THE BLANK SLATE:l THE MODERN DENIAL OF HUMAN NATURE (SOCIAL CLASS)

Thanks for your response. I haven't gotten so far into Pinker's article, but it's certainly been an interesting conversation.

Science (or "science") has its prophets, visionaries and ecstatics, just as religion does. What's most important in Huxley may not be the details of Darwinism, but the longing for total revolution, liberation, salvation, and one true answer. The young Hegel was like that as well.

You might appreciate Lewis Feuer's book "Ideology and the Ideologists." New philosophical systems or scientific discoveries -- whether Newton or Darwin or Hegel or pragmatism -- quickly become the focus of hopes for radical transformation. A generation later these ideas have come to be considered more conservative, and the radicals have moved on to others.

For ideological purposes it's not so much the content of the scientific or philosophical ideas that matters as their familiarity or novelty. That doesn't mean that the content of ideas doesn't matter. A Darwinian radicalism or conservatism will look different from a Lockean radicalism or conservatism or an Augustinian radicalism or conservatism, but propagandists can use the raw material of ideas to support the status quo or to overthrow it, and not care much about the moral implications of the ideas they employ.

If you look back to the 1940s you will find many liberals and leftists championing "new," "scientific" and "progressive" ideas that were supposed to remake the world on a rational and scientific basis: logical positivism, psychoanalysis, existentialism, the philosophy of linguistic analysis, modern art and architecture, Skinnerian behaviorism, progressive education.

Some of these ideas don't seem particularly radical today. Someone who's still plugging away at the hot new ideas of two generations ago looks distinctly old fashioned. Nor did such ideas necessarily fit together well. It was the novelty and reductiveness of the ideas and the radical single-mindedness, overweening confidence, and enthusiasm of their adherents that made these concepts look like a progressive bloc. Conservatives, by contrast stood by older Christian or Christian humanist ideas.

Today, many conservative writers are unsure about where to place Darwinism. Is evolution radical or conservative? Is Darwinism an anti-religious materialism or does it allow for God (or does God allow for Darwinism)? Does evolutionary theory subvert or sustain current conditions or those conditions that are beneficial to morality and human flourishing? Is Darwinism just science or is it an ideology? Does it make us all animals? Does it acquaint us with the limits of what is possible? Or does it make a transformation of humanity possible? And will that transformation by good or bad?

Much depends on what one takes "evolution" or "Darwinism" to be and how one frames the question. But one can find conservative writers coming down on opposite sides of these controversies. If you're interested, you can probably find a lot of articles on the subject here. Extreme Darwinism may be a conservative "H-Bomb" that destroys radical claims and aspirations, but also destroys much else that is valuable or necessary for life along with them.

Curiously, we've been here before. A century ago, evolution was very much a topic of controversy and debate. Conservative and radical Darwinians sparred with religious or humanist anti-Darwinians. It's commonplace in retrospect to make the "social Darwinists" into racists and "reactionaries." But there were many leftists who made use of Darwinian ideas -- Shaw, Wells, Jack London, John Dewey, Lester Ward -- and some radicals of a century were not above using concepts and language that would today be called "racist."

What's most important in Huxley may not be the details of Darwinism, but the longing for total revolution, liberation, salvation, and one true answer. The young Hegel was like that as well.

Thank you for your thoughtful post, x. What the ideologists have in common, it seems to me, is the total rejection of the classical concepts of human nature and human order – Hellenic and Judeo-Christian – and the radical transformation of the understanding of man that becomes urgent once God has “died.” For the classical concepts are premised on the “existence” of God. Even the great Greeks, by virtue of an amazing analytical speculation, “found” the One God of the Beyond. That is, they came to the conclusion, on the basis of reason, that there must be a God beyond the intramundane gods, the Olympians. And, unlike the Israelites and Christians, they drew this conclusion without the aid of direct divine self-revelation. They understood that the order of the cosmos depended on a Source that was not itself immanent in the space-time reality of the cosmos.

It hardly surprises me that the so-called death of God has had the effect of exposing man to the danger of extinction – figuratively and quite literally. You wrote:

“If you look back to the 1940s you will find many liberals and leftists championing ‘new,’ ‘scientific’ and ‘progressive’ ideas that were supposed to remake the world on a rational and scientific basis: logical positivism, psychoanalysis, existentialism, the philosophy of linguistic analysis, modern art and architecture, Skinnerian behaviorism, progressive education.”

