We are part of some sort of natural/cultural project of continuance

schopenhauer1

Dawkins had his "gene-centered" view. Gould and others have criticized it for being reductionist. My question here is not about his theory tout court, but just the implication that, perhaps the individual person exists for something else's purpose. Two examples:

1) The individual is here to unwittingly (or wittingly) carry out genetic replication such that genes can survive and continue in their ecological niche. The interaction of environment and genetic/epigenetic/phenotypic factors creating the bias for natural selection (and thus continuation).

2) The individual is here to carry out memes. Cultural institutions and traditions (Western consumer, tribal, sub-cultures, etc.) promote procreation to carry out the lifestyle of a particular culture into perpetuity.

If people are for something else's purpose, what does that say about the individual? Are we just pawns in the greater scheme of some sort of natural/cultural project of continuance? Is the goods of life consolation enough to make this not matter? In other words, we may be pawns, but pawns that can have our own personal happy moments, so who cares?

Michael

↪schopenhauer1

It's not clear what you mean by us being pawns. Am I a pawn of gravity? Am I unwittingly (or wittingly) being made to move towards the Earth's core? If not, is there something different about biological (or cultural) influences that makes it more a case (than with gravity) of being used for something else's purpose?

Terrapin Station

Purposes only occur when sentient creatures think about things in tems of an overarching goal or credo that they're attracted to.

So you'd be asking whether people are here because of some other sentient creature's overarching goal or credo. Well, the first question we'd need to ask is "what other sentient creature are we talking about"?

Rich

I do not feel like a pawn. In actuality, I feel like someone who is learning and exploring. When I observe babies growing into children growing into adults, this is what I also observe. So I make this the starting point for my philosophical thought. Rather than a pawn, I feel like someone who is learning to pawn structures in a game of chess.

schopenhauer1

It's not clear what you mean by us being pawns. Am I a pawn of gravity? Am I unwittingly (or wittingly) being made to move towards the Earth's core? If not, is there something different about biological (or cultural) influences that makes it more a case (than with gravity) of being used for something else's purposes? — Michael

Gravity may be too far removed for it to directly influence whether there are more humans. Natural selection and cultural bias, however, are much better candidates for overarching reasons for the human species' continuance (and thus candidates that reign over the individual).

schopenhauer1

Purposes only occur when sentient creatures think about things in tems of an overarching goal or credo that they're attracted to. — Terrapin Station

Then you can switch purpose with a word you like better. It does not necessarily change the whole "whole" versus "individual" part.

schopenhauer1

I do not feel like a pawn. In actuality, I feel like someone who is learning and exploring. When I observe babies growing into children growing into adults, this is what I also observe. So I make this the starting point for my philosophical thought. Rather than a pawn, I feel like someone who is learning to pawn structures in a game of chess. — Rich

A game of chess, that made you think you were pawning structures, but meanwhile you were its pawn the whole time. But, this view of learning and growing seems really narrowly focused. Life has more than this, of course. One time I ate ice cream and felt satisfied for a few minutes after.. life is not simply that moment of satiation, nor can I necessarily extrapolate from that moment. Even if I broadened the view to say that, I have had numerous moments of satiation, that would still be narrowly focused on one experience over many others.

unenlightened

Dawkins had his "gene-centered" view. — schopenhauer1

Even Dawkins himself admits under pressure, (and then ignores) that the selfish gene is a mere analogy; that genes have no will, no desire, and no view. And certainly nothing remotely like a purpose.

Memes are an analogy of the analogy, and the same applies only even more emphatically.

... so who cares? — schopenhauer1

Only living beings care.

tom

Even Dawkins himself admits under pressure, (and then ignores) that the selfish gene is a mere analogy; that genes have no will, no desire, and no view. And certainly nothing remotely like a purpose. — unenlightened

But it is still a gene-centred view of what life actually is - it is the genes that are the subject of variation and selection, and the phenotype is part of their environment.

