|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwin and responsibilty | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The quote is Darwin quoting someone in "Descent of Man".
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
From your post:
quote: If there is something about this in Descent of Man please tell me which chapter. I wish to see the context before I comment on whatever Darwin is supposed to believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It's in Chapter two.
* A writer in the Spectator (March 12, 1871, p. 320) comments as follows on this passage:- "Mr. Darwin finds himself compelled to reintroduce a new doctrine of the fall of man. He shews that the instincts of the higher animals are far nobler than the habits of savage races of men, and he finds himself, therefore, compelled to re-introduce,- in a form of the substantial orthodoxy of which he appears to be quite unconscious,- and to introduce as a scientific hypothesis the doctrine that man's gain of knowledge was the cause of a temporary but long-enduring moral deterioration as indicated by the many foul customs, especially as to marriage, of savage tribes. What does the Jewish tradition of the moral degeneration of man through his snatching at a knowledge forbidden him by his highest instinct assert beyond this?" This is just before Dawin goes into a long discourse on Natural Selection and is a lead in to his discussion of whether there are really different species of humans. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Thanks, jar. I just didn't want to do Syamsu's work for him. Evidently you are the helpful type.
I'll look at it at some point to see for myself what is being said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Sorry for the long cut'n'paste post. Syamsu seems to be trying to portray Darwin as a racist. To prove it, he fails to quote Darwin himself. Instead he quotes:
A writer in the Spectator (March 12, 1871, p. 320) comments as follows on this passage:- "Mr. Darwin finds himself compelled to reintroduce a new doctrine of the fall of man. He shews that the instincts of the higher animals are far nobler than the habits of savage races of men, and he finds himself, therefore, compelled to re-introduce,- in a form of the substantial orthodoxy of which he appears to be quite unconscious,- and to introduce as a scientific hypothesis the doctrine that man's gain of knowledge was the cause of a temporary but long-enduring moral deterioration as indicated by the many foul customs, especially as to marriage, of savage tribes. What does the Jewish tradition of the moral degeneration of man through his snatching at a knowledge forbidden him by his highest instinct assert beyond this?
This is indeed a quote from Darwin's Descent of Man (thanks for the heads up, jar). But notice that this was written by an unnamed writer about Darwin, not Darwin's own words. In fact, this passage is in a footnote, commenting on a passage that Darwin himself wrote. Here is what Darwin wrote - the * marks the place for the footnote:
If we look back to an extremely remote epoch, before man had arrived at the dignity of manhood, he would have been guided more by instinct and less by reason than are the lowest savages at the present time. Our early semi-human progenitors would not have practised 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. There would have been no prudential restraint from marriage, and the sexes would have freely united at an early age. Hence the progenitors of man would have tended to increase rapidly; but checks of some kind, either periodical or constant, must have kept down their numbers, even more severely than with existing savages. What the precise nature of these checks were, we cannot say, any more than with most other animals. We know that horses and cattle, which are not extremely prolific animals, when first turned loose in South America, increased at an enormous rate. The elephant, the slowest breeder of all known animals, would in a few thousand years stock the whole world. The increase of every species of monkey must be checked by some means; but not, as Brehm remarks, by the attacks of beasts of prey. No one will assume that the actual power of reproduction in the wild horses and cattle of America, was at first in any sensible degree increased; or that, as each district became fully stocked, this same power was diminished. No doubt, in this case, and in all others, many checks concur, and different checks under different circumstances; periodical dearths, depending on unfavourable seasons, being probably the most important of all. So it will have been with the early progenitors of man. So, Darwin was saying this: he claimed that lower animals would never practice infanticed or polyandry. This turns out to be false - lower animals do - but under a naive assumption about what leads to reproductive success, this isn't an obviously stupid assumption to make. Remember, at this time people were just beginning to think of evolution in terms of reproductive success. So my first question is: is assuming that lower animals would avoid polyandry or infanticide in order to increase reproductive success a racist statement? Darwin called the practices of polyandry and infanticide "perverted". Certainly not a scientific term, and even from a purely moral stand-point I would never call polyandry "perverted". But remember that Darwin was living in Victorian England. My next question is: by calling these practices "perverted", does that make him racist? He is commenting on behavior, not people. Now this was from a later edition of the book. In this edition he included a comment from reader of an earlier edition about this section. The writer then seems to be commenting on the fact that there are cultures in which people practice these things. Is this not a fact? And does mentioning this fact make Darwin a racist? Finally, say that we accept the premises (some of which we now, in the 21st century, to be wrong):(1) Lower animals do not engage in certain actions considered to be morally objectionable. (2) Some cultures of humans do practice these actions. (3) Humans evolved from lower animals. Conclusion: There has been a moral degeneration that occurred in the evolution of humans. Now, what in all of this makes Darwin a racist? More to the point, where in all of this can Syamsu, a theist who believes in an absolute moral code, make the claim that Darwin was a racist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
We don't need bloody lawyers to defend Darwinists scientists, we need impartial judges respecting the ideal of objectivity cleaning up Darwinism.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I don't even know what this means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
I suspected that the claims that Darwin was racist would be a load of tosh and you've just confirmed it. Why, oh why didn't Syamsu provide the evidence he felt backed up his claim? Was it because he knew that there was no evidence which would do this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Of course Darwin did have some racist views, being a part of the middle class of Victorian England. He felt that European society, especially English society, especially middle class English mores, were the pinnacle of civilization. All other civilizations were more primitive in the sense that they were still underdeveloped.
