I am totally puzzled by the tenacity of Darwinism on secular thought. Now I
suppose the next orthodoxy will be sociobiology. Give your fair warning it
won't happen.
Review of Peter Singer's book at Amazon.
A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation
Peter Singer
Darwin has confused more philosophers, beginning with Nietzsche, than any
other scientist. It is time the game stopped.After Robert Wright's
reactionary version of political Darwinism in his incoherent Non Zero with
its Kant desecration we now close the circle with Peter Singer's
pseudo-leftist behind the back switch of Darwin and Marx. The author of the
fine Animal Liberation and a short work on Hegel seems to have drifted
downwards in a spiral to the point where it is hard to see any consistent
grounds by him for any opinion on evolution. This booklet, no more than a
pamphlet, contains no scientific discussion to speak of apart from the same
sociobiological pulp about ethics and the theory of games that has driven a
generation of mathematically competent mathematical idiots also social
scientists into thinking they have a theory. Apparently, like one of the
missing chads on a voting ticket Mr. Singer the Very Important Philosopher
and limousine leftist making $1000, 000 a year wishes to inform the leftist
masses of their next platform. Mr. Singer suggests the left needs a new
paradigm. Indeed! Ditch Darwin. Perhaps it would help to start in 1848 and
discover the point at which Darwinism confused the Left as it became
ensnarled in the one dimensional perspectives of the Second International. A
new paradigm for the left might start with seeing through the limitations of
the Darwin game and informing the public of the complexities of evolution the
current establishment refuses to publicize. This requires no rejection of
evolution, which was originally a leftist idea, but an examination of the
mechanism and theories thereof as these express the ideology of classical
liberalism. *That* should be the function of the left. As things stand now,
the only social group able to do this are conservative Christians. Is the
whole field of university philosophy a laughing stock, to far gone to see
their position? Wright's Non Zero wishes to neutralize Kant (see my review at
Amazon of Non Zero) while Singer ends the book referring to Hegel's
Phenomenology, as if to suggest Darwinism finally provides the correct
interpretation of Hegel's proto-evolutionary perspective. That is outrageous.
Whatever we think of Hegel, he is not compatible with Darwin. Nor is Kant.
One has to say, enough is enough. We have lost all our best philosophers,
journalists are the Moses revising our ethics in the pop Darwin market, and
along comes Singer wishing us to make this the new paradigm for the left.
This book is a mistake. And Mr. Singer should stop being granted the title of
philosopher. The left is not going to rig a comeback by compromise with
ideological Darwinism. Simply, stand aside and debrief the whole propaganda
effort that has sacrificed the integrity of science.The question of the
theory of games has become the new way to confuse the 'non experts', and in
relation to public knowledge of biology has become almost a social menace.
For it is grossly overextended as explanation, and hard for the layman, and
half-educated Darwinist alike to see through. The various treatments of this
subject are certainly of interest in mathematical terms, but to apply them in
such a facile manner to resolution of evolutionary ethics is a grim sign of
theoretical delusion at work. The experiments done with Axelrod's Prisoner's
Dilemma speak for themselves, but to transfer these experiments into
evolutionary terms is a gross speculation, and a most dubious inference in
the total absence of data. Darwin theorists have a rich fantasy life. Beware
of these clever models by math whizs who have little broad education and are
as arrogant as they are ignorant. You cannot model complex qualitative
subjects with such tricks. It just won't work. It is a fantasy of those who
think material explanations must eliminate the least element suspected of
transcendentalism, values. And the result is the queer junk theory with its
ethical monism so prominent in the field of evolutionary psychology in
general. YOU ARE UNDER NO SCIENTIFIC OBLIGATION TO CALL THIS SCIENCE. And you
might see this sooner than the professionals whose careers depend on either
agreeing or shutting up. Let us hope this book will make leftists snap out of
Darwinism once and for all, to see the way the left was had from the very
beginning, including the myths of the letters between Marx and Darwin. Singer
is the worst kind of sell out. It is time to be done with this prima donna.
Read his Animal Liberation, or his work on Hegel, and forget this book.
John Landon
author
World History and the Eonic Effect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://eonix.8m.com
