On Darwin.

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: On Darwin.

Postby phyllo » Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:10 pm

This should be a huge clue to anybody who wants to base their philosophy on observation of the real world and straightforward reasoning. The simple obviousness of it is all that makes it tricky.

The real truth is based on what is...

and the vast majority of what is....

is.....

what?
A house is mostly 'empty' space surrounded by a small amounts of building materials in the walls, roof and floors. The nothingness of the rooms is defined by the configuration of the something. The existence of the house is dependent on the emptiness around it. Something plus nothing creates a greater whole.
Nothing alone... is simply nothing.
A very great part of the mischiefs that vex the world arises from words. - Edmund Burke
User avatar
phyllo
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: On Darwin.

Postby Typist » Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:52 pm

The whole = something + nothing. Right, agreed.

Darwin studied some of the something (an immeasurably small fragment), and developed insights in to how that part of reality works. Darwin made clear minded objective observations of the real world, and drew meaningful conclusions, which are themselves more "somethings".

The original post starts with these widely agreed upon historical facts about Darwin's analysis of part of the something, and then attempts to use Darwin's work as a starting point upon which to draw conclusions about the whole.

To serve the goals of the opening post, I'm suggesting we apply Darwin's methods, which we all agree on, to an examination of the whole.

When we do a clear minded objective observation of the whole, what overwhelmingly dominant fact can we quickly draw from such an observation?

The vast majority of reality is nothing. Or, perhaps it's more precise to call it relative nothing.

As example, the focus of astronomy is on planets, stars, galaxies, etc. That is, somethings. This focus tends to ignore the biggest thing in the heavens by far, empty space, the nothing.

We sincerely wish to study reality, the whole, but oops, we kind of ignore the very biggest part of reality, which is staring us right in the face. We look through the nothing, and ignore it, in search of somethings, an inconceivably small fragment of the whole.

So, if like the original poster, we wish to more fully understand the nature of the whole, we can use Darwin's methods of clear minded objective observation to examine the biggest part of the whole, the nothing. Using a sample size of 99% of the whole seems more productive than using a sample size of 1%, right?

The original poster proposes there is no God, a widely shared view. Many suggest this is proven by the lack of evidence of a God.

It seems fair to ask in return, why would there be evidence one way or the other, if we've been largely ignoring 99% of reality? Isn't it fair to ask our science friends, who pride themselves on clear minded reason and objective observation, why they are focusing their observations on the something instead of the nothing?
User avatar
Typist
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:32 am

Re: On Darwin.

Postby turtle » Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:59 pm

how is god being defined????
turtle
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: On Darwin.

Postby Ierrellus » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:06 pm

Darwin would have liked Spinoza.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
"If you linger to curse the snake that bit you, you will die of its poison."
Arrogance hides a multitude of insecurities."
User avatar
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5562
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: On Darwin.

Postby Typist » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:12 pm

Ierrellus wrote:Darwin would have liked Spinoza.


Why?
User avatar
Typist
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:32 am

Re: On Darwin.

Postby Ierrellus » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:19 pm

Typist wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:Darwin would have liked Spinoza.


Why?

Dawrwin was an agnostic, not an atheist. Spinozan holism and ecological realism might have been welcomed by him. But this is mere speculation on my part.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
"If you linger to curse the snake that bit you, you will die of its poison."
Arrogance hides a multitude of insecurities."
User avatar
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5562
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: On Darwin.

Postby Typist » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:37 pm

Darwin was an agnostic, not an atheist.


Aha, you go Darwin! This is surely a useful contribution to the thread, and I'm now amazed none of us asked this obvious question earlier.

Spinozan holism and ecological realism might have been welcomed by him.


Should it interest you to expand on this at some point down the road, please do.
User avatar
Typist
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:32 am

Re: On Darwin.

Postby phyllo » Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:37 pm

So, if like the original poster, we wish to more fully understand the nature of the whole, we can use Darwin's methods of clear minded objective observation to examine the biggest part of the whole, the nothing. Using a sample size of 99% of the whole seems more productive than using a sample size of 1%, right?

The original poster proposes there is no God, a widely shared view. Many suggest this is proven by the lack of evidence of a God.

It seems fair to ask in return, why would there be evidence one way or the other, if we've been largely ignoring 99% of reality? Isn't it fair to ask our science friends, who pride themselves on clear minded reason and objective observation, why they are focusing their observations on the something instead of the nothing?
Studying something tells us about the nothing around it. What do you think the study of nothing would yield?
A very great part of the mischiefs that vex the world arises from words. - Edmund Burke
User avatar
phyllo
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: On Darwin.