Memes are an analogy of the analogy, and the same applies only even more emphatically. — unenlightened

Memes, like genes, are subject to variation and selection, and they cause themselves to be replicated. So they are neither an analogy nor an analogy of an analogy. Genes and memes really exist!

schopenhauer1

Even Dawkins himself admits under pressure, (and then ignores) that the selfish gene is a mere analogy; that genes have no will, no desire, and no view. And certainly nothing remotely like a purpose. — unenlightened

But I addressed that I was not talking about his view tout court (in full), just the idea that springs from this that we are beholden to something that is not our own will, but that of something beyond the individual. I even explained how the theory itself has been proven to be reductionist, and thus I was not talking about the theory for the theory's sake but merely as an analogy for something bigger than the individual.

Only living beings care. — unenlightened

And thus the obvious- since we are living beings, we care.

unenlightened

But it is still a gene-centred view of what life actually is — tom

And therefore an imaginary view, since genes do not have eyes or a viewpoint of any kind.

Genes and memes really exist! — tom

But they do not really have a will to survive, a desire to propagate, or a purpose of their own.

Terrapin Station

It's not about the word, but the ontological ideas:

perhaps the individual person exists for something else . . . here to unwittingly (or wittingly) carry out . . . pawns in the greater scheme . . . — schopenhauer1

It doesn't matter what we call the idea you're getting at there. Doing things "for something else," being pawns to some aim or motivation or whatever, or your later comment re "reasons for," where you're not simply talking about a descriptive accounting of what's going on causally, etc. doesn't refer to anything that occurs in the world sans sentient beings assigning aims and goals and so on.

schopenhauer1

It doesn't matter what we call the idea you're getting at there. Doing things "for something else," being pawns to some aim or motivation or whatever, or your later comment re "reasons for," where you're not simply talking about a descriptive accounting of what's going on causally, etc. doesn't refer to anything that occurs in the world sans sentient beings assigning aims and goals and so on. — Terrapin Station

It does not matter whether the it is "motivations" or for some unthinking mechanism- it does not destroy the argument that it is doing something DUE to a thing outside the individual (mechanism or otherwise).

unenlightened

It does not matter whether the it is "motivations" or for some unthinking mechanism- it does not destroy the argument that it is doing something DUE to a thing outside the individual (mechanism or otherwise). — schopenhauer1

What argument? There is simply a declared globalisation of 'mechanism', itself another analogy that suggests, again, an agency, this time called a 'mechanic' that is 'using' us. The denial of agency is justified by its projection onto 'the blind watchmaker'. It's really poor philosophy, motivated by bad psychology. Mechanisms are unthinking, but people have no such excuse.

Terrapin Station

↪schopenhauer1

Okay, but how would we phrase this so that it doesn't suggest anything teleological?

It would have to be something like, "Are we not completely in control of everything in the world? Do we have to do some things because physics demands it? Do we not have complete freedom in the free will sense? Do some decisions we make stem from survival instincts?"

The answers to those questions should be pretty noncontroversial.

Rich

↪schopenhauer1

I believe that for the most part, I am learning something all the time. Every experience, every event enters into me and I learn from it. It is this from the moment I am born.

m-theory

↪schopenhauer1

These are not the only two possibilities.

A third option could be your purpose is to generate a new meme.

I don't know if that would mean your purpose is for others still or not.

Nils Loc

The denial of agency is justified by its projection onto 'the blind watchmaker'. It's really poor philosophy, motivated by bad psychology. Mechanisms are unthinking, but people have no such excuse. — Unenli

This reminds me of Daniel Dennett when he calls consciousness an illusion but then turns around and says it is not moral (good) to tell susceptible individuals that they don't have free will. It is strange and disconcerting to disconnect the idea of consciousness from free will.

What other beliefs or types of action do people have no excuse for?

unenlightened

It is strange and disconcerting to disconnect the idea of consciousness from free will.

What other beliefs or types of action do people have no excuse for? — Nils Loc

I don't like the notion of free will. But it seems obvious that consciousness and the ability to think confers a great freedom of response that blind mechanics lacks. Why deny it? I guess because freedom means responsibility. Much more comfortable to blame the mechanical other.

mcdoodle

Then you can switch purpose with a word you like better. It does not necessarily change the whole "whole" versus "individual" part — schopenhauer1

I disagree. The word 'purpose' is in the title of your thread. The question of the whole in relation to the individual is a different issue, if 'purpose' is not involved. A word someone likes better will not mean the same thing. Human-defined systems have purpose ascribed to them by seemingly purposive humans.

tom

And therefore an imaginary view, since genes do not have eyes or a viewpoint of any kind. — unenlightened

I think you are missing the point of Neo-Darwinism, but yes, genes don't have eyes.

