No soup for you!
Hello Patrick! Actually, the above italics do not accurately reflect my view of Charles Darwin. As a scientist, I don’t think he had any particular anti-transcendence ax to grind for the simple reason that he was not preoccupied with such matters. He was no philosopher; he was “just doing science.” The microevolution aspects of the theory seem sound to me, a non-scientist. But I never could develop as much confidence in the macroevolution aspects. The theory may yet be true, but for now it seems there are some yawning gaps in it that need explanation.
At bottom, the problem I have with Darwinist theory is the way in which it has been appropriated by other thinkers. I have in mind some of its early “boosters,” such as J. Huxley and E. Haeckel, who seemingly have inferred certain principles from the theory, chief among them that man is body only, soul being an illusion, a “ghost in the machine” (which statement reduces the body itself to a mechanism). It appears that Karl Marx was well aware of Darwin’s science by the time of Das Kapital, and it is evident that he shared the view of Huxley and Haeckel.
What Huxley, Haeckel, and Marx have in common is they are all radical materialists who utterly reject any possibility of transcendence in reality: random mutation + natural selection essentially boils down to its unstated initial premise, that “matter in all its motions is all that there is.” In more recent times, we have Jacques Monod’s analysis of Darwinian evolution as the expression of pure chance and necessity. And as you are well aware, the infamous Richard Dawkins uses the theory as a stick to beat Christians with. Two more radical materialists.
In short, Darwinist evolutionary theory has had some rather stunning social effects that Darwin himself most probably did not intend or anticipate. And manifestly, political effects, too.
I stand by my observation that Darwinist theory is the basis for Marx’s theories of man and history. For Darwin, it is the species that is significant; the individual has no real significance in itself beyond what it contributes to the gene pool of the species. Certainly this maxim extends to mankind. But if man is merely the unavoidable consequence of chance and necessity, and is ultimately subject to it, then there is no possibility left for there to be any meaning in history. History simply becomes the evolutionary process itself — which is blind.
It is not to be doubted that Marx’s theory of man likewise places no particular value on the individual — the mass of men, or the Massman (e.g., species), is the subject of its tender concern. Because the individual is not preeminent in Marxian theory, he may be sacrified as necessary if the well-being of the Mass demands it, for “the greater good of the whole.”
For Marx the senselessness of history is something that must be “ended” — by “ending” history itself — and a new beginning made, shaped to an eschatology of the perfect State which shall bring about a perfect human future. That is to say, that Marx (a kind of self-appointed “representative man of his age,” and would-be “savior” of mankind) will guide human action toward the perfect fulfillment of a Paradise in time, here on earth: “A system so perfect that no one will need to be good.” So it’s time for the “senselessness” of history to stop, and for socialist action finally to create a real pattern of meaning for history — which, by the way, really could not be intelligibly discerned at all until some unspecified future time. So history still remains “senseless” in this respect, from the view of the present.
For Marx, one particularly obnoxious example of the senselessness of history is the accretion of all ideas of human and natural transcendence, which he held to be utterly false. These, Marx teaches, must be eradicated so that man, “once cured of false consolations, may construct a perfect world.” Religion is the opiate of the masses; so the masses must be cured of this pestilential addiction: And so God must “die.”
And yet I find it highly ironic that Marxism:
“draws its passion, and its fascination, from the root of [biblical] prophetism, which promised a world the signs of whose coming had no rational index.” [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 1941, quoted in Aiden Nichols OP, The Thought of Benedict XVI, 2005, p. 156]In short, Marxism presents itself as an alternative religion suitable for rationalist, materialist, desacralized human beings. It certainly goes without saying that it is a “religious commitment” to which its followers are passionately devoted, usually to the point of irrationality. By comparison, Christianity is the model of self-consistent reason.
In the broadest sense, the entire complex of theoretical thought articulated by the thinkers mentioned above, what they all have in common, is participation in the post-Enlightenment intellectual/cultural ambience, with its emphasis on reason, materialism, positivism, and utilitarianism. Yet as Nichols points out,
“…the Enlightenment contained within itself the seeds of its own downfall. Enlightenment depends on a conviction of the ‘absoluteness’ or ‘divinity’ of truth. Should it call into question this pre-supposition of truth, it will end up by justifying the irrational, as has happened in the work of the philosopher-biologist Jacques Monod. Moreover, the more the Enlightenment movement advanced in history, the more it tended to whittle down the concept of reason which was its foundation. The rational becomes the reproducible (in a laboratory). Reason undergoes a positivist fall. People renounce the search for truth and replace it by concern with what can be done with things….For Darwin, apparently there is no “logos,” either. At least logos — reason, intelligence — does not show up in his work as in any way involved in the order of the natural world. But then we must realize that “logos” is non-phenomenal, non-random, immaterial, and “transcendent” — the very sort of thing that both Darwinist and Marxian materialist presuppositions forbid. We do need to recognize that “logos” on the one hand, and “random mutation + natural selection” according to “chance and necessity” on the other, are mutually irreconcilable concepts: They are totally “non-isomorphic.”“…Like positivism, Marxism rejects the primacy of logos. It sees reason as generated ‘dialectically’ by matter, [ergo] by the irrational, and must, therefore, regard truth as simply a human postulation.” [ibid., p. 256f]
Well, them be my thoughts this afternoon, for what they’re worth — my usual two-cents’ worth.
