dmb says: The mechanistic explanation would involve natural selection. What else could
I possibly be talking about? And the "evil bastards" include a lot of people. Herbert Spencer springs to mind, for starters. [Krimel] Social Darwinism was based on a misreading of the theory of natural selection. Having an argument with one is not the same as having one with the other. Which are you having? Krimel said: Every time you mention James's name my short creep up my butt. It's like you read him in sentences and think you get it. The quote you used get's trotted out a lot apparently but it comes from a review that has little or nothing to do with evolution. In his collected essays there follows one on Herbert Spencer that should be more to the point. I would have read it but I was too busy trying to find the relevance of the earlier quote to the point you tried to make or to anything at all. dmb says: Well, that's all very insulting but you don't seem to have an actual point. The James quote was selected by Hofstadter and used in his book on social darwinism and I really don't see how you could fail to see its relevance to evolutionary theory. He was arguing against the Darwinian idea of survival of the fittest in that quote and there are many more like it. He and Spencer both loom pretty large in Hofstadter's book. It seems you're protesting a bit too much and maybe even pretending to be clueless. I mean, here's a sample of that mysterious mechanistic view and in this case the "evil bastard" is you. [Krimel] I read Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" a while back and thought highly of it. I don't know what Hofstadter was arguing but in the quote you cite saying he cited, James was not discussing the theory of natural selection. He is arguing against using it as a measure of betterness. Here is what James was arguing against: "Then as to Ethics: Clifford's great discovery is that what is objectively good, is distinguished from what is merely pleasant, is what conduces to the survival of the tribe. Loyalty to truth and all other virtues draw their nobility from being means to this effect." -James, Collected Essays and Reviews, Clifford's Lectures (1879) > Krimel said: > Change drives evolution. Chance drives evolution. Betterness is in > the eye of the beholder. dmb says: That's classic. Its also SOM based. And my point is that James and Pirsig are opposed to that view. As Hofstadter puts it, "Pragmatism resulted from criticism not only of Spencerian evolutionism but of many other intellectual tendencies." [Krimel] As I said I respect Hofstadter and I have never been a fan of social Darwinism. But I really don't trust you to interpret either accurately. [dmb] This one is fun. Here he quotes a lecture wherein James doing a parody of Spencer. "Evolution is a change from a nohowish untalkaboutable all-alikeness to a somehowish and in generral talkaboutable not-all-alikeness by continuous sticktogetherations and somethingelseifications." For a Victorian, he was a pretty funny guy. Immediately following that line, Hofstadter says, "It seems clear that James's objection to Spencer arose partly because James was in search of a philosophy that would acknowledge active human effort in the bettering of life." The author does not say anything about this notion being juvenile. [Krimel] Yeah this one was fun. As it turns out James did not say that. It is a quote from a Professor Tait. http://evolvethought.blogspot.com/2005/01/spencer-and-critics.html I found two other notes confirming this if you are curious. And just when I was getting all gooey over Hofstadter. But the bettering of human life is not a matter of natural selection. It is a matter for individuals and societies. Societies that succeed at this continue. Those that don't, don't. That is how natural selection works. But as James points out mere survival is not the only measure of betterness. > Krimel said: > Again you invite a lecture. Please read a book on the subject > and stop talking this trash. Improvement? In what? dmb says: Read a book on the topic? But, but, but ...I'm QUOTING from a book on the topic. I realize that looking at social darwinism is not the same as looking at biology text, but social darwinism is the thread name and I began this thread with Hofstadter's book. So, again, your insult are empty and they don't even have the advantage of being funny either. [Krimel] The book you are citing is about social Darwinism not natural selection. Your failure to see the difference underscores my point. You whine a lot about being insulted, Dave. I honestly didn't know it was possible or I might have tried it sooner. By the way did you ever get those condom's and your other stuff back from Ron? moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
