The claim that a person can make a rational, autonomous, and informed decision to end their own life has accumulated enough philosophical and clinical support to deserve serious treatment in the mental health literature. It does not, in practice, receive it. Suicidal ideation is assessed within a framework that treats the desire to die as pathology by default, and the circular logic embedded in that framework makes recognition of rational suicide structurally impossible regardless of the individual facts of any given (...) case. This paper argues that this is not a neutral clinical position but an ideological one, and that its consequences fall on people whose decisions are never genuinely examined. Drawing on Hume's foundational argument for the moral permissibility of suicide, Szasz's critique of psychiatric coercion, Werth and Cobia's empirical criteria, and Cholbi's philosophical analysis of rational endorsement, the paper proposes an Integrated Assessment Framework (IAF) for rational suicide. The IAF retains the three criteria Werth and Cobia derived from psychotherapist surveys and adds four dimensions that prior frameworks leave undeveloped: epistemic access, relational context, temporal stability, and institutional independence. Three questions the existing literature has not answered directly are addressed here: whether treatment-resistant psychiatric conditions can constitute unremitting hopelessness under the framework and how an independent panel detects the difference between a stable rational endorsement and a deeply embedded depressive schema; how relational autonomy theory should be applied without setting an unachievable standard for the most socially marginalized; and what the normative clinical consequence is when a suicidal decision satisfies all seven dimensions. On the third question, the paper takes a clear position: a fully satisfied IAF removes the ethical justification for coercive intervention and shifts the clinical role from paternalistic prevention to harm reduction and legal accommodation. The argument throughout is not that more suicides should occur. It is that the tools currently used to assess suicidal decision-making are not adequate to the philosophical demands of the question they claim to answer. (shrink)

The street situation of many people around the world has caused what is called a social problem, however, there are still no optimal solutions, why is this so? This paper investigates the persistence of homelessness in the context of the prosperity and affluence of the modern era. It questions why, despite social and economic progress, there are still people living on the streets. A critical approach is used to examine the role of language as an ideological superstructure and its relation (...) to material reality. Furthermore, it analyses the impact of capitalism in widening the social gap between the working classes. It explains that homelessness is not a problem unique to our modern era, but has been exacerbated by current economic and social conditions. Despite living in an era of prosperity, the social gap has widened, leading to an increase in the number of homeless people The paper concludes that the solution to homelessness is not simply a matter of language, but requires a change in the socio-economic structures that perpetuate inequality. It suggests that a more compassionate and humane approach is needed to tackle this social problem. (shrink)

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that describes the behavior of subatomic particles and systems at very small scales. Unlike classical theories, quantum mechanics introduces elements of indeterminism in the description of physical phenomena. There are fundamental limits to the precision with which certain physical properties, such as the position and momentum of a particle, can be measured simultaneously. This implies that, even if all the initial conditions of a quantum system are known, its future behavior cannot be (...) predicted with absolute certainty. -/- This quantum indeterminacy raises philosophical questions about determinism and free will, as well as their relationship to morality. Determinism holds that all actions and events are predetermined by prior causes, which challenges the traditional notion of moral responsibility based on control and predictability. In contrast, indeterminism posits that there are elements of randomness and variability in the workings of the universe. -/- From a moral and philosophical point of view, the presence of indeterminism in quantum mechanics poses challenges to the attribution of moral responsibility. If our actions are influenced by random events, how can we be morally responsible for them? (shrink)

Esta obra colectiva expone diversas concepciones teóricas, ontológicas, epistemológicas, axiológicas y prácticas sobre el origen, sentido, problemáticas, ventajas, detrimentos, alternativas y desafías de la filosofía de la innovación y su incidencia en la educación; reflexiona sobre las contribuciones de la tecnología y responde a interrogantes como: ¿Cuáles son los aporte de la tradición filosófica, del pensamiento ilustrado, de la postmodernidad y de la teoría crítica para la filosofía de la innovación educativa?; ¿Cuál es la función de la filosofía para la (...) comprensión de la innovación?; ¿Cómo se explica el progreso tecno-científico desde la epistemología contemporánea?; ¿Cuál es el componente pedagógico de la innovación?; ¿Cuáles son las aportaciones del Laudato Si para la innovación educativa?. Además, plantea la necesidad de repensar algunos aspectos relacionados con la educación, el Estado y la identidad latinoamericana para determinar las posibilidades, las limitaciones y los retos de la innovación, entendida como un fenómeno en permanente construcción. Este tomo se encuentra conformado por ocho capítulos en los que los autores formulan un conjunto de contribuciones para la generación de nuevas investigaciones. Además, evidencia a la innovación como un procesos que exige reformulaciones. La innovación sigue siendo una de las tareas pendientes de la filosofía. (shrink)

This study focused mainly on the cultural factors such as beliefs, value practices and exposure to technology-related instructional materials in learning mathematics in regards to their level of achievement among Badjao students. At present, there are limited studies on the learning factors in regards to the level of achievement in mathematics among Badjao students in Bato, Leyte, Philippines. The study employed 71 Badjao elementary and high school students in four selected schools in the municipality of Bato, Leyte using a complete (...) enumeration. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square Contingency Coefficient were used to characterize the variables of interest and to capture its relationships, respectively. Result reveals that the belief of Badjao students is high which indicates that mathematics is important to their daily lives and well-being. However, when it comes to their value practices, Badjao students rated average, which implies that they have mediocre study habits towards mathematics. Findings revealed that almost all of the Badjao students are beginners in their proficiency level in learning mathematics. Result shows that there is a significant relationship between mathematics achievement of the Badjao students and their beliefs about mathematics as well as their value practices in learning mathematics. Furthermore, their level of achievement in mathematics and level of exposure to technology-related instructional materials has no relationships. (shrink)

