The problem is you keep forgetting what your thesis is. — Olivier5
That hunter gatherers do not have existential crises about their ethical or executive freedoms. — Kenosha Kid
(my bolding)Like morality, the question of what meaning we should find for ourselves arises precisely because we are living in an environment starkly different from anything that had any bearing on our evolution, thus evolution cannot answer the question. Hunter-gatherers likely did not have these profound questions. — Kenosha Kid
Nope. You said:
Like morality, the question of what meaning we should find for ourselves — Olivier5
You're not listening. — Olivier5
Google is your friend. You should have researched your subject earlier. — Olivier5
I've seen zero evidence that hunter gatherers worry about the meanings of their lives. — Kenosha Kid
What part of "This concept of life and its relations was humanizing and gave to the Lakota an abiding love. It filled his being with the joy and mystery of living; it gave him reverence for all life; it made a place for all things in the scheme of existence with equal importance to all" did you fail to see, read, or understand? — Olivier5
How is this difference bearing on your question? — Olivier5
And how the heck are we supposed to know of a tribe who knows of no other existence?????? — Olivier5
I’m still curious where Singer fits into this conversation. — Pfhorrest
And you are very sure of your own correctness too, so this is nor here nor there... The question of Wayfarer had to do with the meaning of life and final causes as potentially valid questions. It never was about doubting your way of life in some form of extreme existential angst... You keep losing the plot.his ode to his former way of life is very sure about its correctness. — Kenosha Kid
1. Research into the possible genetic basis of altruism was represented by Dawkins under a title referring to selfishness, against all logic. Why? Probably because this way it could sell better in the zeitgeist, and incidentally served to justify rightist policies, whereas the idea that evolution rewards altruism would presumably have had the opposite political effect. — Olivier5
2. The reason Midgley was furious about Gene the Shellfish was that it described human beings as slaves to their genes. Such full biological determinism is eminently ideological -- it tells people that they are not free -- and it's an ideology with dark history (eugenism, racism, slavery, nazism, etc.). — Olivier5
I suppose this title represents the book's thesis, no? My point is that there is something fishy about his presentation of a theory about the possibility that altruism was selected naturally, under a title that says the exact opposite...So the whole problem with TSG is the title. — flaco
Yes but not a scientific theoretical basis for same.think you are giving Dawkins and Darwin too much credit. We had eugenism, racism, slavery, nazism, etc. long before either (OK, maybe the Romans didn't call themselves Nazis). — flaco
Yes but not a scientific theoretical basis for same. — Olivier5
By shifting emphasis to gene selection, Dawkins demonstrated how natural selection can support altruism. — flaco
For some yet unknown reason, Dawkins misrepresented the thesis in his book, turning a work on altruism into a book on the selfishness of genes. — Olivier5
Back to cats. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.