Postby d63 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:54 pm

3) Nature itself is creative.

-anthro

This is reflected in the process of language. We string words together in response to another string of words. Then we string a better string of words together based on strings we have created before. Based upon it, the other will then string words together in a unique way.

Language evolves as humans do.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.
User avatar
d63
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3779
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: On Darwin.

Postby Typist » Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:43 pm

phyllo wrote:What do you think the study of nothing would yield?


Let's explore your quite useful question. You're asking...

If we study nothing, what something will we get out of it?


This is of course an obvious question that any of us might ask, and it does a good job of illustrating the challenge facing us, which might be defined as....

99% of reality is nothing, but we can't get our minds off of the 1% of something. We don't care about the nothing, unless we can somehow turn it in to a something. That is, we're just not interested in the overwhelming majority of reality.

This suggests a built-in bias in the equipment we're using to make the observations, our minds. It's as if we have a lens on the end of our telescope that filters out 99% of the heavens, and we're so used to this filter, we've forgotten it's there.

Imagine early man exploring the landscape on foot. He's mastered walking, become very comfortable with it, and it's now utterly natural. So for awhile early man's exploration of Earth goes along great, with new hunting grounds being discovered regularly. Everybody's happy and very engaged, because what needs to be explored can be explored in a way that is well suited to early man.

And then he comes to the ocean.

Which as it turns out, covers 75% of planet Earth.

If early man insists the exploration simply must continue on foot, because that's the way he likes to explore, he's just out of luck in understanding the reality of planet Earth.

If he wants to explore this new environment he has no choice but to surrender his comfortable preferences to the unfamiliar demands of the inquiry. He has to leave walking behind, build a boat, learn to navigate on the seas, adapt to this new very unusual environment.

Your question reveals us to be the early man, standing on the shore for maybe the first time, looking out to sea and thinking to himself...

WTF do I do with this?

Like it or not, reality is overwhelmingly nothing. That's the defining characteristic of reality. If we want to continue our passion for infinite scale speculation based on objective observations of reality, nothing is the sea we must sail.
User avatar
Typist
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:32 am

Re: On Darwin.

Postby anthropo-eccentricism » Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:45 pm

Typist wrote:Like it or not, reality is overwhelmingly nothing. That's the defining characteristic of reality.

I tired rather quickly of our exchange, but this is hilarious.
“A concept is a brick. It can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window.”
User avatar
anthropo-eccentricism
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:51 am
Location: traces of becoming.

Re: On Darwin.

Postby matty » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:43 pm

Tab wrote:I agreed pretty much with everything, though would point out that "nature is not supposed to be anything" and "nature is creative" seem to be in conflict. The 'supposed' saves it, I erm, suppose. :)

I'd say "nature is extremely conservative" and sometimes has a little creativity imposed upon it in extremis via enviromental change. If we're including sexual selective pressures then yes, evolution does get a little funky - though more in an "exaggerate a feature already present" kinda way, than abstracted creativity.


The point is more that the creativity is immanent, I think, rather than ubiquitous, although the sense of a "conservative" pace may come from a human perspective.

Ierrellus is right about Spinoza, from this point of view, who took immanent philosophy to its nth degree, and who was followed by Deleuze, who I detect as a-e's chief inspiration.
I shall do such things -
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terror of the earth.

http://cottonwoolintocannonballs.blogspot.com/

http://derrudition.blogspot.com/
User avatar
matty
Thinker
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:12 pm
Location: Hors texte

Re: On Darwin.

Postby aletheia » Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:17 pm

anthropo-eccentricism wrote:I often think we've yet to fully absorb the revelatory insights of Darwinian theory. I'd like to discuss his impact, his importance. What follows are five brief interrelated, revolutionary points to initiate discussion. Some of these theses do not originate with Darwin, but most find their highest articulation in his writing.