A positive learning experience stems from active engagement with the lesson and greater interaction in learning activities. This study investigated the types of learning experience of students in Bato School of Fisheries, Leyte, Philippines such as Hands-on, Minds-on and Authentic Learning. Also, the study analyzed the students’ level of achievement in learning mathematics under each type of learning experience. The study employed a random of 25% of the grade 7 students for experimental design that involves qualitative and quantitative approach. Result (...) shows that the Hands-on learning experience of students is in beginning level which needs a proper guidance of the mathematics teacher. It is shown that students are more capable of Hands-on group activities in mathematics. For Minds-on learning experience, students are also in beginning level, however, it is found out that they are good in critical thinking processes which create and recreate mathematics concepts for the core topics. Furthermore, authentic learning experience is in beginning level, lowest among the 3 types of learning experience. This means that students must develop their problem solving skills in mathematics with the aid of suitable teaching strategies. Anyhow, it is found out that these students have a proficient level in mathematics achievement probably by their past knowledge. Hence, a good level of achievement in mathematics can be maintain or improve through enhancing the 3 types of learning experience especially the authentic aspect. (shrink)

El capítulo La familia, la sociedad y el Estado como actores claves en la politicidad del sujeto, elaborado por Jorge Antonio Balladares-Burgos, tiene como objetivo recuperar el sentido la politicidad del sujeto a través de tres actores claves: la familia, la sociedad civil, y la sociedad política o Estado. La importancia de este capítulo radica en la reflexión de la familia a partir de la politicidad del sujeto, en el que la capacidad humana de convivencia y organización de un sujeto (...) tiene su punto de partida en el entorno familiar, para que luego el individuo se desarrolle en sociedad en articulación a un estado. Esta temática a decir del autor, es fundamental para legitimar una educación ciudadana que inicie desde el hogar; establece la necesidad de resignificar la politicidad en lo sujetos que conforman nuestras sociedades latinoamericanas; la politicidad del sujeto orienta las relaciones familiares e interpersonales, modela las sociedades, fomenta la comunicación y nos constituye como seres humanos. (shrink)

Darwin's ideas on variation, heredity, and development differ significantly from twentieth-century views. First, Darwin held that environmental changes, acting either on the reproductive organs or the body, were necessary to generate variation. Second, heredity was a developmental, not a transmissional, process; variation was a change in the developmental process of change. An analysis of Darwin's elaboration and modification of these two positions from his early notebooks (1836-1844) to the last edition of the /Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication/ (1875) (...) complements previous Darwin scholarship on these issues. Included in this analysis is a description of the way Darwin employed the distinction between transmission and development, as well as the conceptual relationship he saw between heredity and variation. This paper is part of a larger project comparing commitments regarding variation during the latter half of the nineteenth century. (shrink)

There have been constant and multiple endeavours to argue for Darwin's both epistemic and practical debt to Romanticism. Almost all of these arguments emphasise Darwin's theoretical and aesthetic associations with Alexander von Humboldt, who, from a prevailing Darwin-centred perspective, is in turn usually oversimplified as an undisputed incarnation of Romanticism. The antagonistic view, however, develops nothing other than another stereotype of Humboldt as an anti-idealistic, pro-French, and even highly Anglophone empiricist naturalist, and accordingly rejects the claim of a romantic Darwin (...) in terms of his Humboldtian inheritance. In this paper, I will first portray a balanced figure of Humboldt in terms of both his critical incorporation of romantic philosophy and the idiosyncratic history of his science. Then, I will thematically compare Darwin with Humboldt and other romantics so as to elucidate Darwin's peculiar appropriation of romantic tenets. Three interrelated romantic themes are examined, along with a discrimination of different senses in which the term romanticism is used: a) the literature-science relation, b) the pursuit of the unity in and through multiplicity, and c) the epistemic role of imagination. On the basis of this triadic dissection, both Humboldt's and Darwin's adherence to and departure from romanticism are reevaluated. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to explore the impact of Darwinism in metaethics and dispel some of the confusion surrounding it. While the prospects for a Darwinian metaethics appear to be improving, some underlying epistemological issues remain unclear. We will focus on the so-called Evolutionary Debunking Arguments (EDAs) which, when applied in metaethics, are defined as arguments that appeal to the evolutionary origins of moral beliefs so as to undermine their epistemic justification. The point is that an epistemic (...) disanalogy can be identified in the debate on EDAs between moral beliefs and other kinds of beliefs, insofar as only the former are regarded as vulnerable to EDAs. First, we will analyze some significant debunking positions in metaethics in order to show that they do not provide adequate justification for such an epistemic disanalogy. Then, we will assess whether they can avoid the accusation of being epistemically incoherent by adopting the same evolutionary account for all kinds of beliefs. In other words, once it is argued that Darwinism has a corrosive impact on metaethics, what if its universal acid cannot be contained? (shrink)