Reading Descent of Man, he also seems to view other races as being transitional between white European and the ape ancestors; however in making this links it is usually a cultural rather than biological linkage. At any rate, he also very clearly sees the other races as definitely, positively human. Darwin was quite appalled when he experienced slavery in South America on his round-the-world voyage. If anything, in establishing the "darker" races as transitional, he didn't so much view other races as degerate as much as he anthropomorphized non-human species - assuming that they actually acted on human-like motives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
It means you are acting like a lawyer defending Darwin's work, in stead of like an impartial judge concerned with the ideal of objectivity in science.
The significant thing seems to be that Darwin intermixed racism in his theory. There were I'm sure many violently racist chemists, however they did not mix their racism into their works on chemistry. They did not advocate that people in any significant degree inferior should not marry in their work. They didn't carry newspaper comments about moral theory in their work. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Syamsu
The significant thing seems to be that Darwin intermixed racism in his theory. There were I'm sure many violently racist chemists, however they did not mix their racism into their works on chemistry. Regardless of the implications on the part of Darwin and his social view of the world he lived in how does this tie into the choices that Hitler or Stalin or you or I for that matter use within our lifetime? This is like saying that Sun-Tsu is responsible for the actions of all wars,after his death,that made use of his book the art of war.We can shape the way in which future generations can live out their lives by what we do today but we cannot know in advance whether our work will be used for betterment or detriment of those generations. Knowledge has no volition of its own.As the saying goes: "To each man is given the key to the gates of Heaven.The same key opens the gates of Hell."
How we human beings implement that knowledge is what determines the outcome for society but that key must be freely available to all or else we cannot be aware of its potential to help or hinder progress..Those things which we deem evil {which in reality are merely choices made by human beings and not an entity seperate from those choices}use knowledge to further themselaves.If we cannot deal with the knowledge nor properly understand its implementation by people we run a grave risk indeed.Knowledge is impartial to the dealings of human beings.It is does not change with the passing or births of nations.It is neutral the suffering or joy it may bring.Hitler and Stalin bent and distorted the knowledge of others to their own witless ends. A snarl, a sneer, a whip that stings. These are a few of my favorite things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
As before, you are arguing assuming some kind of absolute purity of objectivity of knowledge, which doesn't exist. Pseudoscientific texts often start out with the assertion that "this is scientific", "this is objective", and throughout the text there are assurances, and reassurances about it. But these assurances are often based on nothing more then their say so. The objectivitity of a fact is a tentative justification based on some standards that support the ideal. I suggest you to judge the work of Darwin in terms of the ideal of objectivity.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Here is Darwin's theory:
In every species, individuals produce more offspring than can possibly survive to maturity. In every species, individual vary from one another, and much of this variation is hereditary. Since individuals vary, some are going to be better able to survive in their environment than others and reproduce. Therefore, each succeeding generation will tend to be better adapted, as a whole, to the environment than others. This is simply not in dispute, not even among creationists, I believe. Then, looking at the great variety among domesticated breeds of plants and animals, and especially how different they are from their ancestral breeds, Darwin came to the follow conclusions: There is source of new variations; individuals can have new characteristics, or have characteristics beyond the range exhibited by their parents. Combining the production of new existence with the natural selection process just explained, species can adapt and evolve and produce dramatically new forms over immensely long periods of time. Darwin, looking at examples of the heirarchical nature of taxonomy, made the final conclusion: All species are descended from a very small number of ancestral species. The great range of species is due to the evolutionary process as just described. No racism. Just very logical conclusions based on established fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Syamsu
As before, you are arguing assuming some kind of absolute purity of objectivity of knowledge, which doesn't exist. No, you misunderstand. I am saying that knowledge{whether it is true or not is irrelevant} is subjective only in the hands of human beings and as such has no power to sway it in one direction or another.Hitler and Stalin bent knowledge to purposes its forebeares could not see nor can we say they would have approved and in all likelihood would be disgusted with. If tomorrow you were to find a new energy source and grew rich off its aopplication but in the year 2133 it is found to be capable of killing human beings without a trace of evidence.Do we seriously contend that you, having once or twice in your youth been a violent man,{thought experiment only}are now responsible for whatever horror may be perpetrated by men upon others? I think not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You can find Darwin's theory in the opening of "Descent of Man". from memory "Do the races or species of man, whichever term applies, encroach on and replace one another until some finally become extinct, just as with the lower animals?" So it is a malthusian encroachment theory in terms of groupselection. from memory "Extinction follows chiefly of competition of tribe with tribe and race with race" "when of two adjoining tribes one becomes weaker then the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism and absorption". So what are the main selective factors in the descendancy of man according to Darwin?
Darwin had a few more vague principles in expressing natural selection, such as struggle for life / existence, perfection etc. There is of course much more to be said about objectivity in natural selection theory, such as the paper I referenced in another thread suggests modern natural selection theory still has valueladen illegitimate teleology. But regardless of that, how do you get from your formulation to quoting someone about the fall of man as a scientific doctrine? I can take all of what you said the wrong way. I can understand it as saying that yes indeed the fall of man is a scientific theory etc. And what of all the mentions of inferior and superior, low and high? Should that be understood as grades of complexity, or grades in value? Or should some mentions be understood as grades of complexity, and other mentions as grades in value? Where it becomes dubious is also where Darwin glosses over the power of choice of human beings. So the Australian aboriginal will certainly become extinct if there is one selective check slightly against it. The civilized races of man, will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races. Choice plays no role in Darwin's writing many times. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024