1) Nature is not supposed to be anything. This is perhaps the fundamental Darwinian insight: nature is non-teleological; it is without purpose. This means that nature cannot tell us anything about how entities should be. Homosexuality is not unnatural, and neither is transhumanist futurism. The claim that homosexuality is unnatural is the claim that over and above individual organisms preside forms or species functioning as norms that govern and measure what an organism ought to be and what it ought not be. This claim works to sneak teleology in through the back door. Things are not supposed to be anything; they simply are. Nature is itself endless deviation; we can never deviate from nature. Accordingly, there can be no real distinction between nature and culture. To separate one form the other is to claim that there are qualities that belong to the thing itself, and that are therefore genuine, authentic and natural, and that there are qualities that are fabricated, developed, constructed, and are therefore inauthentic, unnatural, or cultural. Darwin slaughters this conception of nature. This isn't to say that all is culture, but rather that all is nature--culture included. There is only the way things are and the way things are becoming. Things are defined by the genus of their evolution, the trajectory of their fabrication or change. There is no non-fabricated; there is no unpolluted. Species are no longer norms that measure the degree to which individual entities approximate or deviate from the ideal form. A species is a regularity, a concentration of similarities in a population. Individuals departing from the concentration of similarities are like veins of granite in a field: they aren't unnatural, they aren't abominations, they aren't at all--they simply are, and they are as much as all else. Nature is no longer a term used to beat the different into submission. Nature does not prefer one thing to another; it doesn't prefer at all.

2) Difference is creative, not deviant. On the outdated picture of nature, difference was understood as a deviation from norm or essence. Far from being a deviation from an essence or ideal form, difference, with Darwin, becomes the very engine that drives the movement of nature. It is now difference, and not God, that creates. The endless process of differentiation is without purpose or goal, it is without foresight. It simply moves, as if blindly. Difference is random--not without cause, but without goal. Further, it's not just that nature produces variation, but rather that every copy, every reiteration, every instantiation of every thing, stands testament to the all-pervading different. Repetition, to speak with Deleuze, is always repetition with a difference. There are no perfect copies, no original from which all subsequent movement departs hopelessly. Rather, all is copy, all is repetition. Nature is a moving simulacra.

3) Nature itself is creative. Matter can no longer be understood as lifeless, formless clay upon which intelligent beings stamp their designs. Matter is not sterile or inert. With Darwin, God is murdered, and humans are decentered. God is no longer needed to account for creativity and life. And humans are no longer called upon to mold the lifeless stuff of the world. Rather, everything that exists is always-already molded, and always-already in the process of molding itself. Humans are but another term in the endless proliferation of difference and becoming, variation and reciprocal affect. We now know that matter is capable all on its own of generating pattern, of self-organizing, and of maintaining patterns across time, of differentiating itself, of affecting and shifting and adapting. Matter isn't simply stuff, but is also movement, force, flows of energy that animate systems of production and dissolution and all the rest. And it is all this without need of recourse to vitalistic, animistic, or theistic/deistic hypotheses. At the center of Darwinian thought is the thesis that matter has the capacity to self-organize, to form pattern, and to generate life.

4) Design no longer requires a designer. Adaptation, selection, differentiation, variation, inheretability--all this takes place immanent to nature itself. We no longer need to refer to a transcendent designer, intelligence or purpose to account for the endless complexity of nature. I don't think I need to explain this much more, as this is perhaps the Darwinian insight most widely spoken-of. For the theologian, form is treated as pre-existing in the mind of the creator, and matter is conceptualized as awaiting-form, as lifeless and inert. Form is then impressed upon matter. But to take a claim like this seriously, one must reject every insight of contemporary biology. The Intelligent-Designers will have no friends here, and for this reason--I'll keep this point short. If you're still holding on to a vestige of hope in intelligent design, then this isn't the thread for you.

5) Humans are animals. This point goes without saying. And yet, I feel the need to say it--again and again and again. We are animals, we are in and of the world--we do not stand over and above it. We do not hold dominion over it, we are not its shepherds. We are of its stench and viscosity, its materiality and corporeality, its movement and flux and becoming and change. We are stuff impacted by other stuff that impacts other stuff still. Humans arose without aim, without intention, as the product of a blind and stupid conjunction of processes. As the well-known saying goes: were we to re-wind the tape of evolution and play it back, it could never happen the same way twice. Human beings were an accident, just as everything is an accident. There is only what comes to be and what doesn't--there can be no pre-thought direction, no goal to serve as a ground for the process. It is often said that evolution can be reconciled with theism. To do so, one must thoroughly misunderstand the principles of evolution. No goal. Blind, stupid processes. Ceaseless difference. Lots and lots of death. There is, without any room for argument, absolutely no room for God on this account. Humans certainly have their own unique capacities, but the same goes for every other organism as well. We are but one term among many in the shifting network of our environment. We affect the world, and the world affects us. Ceaselessly. We are not, above all else, sovereigns of being. We are 90% bacteria. We are not even ourselves. The majority of species on this planet that have ever existed are extinct. There have been many different ecosystems (in the precambrian era, for example, the atmosphere was hypersaturated with oxygen, causing great fires during thunder storms and giant insects to evolve). Nature has no preference for Earth and its rich ecosystem over Mars and its desolate wasteland. Nature just is what it does… Including what it does through us and our technologies.


