dmb says: As I already mentioned, social darwinism pre-dates Darwin's famous book. In fact, Spencer was the one who coined the phrase, "survival of the fittest". The biological theory only lent scientific support to already existing Victorian social values.
[Krimel] See there you go again the term was used by Spencer after he read Darwin. Nobody ever said Darwin made up his theory in a vacuum. Who in history is not influenced by the currents of their times? I hear the geologist Lyle mentioned as an influence more often than Spencer. In fact it seems with Spencer the influence runs the other way. Krimel said: 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) dmb says: When James was Young he loved Spencer and Darwinism. As a kind of act of rebellion against his Swedenborgian father, he was pratically a positivist for a while. And you tend to quote from this part of his career to dispute what he said later in his career, which I tend toward. You do this as if James only ever had one changless opinion. That's goofy. Something like 30 years passed between the quote above and his radical empiricism, for example. Shouldn't we suppose that James was very well aware of what he used to think and that he changed his mind for a reason? Shouldn't we both suppose that his later work is more mature and refined than his early work? And don't you think your reading of James has been influenced by the more natualistic and behaviorist schools of psychology? Don't you think that such readings are almost always going to focus on his immature early stuff? It looks that way to me. [Krimel] Haven't you tried that young James/old James routine on me before? In this case Young James is speaking about four paragraphs before Old James you quoted. You can find the full argument on about page 143 of James' Collected Essays. Its on the net... (Part of our expanded collective awareness) dmb says: Why the distrust? [Krimel] See above. Also see below. dmb had said: [Hofstadter] ...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." ...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." Krimel replied: 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. dmb says: I took a look at the blog you reference here and found the quote in question, but it is attributed to a Mr. Kirkwood and was subsequently reported by Tait. Apparently the quip has been widely attributed to James, probably because it sounds like James and it puts the quote on famous lips. But this is all just trivia. [Krimel] See it really didn't even sound like James. He is a really funny guy but I have a hard time seeing him resorting to jibberish even in parody. Like, he would never say worstness. dmb says: I know what the book is about. Anyone can see that it's not a biology text. The title really gives it away; "Social Darwinism in American Thought". And the central idea of the criticism is that social darwinism seeks to explain society by way of a biological mechanism so that the central idea of this criticism is that social darwinism confuses natural selection with non-biological evolution. [Krimel] There are piece of the book on the net and from what I can see it is Hofsadter's published dissertation. He was a pretty radical guy and wiki characterizes it as a Marxist critic of American capitalism. I like what I have read of it. He argues successful against view that continues to influence American politics. But he is not launching an attack on Darwinism per se and would probably be sympathetic to an interpretation that emphasized the ways that cooperation confer fitness in and upon society. [dmb] I mean, the criticism is centered on their conflation of the two. I mean, I'm not confusing social and biological forces but rather complaining that social darwinism does and that you do too. So how does this underscore your point and, more importantly, what is your point? You really need to be more specific. [Krimel] My point is that arguments against social Darwinism are not necessarily relevant to natural selection. They are not even relevant to whether or not the principles of evolution operate in societies or on ideas. My point is that you use references inappropriately. Your interpretation of what you read often suggests, you needn't have bothered with the reading part before proceeding to your exposition. You use quotes like jalapeños. They really spice things up and if people swallow them fast enough, no one will notice that beyond the fire there in not much nutritional value. [dmb] Who is confused about what here? (That's a rhetorical question.) [Krimel] Did I make clear who and what? (That's a rhetorical question.) 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/