Whether defended or criticized, Darwinism is generally considered a scientific theory. However, Popper contests this point. According to him, Darwinism (defined as the explanation of evolution by natural selection) is less a scientific theory than a metaphysical research program: a theoretical framework that has a heuristic function for science, but that does not fulfill the necessary condition for any science, namely testability. In terms of deconstructing Darwinism, Popper’s position is therefore interesting. It raises the question of the (...) scientificity of Darwinism. More generally, it raises the question of the scientificity of the debate on the mechanisms of evolution: what type(s) of argument(s) does this debate bring into play? Can this debate be reduced to an opposition between a scientifically founded theory (Darwinism) and other theories of evolution that are purely philosophical, or even ideological? First, I analyze Popper’s position. According to him, Darwinism is rationally defensible, but difficult to test because it is not capable of making precise and sufficiently specific predictions. Darwinism is therefore more metaphysical than scientific, even if it has a heuristic function for science. Moreover, Popper proposes an improvement of Darwinism by asserting that it must give a more important place to the activity of organisms in evolution. In a second step, I discuss Popper’s position, taking into account the criticisms that this position has generated. As regards the non-testability of Darwinism, it appears that the tests proposed in the literature do not meet the defects pointed out by Popper. On the metaphysical character of Darwinism, I discuss Popper’s assertion on two levels: on the possibility of a clear demarcation between science and non-science, and on the value of the demarcation criterion proposed by Popper. Finally, on the improvement of Darwinism, I attempt to underline the originality of the Popperian proposal. (shrink)

Traditionally, Darwin has been grouped with the functionalists because natural selection (an adaptational mechanism) plays the prominent role in shaping organic form. In this paper, I sketch the dichotomy of functionalism versus structuralism and then argue that Darwin cannot be characterized adequately with this dichotomy. I argue that Darwin can incorporate both causal stories because he makes two important modifications to the traditional metaphysical presuppositions. I then offer some brief reflections on the import of Darwin's causal pluralism for the Philosophy (...) of Science. (shrink)

This paper defends moral realism against Sharon Street’s “Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value” (this journal, 2006). I argue by separation of cases: From the assumption that a certain normative claim is true, I argue that the first horn of the dilemma is tenable for realists. Then, from the assumption that the same normative claim is false, I argue that the second horn is tenable. Either way, then, the Darwinian dilemma does not add anything to realists’ epistemic worries.

The most public-facing forms of contemporary Darwinism happily promote its worldview ambitions. Popular works, by the likes of Richard Dawkins, deflect associations with eugenics and social Darwinism, but also extend the reach of Darwinism beyond biology into social policy, politics, and ethics. Critics of the enterprise fall into two categories. Advocates of Intelligent Design and secular philosophers (like Mary Midgley and Thomas Nagel) recognise it as a worldview and argue against its implications. Scholars in the rhetoric of (...) science or science communication, however, typically take the view that Darwinism isn't a worldview, but a scientific theory, which has been improperly embellished by some; they uphold the distinction between is and ought and argue that science is restricted to the former. This prompts an is–ought problem on another level. I catalogue the ways in which Darwinism plainly is a worldview and why commentators' beliefs that it ought not to be distorts their analysis. Hence, it is their own worldview that precludes them from accepting Darwinism's worldview implications. (shrink)

James Rachels argued against the possibility of finding some moral capacity in humans that confers upon them a unique dignity. His argument contends that Darwinism challenges such attempts, because Darwinism predicts that any morally valuable capacity able to bestow a unique dignity is likely present to a degree within both humans and non-human animals alike. I make the case, however, that some of Darwin's own thoughts regarding the nature of conscience provide a springboard for criticising Rachels's claim here. (...) Using Darwin's thoughts regarding conscience, I begin the project of grounding a revised account of human dignity in the human tendency to enshrine products of conscience within institutions. Specifically, I argue that this new account of human dignity is partly contingent upon humans creating institutions morally respectful of the values present within non-human nature. (shrink)

After its remarkable affirmation overseas, creationism has landed in Europe and is also present in Italy. As in the USA, also in Italy the main terrain of the clash with Darwinism is the public school. The essay investigates the reasons why in Italy too has been possible to require to teach creationism alongside evolutionism. If in the US this is explained by the strong influence of the evangelical communities, in Italy creationism has found fertile ground in the traditional backwardness (...) of the country in terms of scientific culture. To this we must add a relativistic epistemological interpretation that allows to equalize scientific doctrines to ideologies. (shrink)

Este artículo tiene como objetivo ofrecer una revisión y reinterpretación al problema teórico en la teoría de Darwin en el que se pone en relación el principio de divergencia y la competencia entre los seres vivos. Respecto a este asunto ha habido dos interpretaciones fundamentales. La primera de ellas es la de aquellos que defienden que la divergencia se ve favorecida porque implica una reducción de la competencia a la que se enfrentan los seres vivos que se desplazan de nicho (...) ecológico. Por otro lado, algunos abogan — aunque es una posición menos extendida— por una interpretación en la que la reducción de la competencia no es la ventaja, sino que lo es la especialización y, por tanto, el incremento en la competitividad, es decir, el tener mejores herramientas o capacidades para competir. En este artículo se defiende esta última tesis, fundamentalmente sostenida por William Tammone, pero desde otra perspectiva y sustentada en otros argumentos que se nutren de la propuesta de Trevor Pearce acerca de la noción de economía natural de Darwin. (shrink)

Problem one: why, if God designed the human mind, did it take so long for humans to develop theistic concepts and beliefs? Problem two: why would God use evolution to design the living world when the discovery of evolution would predictably contribute to so much nonbelief in God? Darwin was aware of such questions but failed to see their evidential significance for theism. This paper explores this significance. Problem one introduces something I call natural nonbelief, which is significant because it (...) parallels and corroborates well-known worries about natural evil. Problems one and two, especially when combined, support naturalism over theism, intensify the problem of divine hiddenness, challenge Alvin Plantinga’s views about the naturalness of theism, and advance the discussion about whether the conflict between science and religion is genuine or superficial. (shrink)

Do traits evolve because they are good for the group, or do they evolve because they are good for the individual organisms that have them? The question is whether groups, rather than individual organisms, are ever “units of selection.” My exposition begins with the 1960’s, when the idea that traits evolve because they are good for the group was criticized, not just for being factually mistaken, but for embodying a kind of confused thinking that is fundamentally at odds with the (...) logic that Darwin’s theory requires. A counter-movement has arisen since the 1960’s, called multi-level selection theory, according to which selection acts at multiple levels, including the level of the group. After discussing the 1960’s attack on group selection and the concept’s subsequent revival, I examine Darwin’s views on the subject. I discuss what Darwin says about four examples: human morality, the barbed stinger of the honeybee, neuter workers in species of social insect, and the sterility of many interspecies hybrids. I argue that Darwin defended hypotheses of group selection in the first three problems, but rejected it in the fourth. I also discuss Darwin’s general views about the role of group selection in evolution. (shrink)

Quantum Mechanics is arguably the most controversial theory ever constructed: its overwhelming empirical success contrasts with the perplexity about its basic meaning. Darwin's evolutionary theory, on the other side, is hailed as the only conceptual framework that allows us to make sense of biological phenomena, at the same time its theoretical efficiency has been overly debated. Although both quantum physics and evolutionary theory constitute a scientific bedrock in contemporary thinking, a deeper analysis of their relationship is still missing. In the (...) following paper I will address the connection between Darwinism and a specific interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed by Carlo Rovelli, namely, Relational Quantum Mechanics. I will aim to show that Darwinism (understood in a broad sense) has constituted a central source of inspiration for Rovelli's own proposal, in three different ways: first, Darwinism provides a model of a philosophically satisfactory scientific theory; second, it introduces a way of thinking at odds with traditional substantialism; and third, it stresses the central and unifying role of information. (shrink)

The year 2009 has been a year of numerous commemorations of both scientific and non-scientific achievements that contributed to the advancement of human kind. Protestants celebrated the 500th anniversary of the birth of Calvin; literary critics celebrated the 200th anniversary of the poet Edgar Allan Poe; and the musical genius Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy was also born 200 years ago. 2009 further marked the bicentennial of the birth of Louis Braille, the inventor of Braille; and Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the (...) United States, who founded the National Academy of Sciences. Pierre Curie, famous for his work on radioactivity that he conducted together with his wife Marie Curie, was born 150 ago; as was John Dewey, a philosopher and psychologist who is recognized as one of the founding fathers of both pragmatism as well as functional psychology. UNESCO and the International Astronomical Union dubbed 2009 the International Year of Astronomy. By doing so, astronomers celebrated the 400th anniversary of Galileo Galilei’s telescopic observations as well as the publication of Johannes Kepler’s Astronomia nova wherein he formulated the first two laws of planetary motion. 2009 also marked the last of a 3-year-long celebration of Planet Earth, another UNESCO-governed initiative. However, for evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science, 2009 will be largely remembered for its worldwide commemorations of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his magnum opus On the origin of species by means of natural selection. Footnote1 In order to pay tribute to Darwin’s major contribution to the advancement of evolutionary science, the International Union of Biological Sciences and the International Union of History and Philosophy of Science have called the year 2009 the Darwin Year. Given that so many scientific discoveries were commemorated, COPUS, the Coalition on the Public Understanding on Science, called out 2009 as the Year of Science, in the hope to pay equal tribute to both the field of biology as well as astronomy. 2009 was indeed a year of biology. Somewhat overshadowed by the big Darwin celebrations, smaller-scaled events were held to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the publication of Lamarck’s Philosophie Zoologique; and the 150th anniversary of the death of Alexander von Humboldt, the father of biogeography. In 1910, Constantin Mereschkowsky wrote his article on symbiogenesis entitled ‘The Theory of Two Plasmas as the Basis of Symbiogenesis, a New Study for the Origins of Organisms’. The article was published in the German Biologisches Zentralblatt, the journal that would later evolve into the current Theory in Biosciences. Somewhat forgotten, but equally important for the field of symbiogenesis, was the 200th anniversary of the birth of Pierre-Joseph Van Beneden, a Belgian paleontologist and zoologist famous for distinguishing parasitism from commensalism. Finally, Henry Bergson, known for inventing the currently rejected notion of élan vital, was born 150 years ago. In order to memorialize the important role these biologists played in the advancement of our understanding of the evolutionary process, a 2-day international conference was organized entitled: Evolution today and tomorrow, Darwin evaluated by contemporary evolutionary and philosophical theories. The conference was organized by The Centre for Philosophy of Science of the University of Lisbon (Portugal), in collaboration with the Centre for Environmental Biology of the same university, and the Lisbon Centre for Applied Psychology. The articles presented here are a spin-off of this conference. The current volumes contain the peer-reviewed articles of a selection of the plenary and invited speakers, as well as those of scholars who were additionally invited to contribute to the volumes. (shrink)

Since the time of Charles Darwin, there has been concern that the theory of evolution provides fuel for skepticism. This paper presents new arguments that humanity's evolutionary origins are grounds for accepting that the universe is not as it appears to be to us. Firstly, it is argued that we should expect to have an incomplete capacity to comprehend the universe: both the mental limitations of all non-human life and the narrow interests of most humans provide evidence for this. Secondly, (...) it is argued that we should expect the universe as it appears to us to have nothing more than a relationship of correlation to the universe as it actually is: both simplicity and the huge number of ways in which the universe may be represented provide reason for evolution to produce such a correlative system. (shrink)

Ever since its inception, the theory of evolution has been reified into an “-ism”: Darwinism. While biologists today tend to shy away from the term in their research, the term is still actively used in the broader academic and societal contexts. What exactly is Darwinism, and how precisely are its various uses and abuses related to the scientific theory of evolution? Some call for limiting the meaning of the term “Darwinism” to its scientific context; others call for (...) its abolition; yet others claim the term refers to a myth-like story. In this paper we propose a conceptually grounded overview of the term. We show how the scientific dimension of Darwinism feeds into, and is influenced by, guises of Darwinism as a methodology and as an ethically and politically charged “worldview”. The full meaning of Darwinism, as well as how this meaning has changed over time, can only be understood through the complex interaction between these three dimensions. (shrink)

Darwin's and Freud's theories cohere in explaining human group conflict.

