Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Sec19 Grp1: Chuck Darwin

Charles Darwin, though not a philosopher by trade, introduced one of, if not the single most earth-shattering revelation to the people of his time. The theory of evolution effectively split us into two categories: pious and secularist. The line did blur down the road, though. For instance, I'm neither a believer nor a disbeliever. I'd like to think God exists when I need something, but I don't want to think of Him when negative things catch my eye.

Some would argue he is a scientist, not a philosopher. Philosophy is a science, technically. And HE HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PHILOSOPHY.

Most of this chapter focuses on his trip to the Galapagos, his discoveries, and his theory. Because of this, there was little philosophical material to discuss, influential as it may be. The most important thing to note is probably his beliefs and those of others who read his work. He is not saying God does not exist, just that we humans share a common ancestor with apes, which logically explains the truth behind evolution and why cavepeople look nothing like us today.

But not everything can be logically explained; rather, blind faith must be used to explain things humans are not meant to know. At the risk of being promotive again, I must quote a book of mine in creation (I tried to paraphrase it):

"...I would not be standing before you if I did not believe. [...] I acknowledge none of you. [...] You do not exist to me because my human rationality wills it so. [...] Logically, none of you can exist. It's common sense: all magicians have explanations to their tricks. Your fireballs? Smoke and mirrors. You're not witches. You're not even good magicians. [...] You're just trying to make me believe in you. That's what makes you stronger, isn't it?"
[...]
"...your logic has no place here. Here, in a place outside time, outside the constraints of your world, we are free to perform whatever magic we wish. [...] You say you cannot understand? Good. You were not meant to. No human can comprehend our magic. To you, it is an impossible feat. But to us, it is reality."
[...]
"I don't believe in you because you exist. You exist because I believe in you. So I guess I'm as crazy as you said, huh?"

That went on a bit long.
Anyway, in conclusion, the result of Darwin's theory of evolution ultimately strengthened logic as an indicator of validity. Like the giant above quote said, though, just because logic can explain something does not mean it is the case. There are things humans will never understand. But as long as __________ (fill in the blank) exists in one heart, it is real, at least to that one person. Of course, the more believers, the stronger the concept, but you get the idea.

(I realize this post was long, so thanks for your time.)

7 comments:

  1. Jeremy Brooks2:20 AM CDT

    The quote you used to support your thoughts is interesting because it can certainly apply to the next chapter we have to discuss which focuses on Peirce's and James' concept of Pragmatism. I thought I'd make that connection. I suppose you could say, the ideas and implications of all three of these men have some connection into general question of "What is real?"

    Peirce & James
    FQ: What theory presented by William James aims to support his concept of Pragmatism?
    DQ: Is pragmatism and the theory of truth which supports its tenets an idea that can be applied to you and your life? Given it's retracter's statements, is Pragmatism in itself practical?

    ReplyDelete
  2. FQ: Pierce wanted to make philosophy more __________.
    DQ: So, is the hunter circling the squirrel or not?
    Pragmatic, practical, Pierce??

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ben Raper11:01 AM CDT

    FQ: What is Pragmatism?
    DQ: Would you want to live your life under the beliefs of Pragmatism? Why or why not?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Charles Darwin to me seems to be a normal man who came across a great discovery that changed the way the world thinks. Those ideas come across few and not often, but are often very impactful. The amazing thing is that he just happened across it instead of starting with a hypothesis instead of following the scientific process.

    FQ: Who was a better, more impactful writer? James or Pierce?
    DQ: What would one say are the differences between Pierce and James' Pragmatism?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great post man. I’m a big supporter of Darwin. It’s human nature to think we are the center of the universe even though we represent such a small part of it and haven’t even began to scratch the surface of what is out there yet we make such accusations as the sun revolves around us and not the other way around. It’s only natural we think we were made special by a divine God. I appreciate Darwin’s challenge to the accepted philosophy of his time. I think it is very likely we are long time descendants of some lesser intelligent beings. Looking at the evidence it only makes sense.
    I like how he stated something’s are too complex for humans to understand and that he wasn’t trying to disprove anyone’s religion. Some people live fuller lives with faith in a higher power, some don’t. As long as we are able to agree to disagree we can all still live on this same rock as one another without conflict.

    FQ: Pierce liked abstract theories and thought they were relevant in our lives. T/F
    DQ: Do you believe there are people amongst us with no self conscious or internal life? Why or why not?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I tried to post from my phone this morning. That didn't work at all...
    Freud
    FQ: What was Freud/s career before he became a psychiatrist?
    DQ: Can you really know yourself? (I think you can)

    Sartre
    FQ: According to Sartre, we are condemned to be what?
    DQ: What would be your advice for the student who was trying to choose between caring for his mother and going off to join the French Resistance?

    ReplyDelete
  7. FQ: How is pragmatism used?
    DQ: Why do people use pragmatism?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.