There is a very widespread assumption in modern culture that evolutionary biology replaced religion in the sense of providing an account of human origins. — Wayfarer
That is simply a paraphrase — Wayfarer
I'm generally critical of the way that biological evolution has become a 'theory of everything' in respect of human nature. There is a very widespread assumption in modern culture that evolutionary biology replaced religion in the sense of providing an account of human origins. So in that context it is natural to assume that moral and intellectual capacities can be understood in such terms. And you're doing this throughout this thread. — Wayfarer
So that's why I'm referring to criticisms of this attitude from other sources, such as philosopher Thomas Nagel, who has devoted his career to this line of thought. — Wayfarer
Neither he nor I am afiliated with any form of creationism or intelligent design but are mindful of the shortcomings of the current orthodoxy. If you're interested in exploring them, I can recommend some sources. — Wayfarer
the organism has to be correct to reality to survive. — counterpunch
The pretence is that there is a scientific account of what we ought do. But on analysis, it comes down to an expression of Counterpunch's personal preference. — Banno
We see the moral implications of those facts. Facts are not a separate magisterium to us, because we are imbued with an innate moral sense, in turn a behaviourally intelligent, evolutionary response to a causal reality. — counterpunch
It is not condescending to point out that this is an insufficient basis for resolution of the question posed by the OP. — Wayfarer
If you like; my purpose was no more than to ensure that it was clear this moral position is not a deduction from evolutionary science. — Banno
It's not insufficient when one considers morality as the behaviourally intelligent social survival strategy of organisms that are built from the bottom up, to be correct to reality to survive. — counterpunch
...it might be worth someone pointing out that this phrase is quite obscure...the truth relation between the organism and reality — counterpunch
He may not be directly answering the question to the satisfaction of those of us who think the two domains are separate, but it's pretty clear that he thinks only in terms of the descriptive domain, and thinks that answering questions in there is sufficient to answer prescriptive questions too, which makes it clear enough to me that option #2 is the right categorization for his views. — Pfhorrest
And then you bring in all these things I hadn’t thought of and writers I haven’t heard about which criticises this view. How condescending! You’re just insufferable!’ — Wayfarer
the reason [Dennett] imputes to the human creatures depicted in his book is merely a creaturely reason. Dennett's natural history does not deny reason, it animalizes reason. It portrays reason in service to natural selection, and as a product of natural selection. But if reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? The power of reason is owed to the independence of reason, and to nothing else....Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it. — Leon Wieseltier
I thought Darwin's Dangerous Idea was a great book — counterpunch
I think primitive man was cast from innocence into superstition in the blink of an eye, and that intellectual intelligence is a consequence of this paranoia. But then, I've also read a lot of psychology. — counterpunch
The “hermeneutics of suspicion” is a phrase coined by Paul Ricoeur to capture a common spirit that pervades the writings of Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche. In spite of their obvious differences, he argued, these thinkers jointly constitute a “school of suspicion.” That is to say, they share a commitment to unmasking “the lies and illusions of consciousness;” they are the architects of a distinctively modern style of interpretation that circumvents obvious or self-evident meanings in order to draw out less visible and less flattering truths
Also I was going to suggest that 'normative' might be a better term than 'prescriptive' - means the same, but 'normative' is more recognisable in the context. Not that it really matters. — Wayfarer
I think you're missing the option 'one domain viewed from different perspectives'.
— Wayfarer
No, I don't agree with the first option. I think Wayfarer's right; that's the option I'd go for. — Janus
but I think both of those ways of considering it deserve the same principles be applied in the approach to them. — Pfhorrest
I think that the questions of what is real and what is moral are inherently separate, respecting the is-ought or fact-value distinction, much like Gould's NOMA; but I think that similar methodologies can and have been applied to both of them, — Pfhorrest
I'm not seeing how the "same principles" (other than general good faith and intellectual honesty) can be expected to apply in the various domains of inquiry. — Janus
I figured you might. That's why I mentioned Dennett. But it's not specific to him - it's a general observation. — Wayfarer
I've just learned an interesting phrase from modern philosophy 'the hermeneutics of suspicion', to wit:
The “hermeneutics of suspicion” is a phrase coined by Paul Ricoeur to capture a common spirit that pervades the writings of Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche. In spite of their obvious differences, he argued, these thinkers jointly constitute a “school of suspicion.” That is to say, they share a commitment to unmasking “the lies and illusions of consciousness;” they are the architects of a distinctively modern style of interpretation that circumvents obvious or self-evident meanings in order to draw out less visible and less flattering truths
So, whereas I might depict the advent of self-consciousness as opening up new horizons of being, you might depict it as 'paranoia'. I guess there will be, ultimately, no way of adjuticating that, but I know which one I'd prefer to believe. — Wayfarer
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.