Darwin famously held that his use of the term "chance" in evolutionary theory merely "serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the causes of each particular variation". Is this a tenable view today? Or should we revise our thinking about chance in evolution in light of the more advanced, quantitative models of Neo-Darwinian theory, which make substantial use of statistical reasoning and the concept of probability? Is determinism still a viable metaphysical doctrine about biological reality after the quantum revolution in (...) physics, or dowe have to abandon it in favor of an objective indeterminism? In light of such reflections, what is the relevant interpretation of probability in evolutionary theory? Do biologists use the concept of probability because they are finite cognitive agents or because the evolutionary process is fundamentally probabilistic? In this paper, I will show that we do not yet fully understand the nature of chance in evolution. (shrink)

Darwinism presents a paradox. It discredits the notion that one’s life has any intrinsic meaning, yet it predicts that we are designed by Darwinian natural selection to generally insist that it must—and so necessarily designed to misunderstand and doubt Darwinism. The implications of this paradox are explored here, including the question of where then does the Darwinist find meaning in life? The main source, it is proposed, is from cognitive domains for meaning inherited from sentient ancestors—domains that reveal (...) our evolved human nature as the fool that it is: given to distractions and delusions of many kinds, designed by natural selection primarily for one essential purpose—to allay our instinctual fear of failed legacy, rooted in our uniquely human awareness that we are not immortal. Darwinism, however, also teaches that genuine legacy is a fate enjoyed only by individual genes. Accordingly, as argued here, those genes with the grandest legacy—and hence rampant within us—are of two types: “legacy-drive” genes delude us into thinking that the legacy can be individually and personally ours; and “leisure-drive” genes distract us from the agonizing truth that it can never be. The most rudimental delusion of legacy is the perception of offspring as vehicles for memetic legacy—the transmission of resident memes from one’s mind to the minds and behaviors of offspring—thus also ensuring genetic legacy: the transmission of resident genes, including importantly, genes inherited from ancestors that influence both legacy and leisure drives. Today, legacy- and leisure-drive genes reveal their phenotypes across a wide range of human affairs, and together with the phenotypes of survival- and sex-drive genes, they provide a foundation for a novel view of the Darwinian roots of cultural evolution. (shrink)

The paper looks at Deleuze's metaphysics and compares it to recent developments in biology and the metaphysical implications they have.

A ‘late developer’ argument, common to Psychology and Economic History, can be used to explain cultural innovation. It argues that the 19th century theory of natural selection arose in England and not Germany because of – and not in spite of – England’s scientific backwardness. Measured in terms of institutions, communities, and ideas, the relative retardation of English science was precisely what enabled it to adopt German advances in novel ways.

Generally, we want certain ethical claims to be unconditionally true. One such claim is “Apartheid was unjust”. In this paper, I discuss a group of South African post-structuralist philosophers who call their view Critical Complexity (CC). Because of post-structuralism’s radical contextualism, CCists can only claim that things are ‘as if’ Apartheid was unjust. They cannot claim that Apartheid was unconditionally unjust. Many will find this unsatisfying. I argue that a naturalised or Darwinian notion of rationality can help CCists (and perhaps (...) post-structuralists in general) in this regard. This kind of rationality is what has come to be known as embodied rationality. We employ embodied rationality when navigating the ecological and social domains. It has, though, been co-opted for navigating the ethical domain. We can, then, claim that Apartheid was unconditionally unjust because it is embodied rational to do so. This does not involve embracing the kind of Cartesian rationality that CCists rightly reject. (shrink)

In the last decades two different and apparently unrelated lines of research have increasingly connected mathematics and evolutionism. Indeed, on the one hand different attempts to formalize darwinism have been made, while, on the other hand, different attempts to naturalize logic and mathematics have been put forward. Those researches may appear either to be completely distinct or at least in some way convergent. They may in fact both be seen as supporting a naturalistic stance. Evolutionism is indeed crucial for (...) a naturalistic perspective, and formalizing it seems to be a way to strengthen its scientificity. The paper shows that, on the contrary, those directions of research may be seen as conflicting, since the conception of knowledge on which they rest may be undermined by the consequences of accepting an evolutionary perspective. (shrink)

This paper seeks to clarity the extent to which we can legitimately apply evolutionary explanation to the realm of moral and social behavior. It evaluates two perspectives, one dealing with purely philosophical arguments, and the other with arguments from within the Catholic tradition. The challenges faced by evolutionary ethics discernible from the secular perspective turn out to be practically the same as those discernible from the religious perspective. Whether we discuss the issues in terms of intentional states or in terms (...) of freedom of human beings created in the image of God, the result seems to be the same: evolutionary explanation turns out to be useful to some extent but not across the board. It leaves out the distinctively moral aspect of individual and social behavior. (shrink)

In 2009, we celebrated the bicentennial of the birth of Charles Darwin and the sesquicentennial of the publication of his book The Origin of Species. This seems to be a good opportunity to evaluate the importance of Darwin’s work for the social sciences, mainly for philosophical anthropology. The aim of this paper is to discuss the traditional anthropocentric conceptions of man, which consider our biological species to be exceptional – qualitatively higher than other living organisms. Over the course of the (...) 20th century, philosophers have argued for the claim in a number of ways: man is supposed to be the only animal capable of laughter, love, thought or language. It has also been claimed that only members of Homo sapiens have free will, morality or religion. The paper refutes these arguments on the basis of contemporary studies by M. Davila Ross, H. Fischer, K. Arnold, K. Zuberbühler, G. Konopka, B. Libet, F. De Waal, M. Bekoff, P. Boyer, B. Hood, G. Paul and others. The author argues that the only differences between man and other animals are quantitative, and therefore the nature of humans should be studied using the methods of naturalized philosophy, with respect to the natural sciences. (shrink)

