Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 11/09/04
- Next message: 7: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- In reply to: Richard F Hall: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Next in thread: zerkanX: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:54:09 GMT
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:45:34 GMT, realistic@seanet.com (Richard F
Hall) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:48:57 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
>(Lester Zick) wrote:
>
>>
>> Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man
>> -----------------
>>
>>The conventional thinking in science since mid Victorian times has
>>been that man is an animal. This opinion stems in the main from
>>Darwin's demonstration of natural selection as the driving force
>>behind evolution. He may have even held this opinion himself, that
>>descent from animals necessarily implies that man is an animal.
>If one lives on a farm and learns to interact with animals and sees
>them born, live, and die, one can reach the opinion that we are
>animals too. But then there is the character of the "animal" that we
>are. Virtually all of us enjoy a measure of magic, as magic
>represents that which is supernatural, in our philosophy. Some enjoy
>this more than others. This desire for magic tends to cloud our view
>of everything around us, somehow separating us from the rest of the
>universe and the "animals". It places us in a, more or less, divine
>status. This can be very satisfying.
After watching a PBS special on nocturnal hunting habits of leopards,
etc. I think most animals would settle for a good night's sleep. We
have the luxury of looking for magic only after a good night's sleep.
>>Opposing this view we have canonical proclamations declaring man is
>>above the animals as the result of a special act of divine creation.
>>Now, this is obviously just a mythopoetic religious attempt to explain
>>the differences between man and animal. However, what few if any
>>recognize is that Darwinian natural selection fails to explain those
>>differences or even address them.
>Darwin was emotionally tortured by his wife. She despised him for his
>observations separating him from the (God) Bible. I don't think he
>addresses the idea that humanity was no different from animals. I
>think his observations were restricted to observations of animals.
Not positive one way or the other, Rich. But I have heard that he
regarded man as one of the animals, but that be someones construction.
>>In other words, recognizing the mythopoetic character of religious or
>>metaphysical explanations for the differences between man and beast
>>does not just make those differences go away (except for materialists
>>and behaviorists, of course). They still remain to be explained in
>>mechanically determinate and not mythopoetic terms. And this modern
>>sciences of behavior have all failed to grasp much less resolve.
>Scientists are human too. They yearn for magic as well. Behaviorists
>are no different. Perhaps their magic is different from others. To
>the determinist, humanity is a different animal, as dogs are different
>from horses, and, amazingly, humans can relate to many more species
>than we ever dreamed.. directly.. with meaning.. with true
>communication.. and even love to some.
Sure. The problem is that humans can't relate to materialism and
behaviorism with true communication. However, as is my occasional
wont this may be little more than polemic on my part. I'm sure there
are many decent behaviorists out there. I'm not so sure there are so
many decent behaviorismists out there.
>>Natural selection just means that religious explanations for the
>>differences between man and animal are wrong and not that
>>undemonstrated assumptions to the contrary are right. Darwin's
>>contribution was to show that we are descended from the animals and
>>not necessarily that we remain animals as the result of the descent.
>It seems, upon study, that the religious explanations are sometimes
>just a little off the mark, due to a lack of factual data, and are
>sometimes right on, metaphorically at least. And, just like the
>scientific stuff, are sometimes rubbish. As far as the animal = human
>equation, if you find that you need the magic in your life, none of
>what I write will make sense. But if you are confounded by the magic,
>then realistic idealism will be a measure of truth on which you can
>build.
>
>RFHall
>realistic idealism
>philosophy based on evidence
Regards - Lester
- Next message: 7: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- In reply to: Richard F Hall: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Next in thread: zerkanX: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