But they do not really have a will to survive, a desire to propagate, or a purpose of their own. — unenlightened

Again, you are missing the point of Neo-Darwinism, but yes memes don't possess desire or purpose, which is sort of the point. They do however cause themselves to be replicated.

Wayfarer

Are we just pawns in the greater scheme of some sort of natural/cultural project of continuance? Is the goods of life consolation enough to make this not matter? — schopenhauer1

What if the processes of evolution are also creative? That 'the Universe' somehow needs to manifest itself in the form of conscious sentient beings who can look at the Universe and wonder at it?

A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself. — Neils Bohr

Man is a product of nearly three billion years of evolution, in whose person the evolutionary process has at last become conscious of itself and its possibilities. — Julian Huxley

Such ideas are found in e.g. Bergson and Tielhard du Chardin, but they're generally suppressed in our scientistic culture, mainly to save people the bother of having to think deeply about life.

The problem with Dawkins, and neo-Darwinism generally, is treating a biological theory - how species survive and replicate - as an actual philosophy or 'meaning of life'. This has happened because science has been slotted into the role previously accorded to religion as 'a guide to how right-minded people should think' - which is essentially 'scientism'. Of course, the view from that perspective is that the Universe is meaningless and the only purpose of life is to replicate the gene. But it's a misapplication of the theory from the outset, a giant 'category mistake' that half the planet is now enmeshed in.

tom

I disagree. The word 'purpose' is in the title of your thread. The question of the whole in relation to the individual is a different issue, if 'purpose' is not involved. A word someone likes better will not mean the same thing. Human-defined systems have purpose ascribed to them by seemingly purposive humans. — mcdoodle

From the (true) gene-centred perspective, an individual is a conjecture, one of a population of variants, that is tested against reality.

tom

The problem with Dawkins, and neo-Darwinism generally, is treating a biological theory - how species survive and replicate - as an actual philosophy or 'meaning of life'. — Wayfarer

Neo-Darwinism is mostly metaphysical. That is why it applies to such diverse fields as life, culture, and quantum mechanics. Scientific theories can never be certified as true. Neo-Darwinism is true.

unenlightened

From the (true) gene-centred perspective, — tom

It's not a true perspective, it's an imaginary perspective. Truly, there is no such perspective.

Wayfarer

From the (true) gene-centred perspective, an individual is a conjecture, one of a population of variants, that is tested against reality. — tom

That's a succinct illustration of 'scientism vs humanism'. There are no persons, only gene-carriers.

Neo-Darwinism is mostly metaphysical. — tom

It's opponents (of which I'm one) would say that it uses the language and rhetorical techniques of metaphysics against metaphysics.

tom

That's a succinct illustration of 'scientism vs humanism'. There are no persons, only gene-carriers. — Wayfarer

I guess you are so anti-evolution that you just make stuff up.

It's opponents (of which I'm one) would say that it uses the language and rhetorical techniques of metaphysics against metaphysics. — Wayfarer

No, neo-Darwinism is the explanation of biodiversity, none other exists.

tom

It's not a true perspective, it's an imaginary perspective. Truly, there is no such perspective. — unenlightened

What is your alternative explanation of biodiversity?

Wayfarer

I guess you are so anti-evolution that you just make stuff up. — tom

Iluminating remark, from one who has been known to spell 'Worlds' with a capital W. ;-)

Just to reiterate:

The problem with Dawkins, and neo-Darwinism generally, is treating a biological theory - how species survive and replicate - as an actual philosophy or 'meaning of life'. This has happened because science has been slotted into the role previously accorded to religion as 'a guide to how right-minded people should think' — Wayfarer

This actually has nothing to do with evolutionary biology, per se. It's simply an observation about the purported implications of evolutionary theory for culture - neo-Darwinism as a faux religion, as documented by Michael Ruse, et al.

schopenhauer1

↪mcdoodle

If I change the title to "impersonal mechanism" would that convey the point for you and change the debate from semantics to the implications of this?

schopenhauer1

↪unenlightened

How I'm I implying it's using us? You don't think you can be a pawn in an unthinking mechanism?

We are part of some sort of natural/cultural project of continuance

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions