>
> Point two. I was objecting to "Andy's" insistence
> that most humans are
> stupid and evil and incapable of empathy. Many
> people have called me
> "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short," and
> they're probably right, but
> that's never kept me from whistling the Ode to Joy.
> Humanity is not stupid.
> Walk through any library and tell me humankind is
> stupid. Go to any art
> museum or gallery and tell me that mankind is
> "stolid and stunned a brother
> to the ox". Read this message on your computer and
> tell me we're incapable
> of learning. Are we incapable of empathy? Some of
> us seem to be, but
> social living would be an impossibility if most of
> us were. There are 6
> billion people in the world. Somebody's doing some
> loving somewhere! And
> caring for. And sacrificing for. And working for.
> The child rearing may
> not meet "Andy's" standards, but we're getting
> there. We work through time.
> Generation by generation. Change comes creeping
> slow. The point is we are
> more the noble savage than we are Turnbull's
> Mountain People. 40 million
> people were killed in WWII, how could I make such a
> claim? I make it
> because we are appalled by that fact. We are not
> without caring, neither as
> individuals nor as a species. Are we there yet?
> No. It'll be a while yet.
> Find something to amuse yourself. I'll tell you
> when we get there.
>
> Mike Geary
> Memphis
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub,
> vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit
> www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