Despite providing the basic theoretical framework for Western biology and all related sciences, Darwinism continues to be a controversial perspective when it comes to understanding ourselves as distinctly "human." In this paper, I try to correct a common misinterpretation of Thomas Hobbes' conceptualization of human nature which I think sheds light on some of the significant misunderstandings and sources of objection to Darwinism. I begin by contrasting this common misreading of Hobbes' philosophy of human nature with an alternative (...) reading that suggests a more subtle notion than is often allowed. I then summarize the basic ideas of Darwinism and explain why I think a Darwinian conceptualization of humanity, freed from misinterpretations of Hobbes, need not lead to an agonistic or reductive notion of human nature. Suggestions made by the philosophers Charles Taylor and Howard Gardner about how science and philosophy can help or hinder conceptualizations of personhood are considered insofar as they corroborate this idea. (shrink)

Can an AGI create a more intelligent AGI? Under idealized assumptions, for a certain theoretical type of intelligence, our answer is: “Not without outside help”. This is a paper on the mathematical structure of AGI populations when parent AGIs create child AGIs. We argue that such populations satisfy a certain biological law. Motivated by observations of sexual reproduction in seemingly-asexual species, the Knight-Darwin Law states that it is impossible for one organism to asexually produce another, which asexually produces another, and (...) so on forever: that any sequence of organisms (each one a child of the previous) must contain occasional multi-parent organisms, or must terminate. By proving that a certain measure (arguably an intelligence measure) decreases when an idealized parent AGI single-handedly creates a child AGI, we argue that a similar Law holds for AGIs. (shrink)

Stove's article, 'So you think you are a Darwinian?'[ 1] was essentially an advertisement for his book, Darwinian Fairytales.[ 2] The central argument of the book is that Darwin's theory, in both Darwin's and recent sociobiological versions, asserts many things about the human and other species that are known to be false, but protects itself from refutation by its logical complexity. A great number of ad hoc devices, he claims, are used to protect the theory. If co operation is observed (...) where the theory predicts competition, then competition is referred to the time of the cavemen, or is reinterpreted as competition between some hidden entities like genes or abstract entities like populations. In a characteristic sally, Stove writes of the sociobiologists' oscillation on the meaning of kin altruism: Any discussion of altruism with an inclusive fitness theorist is, in fact, exactly like dealing with a pair of balloons connected by a tube, one balloon being the belief that kin altruism is an illusion, the other being the belief that kin altruism is caused by shared genes. If a critic puts pressure on the illusion balloon - perhaps by ridiculing the selfish theory of human nature - air is forced into the causal balloon. There is then an increased production of earnest causal explanations of why we love our children, why hymenopteran workers look after their sisters, etc., etc. Then, if the critic puts pressure on the causal balloon - perhaps about the weakness of sibling altruism compared with parental, or the absence of sibling altruism in bacteria - then the illusion balloon is forced to expand. There will now be an increased production of cynical scurrilities about parents manipulating their babies for their own advantage, and vice versa, and in general, about the Hobbesian bad times that are had by all. In this way critical pressure, applied to the theory of inclusive fitness at one point, can always be easily absorbed at another point, and the theory as a whole is never endangered.[ 3] Now, it is uncontroversial to assert that Darwinism is a logically complex theory, and that its relation to empirical evidence is distant and multi faceted. One does not directly observe chance genetic variations leading to the development of new species, or even continuous variations in the fossil record, but must rely on subtle arguments to the best explanation, scaling up from varieties to species, and so on.. (shrink)

Eco/logical R/evolution, is the story of mankind, told with words of a great and wonderful subjective odyssey, the never-ending quest; for objective truths and collective Eudaimonia. The author raises the issues; of political weakness and widespread confusion, about logical analytical errors, of which we find many of in Old Marxist Ideology. As a conscious effort, is thus made, to expel the mental subjugation of Platonic Idealism, away from the clenches Aristotelian Realism, and its bastard offspring; Old Historical Materialism. The book (...) identifies, in the works of Darwin and Marx, a wide range of worrying philosophical incompatibilities, such that are clearly found; in their respective theories and research methodologies. We hereby propose; that a New Marxist Philosophy of Science, stands a probable chance; at unifying the Natural and Social Sciences. As the convergence of truths is manifest, thus, it is mapped out in detail by the author, out of necessity. It invokes, a Marxist Metaphysical Identity, for the sole purpose off; presenting a teleological framework, for New Marxist Theory. NOTE: Reader must look up each word in a dictionary, which they see on both sides of the "/" when found in the middle of a word. (shrink)

In a time when conservatives believe that the traditional family is under increasing fire, some think an appeal to Darwinian science may be the answer. I argue that these conservatives are wrong to maintain that Darwinian theory can serve as the intellectual foundation for the traditional conception of the family. Contra Larry Arnhart and James Q. Wilson, a Darwinian philosophy of nature simply lacks the stability the traditional family requires; it cannot support the traditional conception of human nature and the (...) normativity it was thought to contain. If conservatives are to maintain these traditional ideas, the theoretical foundation must lie elsewhere. (shrink)