Just one last thing to mull over, if you have the time and interest:
“In the religious history of the species, God appears in a variety of cultures as the Watcher, the being full of eyes. ManThanks so much for writing, dear Patrick!“knows that absolute security does not exist, that his life is always exposed to the gaze of Someone, that his living is a being-seen. [ibid., p. 190f]
“But this sensation … can precipitate two contrary reactions. Either one can react negatively, angry at the existence of this Witness who threatens man’s unlimited capacity to will and act. Or one can respond positively, opening himself to love through his enveloping presence, finding in it the ‘confidence’ which allows him to live.”
Hi TX! I meant to ping #103 to you (just above). Thought you might find it of interest.
Yes, the whole world had heard of Darwin by that time. Marx was also, no doubt, aware of Robert E. Lee. But I see no hint in the work of Marx that he was intellectually influenced by Lee -- or Darwin.
As the chronology of Marx's work points out, his principal ideas were well formed before Darwin had published anything about evolution. Surely that is significant -- even conclusive -- regarding any claim of a connection between them. Further, there is no place in the work of Marx where he quotes Darwin as authority for any of his ideas. Marx and Darwin are two separate phenomena. We don't like Marx, or his work, and you don't like what some people have claimed to be the consequences of Darwin's work. But there is no literal tie-in between the two. None.
Additionally, there's that little matter of "to each according to his needs" that Marx preached, but that is contrary to the theory of evolution. Come on, BB, the basic concepts of communism and evolution are in flat-out conflict!
However, if you can show me where Marx relied on Darwin, I'll admit my error.
What Huxley, Haeckel, and Marx have in common is they are all radical materialists who utterly reject any possibility of transcendence in reality: random mutation + natural selection essentially boils down to its unstated initial premise, that “matter in all its motions is all that there is."
It seems that it is not only Darwinist theory that gets ‘appropriated’ by Marxist/Socialist “boosters.” Certain thoughts of our nation’s founders likewise have been ‘appropriated,’ most especially the thoughts of one Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson, it is alleged, was a ‘Deist’ if it could be said he harbored any genuinely religious beliefs at all. Perhaps so, but a most unusual ‘Deist’ he was, in that his ‘Deity’ was avowedly and specifically Jesus Christ, as various of his letters to various persons attest. This is no surprise, but what follows may be to some.
In the excerpts above you make mention of “matter in all its motions is all that there is” as being the “unstated initial premise” held in common by Marxists and many another radical materialist. These are familiar phrases oft mentioned both by you and by a certain young lady whose initials are A-G, but they were also familiar to me in another context. I was rather certain that sooner or later I would come, once again, upon that other context. Sure enough:
In a letter to John Adams, dated April 11, 1823, the aforementioned worthy, Thomas Jefferson, first expresses his vehement disagreement with Calvinist thought (Adams was a Calvinist) and then launches into a declaration of faith that could today only be identified as Creationist or of Intelligent Design! Quoting:
“On the contrary, I hold, (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses; it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms.”
“We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view; comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets, and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos.”
“So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent, that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a Creator, rather than in that of a self-existent universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable, than that of the few in the other hypothesis.”
I cannot attest that this is the specific letter which awakened in my mind echos of your phrases and descriptions. Very likely there are more letters. Jefferson wrote so many, and so many on the subject of religion; written often to his closest friends, but also to ministers who were simply interested in effecting an exchange of views.
So there it is, dear Betty. Make of it what you will.
PatrickHenry, concerning the influence of Darwin on Marxism you might be interested in these articles and bits of correspondence from this google search of the Marxist archives.
YHAOS, I do find the quote from Jefferson to be quite telling - he did not accept the notion that matter in all its motions is "all that there is".
At bottom, the problem I have with Darwinist theory is the way in which it has been appropriated by other thinkers.
I have seen this a lot today in particular. I am still trying to determine how a theory is used somehow invalidates it. I mean, muslim use guns, so does that make guns inherently bad? Jim Jones quoted the Bible -- does that invalidate the Bible?
What Huxley, Haeckel, and Marx have in common is they are all radical materialists who utterly reject any possibility of transcendence in reality: random mutation + natural selection essentially boils down to its unstated initial premise, that “matter in all its motions is all that there is.”
The instated premise is "matter (and energy) in all its motions is all we can observe." The "all there is" part is a theological conclusion, not a scientific one.
In short, Darwinist evolutionary theory has had some rather stunning social effects that Darwin himself most probably did not intend or anticipate. And manifestly, political effects, too
In this you are right, but so was the Magna Carta, Sun Tsu's The Art Of War, the publication of Newton's theories, Ptolomy's map, etc. etc. etc.
We do need to recognize that “logos” on the one hand, and “random mutation + natural selection” according to “chance and necessity” on the other, are mutually irreconcilable concepts: They are totally “non-isomorphic.”
This is not true (although it sounds great). The ability to reason and think can be seen as a very strong necessity to survive. You confuse higher thinking of today with the more slow process of "if I touch the fire I burn my hand" to "if I burn my hand I can use fire to burn other things" to "why does fire burn my hand?" But stepwise it went
Your elegant post implicitly brings up on point that is external to Evolution and Darwin: To what end?
This is applying the evolved logos to the existence of logos (i.e. self-awareness). A meta-question which defines Modern Man.
That, my dear, is a theological question, not a scientific one.