Yes, true on all counts. Well said.
'The daemonic genius is the only thing capable of surviving the odds of existence versus no existence... because of what it empirically tolerates though fundamentally defying it, the deepest existence is satyrical. The grin on a primordial sailor, grim to all things human, his enjoyment in the uncertainty. He knows himself by this very factor. Valuing the uncertainty of the universe as an extension of oneself - this sailor is the primordial being.' [Source]


Before The Light philosophy forum
 
User avatar
aletheia
Thinker
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:56 pm
Location: Ethos Anthropos Daimon.

Re: On Darwin.

Postby anthropo-eccentricism » Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:29 pm

matty wrote:The point is more that the creativity is immanent, I think, rather than ubiquitous, although the sense of a "conservative" pace may come from a human perspective.

Agreed, on both counts. That is, that creativity is immanent, and that a conservative duration is the product of a very specifically temporal consciousness.

matty wrote: [...] and who was followed by Deleuze, who I detect as a-e's chief inspiration.

Perhaps. I'm really quite fond of Deleuze at the moment.
“A concept is a brick. It can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window.”
User avatar
anthropo-eccentricism
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:51 am
Location: traces of becoming.

Re: On Darwin.

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:26 pm

James S Saint

Typist wrote:
Ok, I'll play...

Real truth is what's left over after you've chipped away the entire block of marble looking for the real truth.

"Real Truth" is why the block is there in the first place.

No, James, real truth began its flow when Michaelangelo randomly found the block of marble at the quarry.
Cohesion is a real truth, made manifest by the statue of david.

Cohesion might also be a word which describes the overwhelming vast majority of the known universe. Let's not forget synchronistic, serendipitous, veiled, mysterious, heart-wrenching, passionate abandon, (2 words) chaotic, deterministic, ordered/organized, paradoxical, conundrum, oceanic, continuum, process, ad continuum.... :banana-dance:
~ Carlos Ruiz Zafon

“One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. By the time the mind is able to comprehend what has happened, the wounds of the heart are already too deep.”

“But in good time you'll see that sometimes what matters isn't what one gives but what one gives up.”

A room without books ..is like a body without a soul.”

“I couldn't help thinking that if I, by pure chance, had found a whole universe in a single unknown book, buried in that endless necropolis, tens of thousands more would remain unexplored, forgotten forever. I felt myself surrounded by millions of abandoned pages, by worlds and souls without an owner sinking in an ocean of darkness, while the world that throbbed outside the library seemed to be losing its memory, day after day, unknowingly, feeling all the wiser the more it forgot.”
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 7709
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Inner Space - the final frontier

Re: On Darwin.

Postby James S Saint » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:39 pm

Tethered by reality;
    There is the ongoing cause of all that is.
    There is the order and chaos brought about by that cause.
    There is the adversary to every life.
    And there is you.. an instance of life.
The rest is just noise

_______________

Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise.

Image

"SNR" = "Signal to Noise Ratio"
It is all only about the noise.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Those who too ardently seek to be seen as correct, see only correctness in themselves.
The Social Paradox - to be well grounded and soundly harmonious, one must rise above the dirt and noise.
The One God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11087
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: On Darwin.

Postby Evening » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:51 pm

moot
Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars. - Serbian proverb

Teach me your mood, O patient stars. Who climb each night, the ancient sky.
leaving on space no shade, no scars, no trace of age, no fear to die. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Ye stars! Which are the poetry of heaven! - Lord Byron

I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night. - Sarah Williams

Quietly, like a night bird, floating, soaring, wingless
We glide from shore to shore, curving and falling but not quite touching;
Earth: a distant memory seen in an instant of repose,
crescent shaped, ethereal, beautiful, I wonder which part is home,
but I know it doesn't matter . . . the bond is there in my mind and memory;
Earth: a small, bubbly balloon hanging delicately in the nothingness of space. - Alfred Worden
User avatar
Evening
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:13 pm
Location: Playing hide and seek with Apollo

Re: On Darwin.

Postby anthropo-eccentricism » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:00 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:[...] chaotic [...] process [...]

Yes.
“A concept is a brick. It can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window.”
User avatar
anthropo-eccentricism
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:51 am
Location: traces of becoming.

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users