This paper aims to determine whether Darwin’s theory of evolution was influenced by German Naturphilosophie. I start with a brief presentation of Naturphilosophie, a scientific and aesthetic approach that emphasizes the holistic understanding of the natural system and the interrelation of its parts. As I show, Naturphilosophen acknowledges the existence of a specific relation of reciprocal causality between various parts of nature, and recognize the valuable causal agency of life in the natural system. Moving forward, I analyze Darwin’s theory of (...) evolution and identify the fundamental hypotheses of his conceptual framework. Since Naturphilosophen endorse a holistic conception of nature, and highlight the presence of reciprocal causality between its parts, I examine whether Darwin adopts any of these assumptions about the natural system. I turn to his understanding of the struggle for survival – a phenomenon that captures various relations between organisms and their environment. My analysis shows that Darwin recognizes the causal activity of the natural environment, but neglects the ability of organisms to modify their habitat for the sake of survival. Thus, he establishes the causal asymmetry between these two fundamental parts of his worldview. If that is the case, then Darwin’s theory does not represent a (fully) holistic worldview of nature, and the influence of Naturphilosophen on the formulation of his evolutionary theory is only partial. (shrink)

The distinguished anthropologist Dame Professor Marilyn Strathern, now in her eighties, has been writing on Newton for about a decade. Presumably, her long association with the University of Cambridge influenced this choice. My response to this choice of subject does not concern the detail of her writing, rather social structure, a traditional theme of British social anthropology. I pose the question: should geniuses￾for-everyman such as Newton and Darwin be at Cambridge? Should not the lecturers at a Cambridge college be all (...) experts who fall short of greatness? But why? I consider some explanations. (shrink)

Geoffrey Hodgson and Thorbjørn Knudsen’s Generalized Darwinism (Darwin’s Conjecture, 2010) argues that variation, inheritance, and selection are domain-independent necessary and sufficient conditions for evolutionary explanation — applicable literally, not by analogy, wherever a population of entities varies, some mechanism transmits traits between generations with reasonable fidelity, and that variation causes differential persistence. This paper applies that claim to the Longevity Asymmetry Corpus’s Entropy-Resistant Institution Index (Huynh 2026, “Endurance or Density”), using David Hull’s (1988) replicator/interactor distinction — the unit that (...) passes on structure with reasonable fidelity (replicator) versus the unit that interacts with the environment as a cohesive whole and whose fate makes replication differential (interactor) — to reanalyze the Jiangnan Regeneration Problem that paper’s Section VIII identifies. The paper argues four claims. First, Jiangnan is a literal replicator-interactor system, not a metaphor: a template of river-line defense doctrine, rice-paddy fiscal administration, and elite-absorption protocol persisted dormant for the entire 318-year span of unified Tang rule (589–907, during which no southern refuge regime existed at all) and re-expressed in three separate, non-continuous interactors — Eastern Jin–Southern Dynasties, Southern Tang, Southern Song — each time northern collapse recreated the triggering environmental condition. Second, this distinguishes homology from convergence with a precision the ERI paper’s own N = 3 circularity problem needed and did not yet have: Jiankang, Southern Tang, and Southern Song share common descent from one replicator, so their attribute agreement is not independent evidence. Japan’s Imperial House and the Holy See share no common ancestry with each other or with Jiangnan, yet independently evolved similar attribute profiles — decoupled legitimating authority, non-biological succession, universalist claims transcending territory — textbook convergent evolution, which in evolutionary biology is stronger evidence for adaptive significance than homology, precisely because independent origin rules out shared history as the explanation. Third, Formula A and Formula B from the ERI index are not two arbitrary weightings of one construct. They measure K-selected and r-selected fitness respectively (MacArthur and Wilson 1967) — two genuinely distinct, sometimes competing strategies in real ecological theory, not unique to institutions. Japan and the Holy See are K-strategists: one long-lived, heavily invested interactor, optimized for individual endurance. Jiangnan is an r-strategist at the regional level: rapid interactor turnover via extinction and recolonization (Levins 1969), persisting at the population level — the refuge function itself — even as every individual interactor eventually goes extinct. This explains, rather than merely redescribes, why the ERI paper’s ranking flip occurs: K-fitness and r-fitness are different quantities in nature, not an artifact of index construction. Fourth, applying Levins’s metapopulation persistence condition — persistence requires recolonization rate to exceed local extinction rate — to the density gap the ERI paper’s Section X.C already establishes (λ_bz ≈ 50 disruption-class events per century, against a historical -/- maximum δ of 1.36) shows that neither historically realized strategy is obviously sufficient for F2-era disruption density. Jiangnan’s own recolonization rate — three episodes across 1,059 years, ≈ 0.28 per century — is itself roughly 180 times below what would be required to match a local-extinction rate at BZM scale. This paper does not propose that a solution exists. It states precisely what order of magnitude of engineered, historically unprecedented recolonization capacity F2-era governance design would require if an r-selected strategy is the correct one to pursue. (shrink)

Abstract: This article introduces “Historical Darwinism” – also referred to as “Civilizational Evolution” or “Civilizational Renaissance” – as a universal framework for understanding the evolution of civilizations, a framework built on patterns analogous to biological natural selection. It is argued that, throughout world history, long-lasting civilizations have emerged, adapted, and declined through processes resembling cultural survival and regeneration. For instance, the Hittites arose from the Hattians, the Greeks from the Mycenaeans, and the Babylonians from Sumerian and Akkadian civilizations, defining (...) their identities in continuity with their predecessors. From this perspective, myths are not merely products of imagination; rather, they are repositories of collective memory that encode the historical experiences of ancient societies preceding “Civilizational Evolution” in the literary forms of societies after “Civilizational Evolution.” Although “Historical Darwinism” represents a general principle applicable to all long-lived civilizations, this article specifically applies it to Iranian mythology. By examining the narratives of the Shahnameh and other Iranian sources, it is shown that the myths of the Shahnameh and the Avesta reflect civilizational transformations, migrations, and cultural renaissances across the vast land of Aryana during the Bronze and Iron Ages. Apparent contradictions in Iranian sources—such as divergent accounts of origins and the duality of Zoroastrian traditions—are interpreted within this framework not as evidence of historical fabrication but as signs of successive historical reconstructions during the course of “Civilizational Renaissance.” Accordingly, “Historical Darwinism” emerges as a novel approach in the philosophy of mythology, aiming to uncover the historical cores of ancient myths and connect them to the processes of civilizational development and renewal. (shrink)

