Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Print Existentialism and Evolution | |
|
Jubal Harshaw
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 18, 2009 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 48
|
 #1
Subject: Existentialism and Evolution Sometimes I wonder how short conversations concerning existentialism would be if the subject of evolution were brought up. Do you think the theories are compatible? Do they have common ground with which to even be opposed or not on? Could one benefit from weighing the conclusions of existentialism against the predictions of evolution? I personally think they aren't very compatible. I know my purpose isn't to be a space ship. Yet I'd love to spend my time cruising in the "ether." However, I am clearly not built as a space worthy vessel therefore I could never be a space worthy vessel. I think they do have commong ground. Evolution can account for physiologies geard towards social interactions. Evidence of this is the similarities between ape social interactions and human interactions. I think one could benefit from weighing one against the other. One could avoid many of the silly pitfalls brought about by existentialism and know that there is a niche applicable to that person. It seems quite obvious to me that our physiologies are geared towards making a living. How one goes about that really relies upon the context of the person. Different people have different abilities and strengths and to ignore those simply because one desires something else seems a bit foolish. |
|
Postmodern Beatnik
Castigat ridendo mores  Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Nov 18, 2005 Total Topics: 19 Total Posts: 3137 |
#2
Existentialism says that life is worth living despite us having lost many of the touchstones that people used to think gave life meaning (e.g., God). What about that is incompatible with evolution? (Perhaps you are thinking about a very specific version of existentialism?) "All moral rules must be tested by examining whether they tend to realize ends that we desire. I say ends that we desire, not ends that we ought to desire. What we 'ought' to desire is merely what someone else wishes us to desire." --Bertrand Russell |
|
Jubal Harshaw
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 18, 2009 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 48
|
#3
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: Existentialism says that life is worth living despite us having lost many of the touchstones that people used to think gave life meaning (e.g., God). What about that is incompatible with evolution? (Perhaps you are thinking about a very specific version of existentialism?) There are non-specific "versions" of existentialism? Certainly there are existentialists who believe in God Introducing a concept of value on life is sort of incompatible with evolution. The survival of a species doesn't have anything to do with "meaning" but instead how well they fit into their niche. |
|
kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Location: San Diego, California Total Topics: 56 Total Posts: 1583 |
#4
You can't really compare the two, one is a description on how life works in nature, one is an examination of what it means to exist meaningfully. I don't see how they could be incompatible. Natural selection doesn't tell us at all how we SHOULD act, it tells us how we DO "act" over a period of millions of years. Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains. |
|
Jubal Harshaw
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 18, 2009 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 48
|
#5
kkiiji wrote: You can't really compare the two, one is a description on how life works in nature, one is an examination of what it means to exist meaningfully. I don't see how they could be incompatible. Natural selection doesn't tell us at all how we SHOULD act, it tells us how we DO "act" over a period of millions of years. I would describe biology as a description of how life works in nature, not evolution. Evolution is a theory concerning the origin of species which involves genetic adaptation to changes in the environment. An organism that doesn't adapt to negative (harmful) environmental changes does not survive. With that said, wouldn't an organism with qualities not relevant to its niche lack a meaningful existence? Further more, evolution seems to contradict "existence precedes essence." The environment that I am born into existed before me. The genetic composition with which I'd be developed existed before me. The basic physiology of my nervous system's metabolic proccessess existed before me containing emotions relevant to situations that existed before me. The essence of that which I use to understand my surroundings and myself existed before me. That "essence" was configured long before I existed, and probably long before humans existed. |
|
kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Location: San Diego, California Total Topics: 56 Total Posts: 1583 |
#6
Natural selection says he who does not reproduce before dying is deselected. This means reproducing before dying is the the resultant ability of life that survived millions of years of evolution, only he who can reproduce before dying will not be wiped out in the long run, that's all the theory of evolution is about. This means our biology at this moment has a tendency to achieve the bare minimum of reproducing before we die, it does not make any ought to claims about any of our actions. I don't see why organisms with qualities that is beyond this bare minimum would lack a meaningful existence or how the qualities that help us reproduce provide a meaningful existence. Meaning is not something derived from macro scale descriptions of how life operates in nature, it's something highly subjective. Evolution is once again a description of how life evolves over millions of years, it doesn't make any claims about what we ought to do right now with our lives or what is meaningful to us. We have no obligation to follow what may occur over the course of millions of years, and evolutionary theory does not claim that we have such obligations. The phrase existence precedes essence to me is pretty much a claim to a more phenomenological take on reality. It just implies that life is about living in the subjective perspective, that any abstract conceptions of our metaphysical place in the universe is irrelevant for what it means to exist as a human being. This does not somehow conflict with evolutionary theory, for evolutionary theory is simply taking a whole other perspective to look at things, and it never does claim that anyone should live while undertaking an evolutionary perspective, it's simply a scientific description of nature. Edited by kkiiji on Aug 25, 2009 - 3:56 PM Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains. |
|
Jubal Harshaw
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 18, 2009 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 48
|
#7