Except for the reference to good ol’ B.F., this little list of “progressive” ideas was effectively realized in Weimar Germany. One might say that it constituted a transformation of the German national consciousness that ineluctibly led to the rise of Hitler who, we must never forget, was democratically elected. The rest, as they say, is history.

And I think you’re right in concluding that “It was the novelty and reductiveness of the ideas and the radical single-mindedness, overweening confidence, and enthusiasm of their adherents that made these concepts look like a progressive bloc.”

Yes. Certainly it was not Hitler’s brilliance as a thinker or scholar of culture and history that led to his rise to power. Once the German nation had become spiritually denuded – as a result of the doctrinalization of religious faith (i.e., faith understood as commitment to a text rather than as a commitment to live in relationship with God) and the rising belief that material science was the very means of human self-salvation – they became sitting ducks for the horrific depredations of the Nazis, as well as the Nazis' collaborators and/or codependents.

You ask: “Is Darwinism an anti-religious materialism or does it allow for God (or does God allow for Darwinism)? Does evolutionary theory subvert or sustain current conditions or those conditions that are beneficial to morality and human flourishing? Is Darwinism just science or is it an ideology? Does it make us all animals? Does it acquaint us with the limits of what is possible? Or does it make a transformation of humanity possible? And will that transformation be good or bad?”

Great questions all. I suspect the answers all depend, however, on (1) how one defines Darwinism and (2) the ideological commitments of the respondent. One thing does seem clear to me however: Darwinism is both materialist and phenomenalist in its concept of man, and leaves no place for spirituality – not one nook or cranny.

Now one can argue that man is just another purely phenomenal existent in nature, that he has zero spiritual extension. That is, there is no real qualitative difference between man and the animal species from which he putatively “descended.”

But then, the question for me becomes: If this is factually true, then why does man appear to be so deeply implicated in matters of the spirit that, once told that “God is dead,” he seemingly inevitably falls under the sway of the “progressive” ideologues and propagandists who propose to fill up the void God “left” with any old “bag of bones,” ersatz religion that promises human self-salvation and paradise on earth?

The devil knows the only attack he can make on man that has any chance of success is the spiritual attack.

You might appreciate some of the National Review articles that the link in my last post leads to, particularly McGinnis and the responses to his article. He's trying to make an evolutionary grounding for conservative values of family, property and tradition.

The problem with such a secure scientific-materialist grounding for one's beliefs is that one doesn't move on to ethical and religious ways of thinking. The likely result is a shallow and complacent amorality or a pure pragmatism of expediency. And if our nature is defined by our material make-up, the temptation to change our nature by reengineering our genes may prove too strong to overcome. I'm not sure that evolutionary psychology or Darwinism provides a way to say "no" to dangerous experimentation with our species.

And if our nature is defined by our material make-up, the temptation to change our nature by reengineering our genes may prove too strong to overcome. I'm not sure that evolutionary psychology or Darwinism provides a way to say "no" to dangerous experimentation with our species.

Well said, x. I share your concern. I'll go check out the McGinnis article.

Thanks for your hard work.

It inspired a thoughtful and provocative thread.

I'll try to contribute later.

We have evolved an emotional life in which we have a tendency to take an abiding interest in the welfare of our kin, because they share a substantial proportion of our genes.

Because? Does this mean that human beings did not take an abiding interest in their kin before the time the (selfish!) gene was discovered?

If this were so, then does it mean that the emotional life of human beings only evolved to the point of kin-inclusiveness just in the past several decades? I.e., parents didn't have a reason to love and care for their children before the gene was isolated?

I'm trying to follow McGinnis' line of reasoning here.... So far he sounds pretty "doctrinaire" to me, not to mention anhistoric.

Excellent. Thanks for sharing this.

So, what do you suppose this guy is really up to?

You've already noted the underlying materialist assumption of this whole discussion. In a Darwinian sense, this ends up giving us a situation in which the basic moral foundation is "whatever works." And, contrary to what the review, at least, implies, there is no particular reason that the utopian view cannot account for inherited differences -- if only as something to be actively extinguished.