In this paper, I analyze the disruptive impact of Darwinian selectionism for the century-long tradition in which the environment had a direct causative role in shaping an organism’s traits. In the case of humans, the surrounding environment often determined not only the physical, but also the mental and moral features of individuals and whole populations. With its apparatus of indirect effects, random variations, and a much less harmonious view of nature and adaptation, Darwinian selectionism severed the deep imbrication of organism (...) and milieu posited by these traditional environmentalist models. This move had radical implications well beyond strictly biological debates. In my essay, I discuss the problematization of the moral idiom of environmentalism by William James and August Weismann who adopted a selectionist view of the development of mental faculties. These debates show the complex moral discourse associated with the environmentalist-selectionist dilemma. They also well illustrate how the moral reverberations of selectionism went well beyond the stereotyped associations with biological fatalism or passivity of the organism. Rereading them today may be helpful as a genealogical guide to the complex ethical quandaries unfolding in the current postgenomic scenario in which a revival of new environmentalist themes is taking place. (shrink)

Generalized Darwinism models cultural development as an evolutionary process, where traits evolve through variation, selection, and inheritance. Inheritance describes either a discrete unit’s transmission or a mixing of traits. In this article, we compare classical models of cultural evolution and generalized population dynamics with respect to blending inheritance. We identify problems of these models and introduce our model, which combines relevant features of both. Blending is implemented as success-based social learning, which can be shown to be an optimal strategy.

Using Hegel's ideas about geology I untangle the various senses in which Hegel would admit that nature has a history, and show the senses in which he could and could not accept Darwinian evolution.

This is a big-picture discussion of an important implication of Darwinism for ethics. I argue that there is a misfit between our scientific view of the natural world and the view, still dominant in academic philosophy and wider society alike, that there is a discrete hierarchy of moral status among conscious beings. I will suggest that the clear line of traditional morality – between human beings and other animals – is a remnant of an obsolete moral outlook, not least (...) because it has no counterpart in empirical reality, and I will invite the reader to think, with me, about tenable alternatives. (shrink)

In this paper, I will briefly summarize the history and current accounts of Evolutionary Medicine (EM). I will show that EM, in its current forms, is using an evolutionary understanding that carries the explanatory framework, as well as explanatory limits, of the Modern Synthesis (MS). I will then point out some essential elements that need to be seen as limiting factors within EM and analyze the limitations that are brought about by the MS understanding of it. On this basis, I (...) will argue that if the latest developments in evolutionary theory are considered – in particular, those pertaining to the inheritance mechanisms highlighted by the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES), and the newly introduced evolutionary entities – EM will have a much broader explanatory scope and increased explanatory power in addition to greater relevance, which will enable its application in medical explanations. (shrink)

Descartes laid the philosophical groundwork for the modern scientific period by separating subjective cognition from objective bodies, thereby also dividing epistemology from ontology reducing knowing to indifferent “observation.” This is the perspective of consciousness and its object, of which material science only imperfectly studies the object. In reality these two are not separated but dialectically related and sublated in the higher comprehending original unity of self-consciousness. Physical scientists fail to study these higher categories of reality and are therefore left with (...) an incomplete understanding of a mere superficial nature that is inadequate to comprehend the core truth. But scientific, rational inquiry will not stop until a comprehensive idea is reached that is coherent with the full range of our knowledge of life. That spectrum of knowledge is not circumscribed merely by chemistry, physics and mathematics. Thus Vedanta-sutra advises, that you will have to continue your search, athatho brahma jijnasa, until you reach brahma, the underlying spiritual source, janmady asy yatah, the fountainhead where all inquiry will reach its purpose. Then beyond knowledge Bhagavatam will guide us to the ultimate search – raso vai sah, the search for our highest fulfillment, sweetness and love. (shrink)

“Indeed, we now know that the proportion of genetic sequences on earth that belongs to visible organisms is negligible. Furthermore, only 15% of the genetic sequences found in the samples from the environment and from feces analyzed in metagenomic studies belong to the three domains of microbes currently recognized in the tree-of-life framework – bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. Viruses contain another 15-30% of these genetic sequences.” This means that the majority of unidentified genetic sequences pose an unresolved problem. Where do (...) they come from? New genes suddenly appear, called ORFans (“orphan genes”) without any precursors. They may be produced by gene duplication, or fusion, or some other unknown process. Yet, Darwin’s tree of life concept would make it impossible to consider such processes. The transfer of genetic sequences from parasites to hosts could involve hundreds of genes for bacteria or viruses. But, as Raoult writes, “the current classification of the domains of life is based on the ribosome – the production apparatus of proteins – which does not exist in these viruses.” Adherence to the dogmatism of Darwin thus prevents these new discoveries, that overturn his century-and-a-half old teachings, from ever reaching the new generation of scientists. Raoult concludes, "Genetic research, in particular, must be free to find new models to explain, and enhance, twenty-first-century scientific discovery. Today, Darwin’s theory of evolution is more a hindrance than a help, because it has become a quasi-theological creed that is preventing the benefits of improved research from being fully realized.". (shrink)