kkiiji wrote: Natural selection says he who does not reproduce before dying is deselected. This means reproducing before dying is the the resultant ability of life that survived millions of years of evolution, only he who can reproduce before dying will not be wiped out in the long run, that's all the theory of evolution is about. This means our biology at this moment has a tendency to achieve the bare minimum of reproducing before we die, it does not make any ought to claims about any of our actions. I don't see why organisms with qualities that is beyond this bare minimum would lack a meaningful existence or how the qualities that help us reproduce provide a meaningful existence. Meaning is not something derived from macro scale descriptions of how life operates in nature, it's something highly subjective. Evolution is once again a description of how life evolves over millions of years, it doesn't make any claims about what we ought to do right now with our lives or what is meaningful to us. We have no obligation to follow what may occur over the course of millions of years, and evolutionary theory does not claim that we have such obligations. The phrase existence precedes essence to me is pretty much a claim to a more phenomenological take on reality. It just implies that life is about living in the subjective perspective, that any abstract conceptions of our metaphysical place in the universe is irrelevant for what it means to exist as a human being. This does not somehow conflict with evolutionary theory, for evolutionary theory is simply taking a whole other perspective to look at things, and it never does claim that anyone should live while undertaking an evolutionary perspective, it's simply a scientific description of nature. I disagree with practically your entire perspective of evolution. Evolution doesn't require millions of years, unless you dare to suggest that domesticated animals have been around for millions of years. Further more, I speak nothing of an obligation (which requires willingness). I speak of things we have absolutely no control over, like the range of experiences we are capable of, which from my perspective is extremely limited. "It just implies that life is about living in the subjective perspective, that any abstract conceptions of our metaphysical place in the universe is irrelevant for what it means to exist as a human being." Which is directly in conflict with evolution. Evolution claims a species survives ONLY because it fills a niche, or "place" in the universe. If one is not aware of the niche that they fill, I would say that one is not aware of their purpose. I'm convinced that unless existentialism accounts for the similarities between human behavior and other ape behavior, its practically useless. |
|
kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Location: San Diego, California Total Topics: 56 Total Posts: 1583 |
#8
I speak of natural selection, domesticated animals are a result of artificial selection. You are still talking about evolution as if it has any account of the existential experience, it does not. Natural selection does not depict what it's like to be life, it only depicts how life evolves over a long period of time. The niche thing you're referring to put simply just means that in order to not be deselected we must have sufficient enough resources in our surroundings to reproduce before we die. This has once again very little to do with the existential experience. For example I may find artistic activities to be very appealing due to some combination of primal evolutionary traits, but expressing myself through art has very little to directly do with reproducing before I die. The thing you seem to be misunderstanding is this: Evolutionary theory only depicts what our naturally selected traits tend to urge us to do, it does not make any claims on what we should do, thus can not possibly conflict with existentialism. It is perfectly possible and very likely that readers of existential philosophy will end up reproducing before they die, I can see no possible reason why there would be any kind of conflict. Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains. |
|
Postmodern Beatnik
Castigat ridendo mores Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Nov 18, 2005 Total Topics: 19 Total Posts: 3137 |
#9
Jubal Harshaw wrote: "Specific" in this context means "particular," as in Sartrean or Nietzschean existentialism. I don't see how evolution conflicts with the core existential project of affirming life despite the loss of things that were traditionally appealed to in order to give it meaning -- indeed, as you note, evolution is one of those things that might seem to take away the possibility of life having intrinsic meaning -- so I fail to see how evolution conflicts with existentialism generally. As such, I thought you might have a particular existentialist thinker in mind.There are non-specific "versions" of existentialism? Jubal Harshaw wrote: Of course. That's why I wrote "e.g." rather than "i.e." Certainly there are existentialists who believe in God.  Christian existentialists would not say that the existential crisis comes from God's non-existence, but rather from something else (e.g., the simultaneous irrationality and necessity of faith). Jubal Harshaw wrote: Yes, but existentialists are all about inventing value. We lose intrinsic value due to things like evolution and the death of God, and this causes Pessimists to despair and reject life. Existentialists argue that the possibility of extrinsic value makes life worth affirming.Introducing a concept of value on life is sort of incompatible with evolution. The survival of a species doesn't have anything to do with "meaning" but instead how well they fit into their niche. As for "existence precedes essence," it is the difference between saying that someone does bad things (existence) because he is a bad person (essence) and saying that someone is a bad person (essence) because he does bad things (existence). It is about the ability to define ourselves rather than accept an archetype of humanity and fit ourselves into it. And given that the concept of a species is something imposed upon the diversity of life, and that such a concept is only tenable due to our limited knowledge of all the transitional forms that came before us, evolution seems to bolster existentialist thinking rather than undermine it. 
"All moral rules must be tested by examining whether they tend to realize ends that we desire. I say ends that we desire, not ends that we ought to desire. What we 'ought' to desire is merely what someone else wishes us to desire." --Bertrand Russell |
|
kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Location: San Diego, California Total Topics: 56 Total Posts: 1583 |
#10
^ PB raised a very important point, in historical context the theory of evolution proposed by Darwin suggested the lack of necessity for God(a previous source of meaning). What you seem to be suggesting is that evolution is somehow a replacement for God, a new God that tells us we ought to act a certain way because of how we evolve, this is simply not true. Evolutionary theory doesn't tell us anything about what we should do, it only tells us what life tends to "do" over the course of a very long time. Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains. |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.