If there's an elephant in the room in this review (I've not even seen the cover of the book, so I can't comment on it...), it's the apparent absence of Pink's having conducted any meaningful discussion of right and wrong. For example, we see discussion of the tragic and utopian views, but there doesn't seem to be anything for them to be tragic or utopian about.

(And, of course, one must also consider the ramifications of the idea that in Pink's conception, the "utopian view" would in some degree have to be inherited....)

IMHO, when you get right down to it, he's doing what a lot of other people do: he's either trying to justify the last 6 Commandments without having to invoke those pesky first four; or he's setting up an argument for some variation on the idea of might makes right.

Interesting insight, r9etb. Somehow I don't think of Pinker as being particularly concerned with moral issues. But your observation that he may be wanting to justify the last six Commandments by obscuring the first four makes sense to me. Here's The Catholic Encyclopedia's discussion of the Ten Commandments, just to fill in the details:

"The Supreme Law-Giver begins by proclaiming His Name and His Titles to the obedience of the creature man: "I am the Lord, thy God. . ." The laws which follow have regard to God and His representatives on earth (first four) and to our fellow-man (last six).

"Being the one true God, He alone is to be adored, and all rendering to creatures of the worship which belongs to Him falls under the ban of His displeasure; the making of "graven things" is condemned: not all pictures, images, and works of art, but such as are intended to be adored and served (First).

"Associated with God in the minds of men and representing Him, is His Holy Name, which by the Second Commandment is declared worthy of all veneration and respect and its profanation reprobated.

"And He claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy (Third).

Finally, parents being the natural providence of their offspring, invested with authority for their guidance and correction, and holding the place of God before them, the child is bidden to honour and respect them as His lawful representatives (Fourth).

"The precepts which follow are meant to protect man in his natural rights against the injustice of his fellows.

"His life is the object of the Fifth;

"the honour of his body as well as the source of life, of the Sixth;

"his lawful possessions, of the Seventh;

"his good name, of the Eighth;

"And in order to make him still more secure in the enjoyment of his rights, it is declared an offense against God to desire to wrong him, in his family rights by the Ninth;

"and in his property rights by the Tenth.

"This legislation expresses not only the Maker's positive will, but the voice of nature as well--the laws which govern our being and are written more or less clearly in every human heart. The necessity of the written law is explained by the obscuring of the unwritten in men's souls by sin. These Divine mandates are regarded as binding on every human creature, and their violation, with sufficient reflection and consent of the will, if the matter be grave, is considered a grievous or mortal offense against God. They have always been esteemed as the most precious rules of life and are the basis of all Christian legislation."

It seems clear to me that if God's law is not the ordering rule for men, then the "might makes right" scenario -- the rule by men -- is what you inevitably get. JMHO FWIW.

Thanks for writing, r9etb!

I always love seeing your posts, bb. You're so very thorough.

Somehow I don't think of Pinker as being particularly concerned with moral issues.

I think one reason is that it's extremely difficult to justify any particular moral stance from a purely materialistic perspective; the other reason is probably that Pink wasn't interested in writing about the moral implications of his conclusions in this book (it would probably treble its length).

Pink has rather fearlessly gone where angels fear to tread. It's reasonable to assume also that he's got some ideas of what's right and wrong. He cannot have failed to recognize the moral implications of his work.

So when you consider Pink's claims about the primacy of inherited behavior and intelligence, his apparent avoidance of the topics of race, class, culture, etc probably reflects something more than a bow to the "tenured radicals."

From a purely material perspective, Pink's conclusions provide what seems to be a very firm argument in favor of social Darwinism, with all that implies. Most people understand and reject the odious implications of Social Darwinism; however, arguments against it have to rely on something other than the empirical data that drives this analysis. In the end, it puts atheists such as Pink into the rather difficult position of having to argue from the utopian position he's just discredited.

The review notes that "an unfortunate void in this book is the failure to explore such matters" (of the difficulties associated with atheist beliefs). I have to think that this void is, in part, deliberate -- not simply because of the moral implications of atheist materialism, but also because it would require Pink to dance around the underlying assumption that there is no God.

It seems clear to me that if God's law is not the ordering rule for men, then the "might makes right" scenario -- the rule by men -- is what you inevitably get.

If I might offer a corollary: To an atheist, the concept of "unalienable rights" is inherently irrational.

Why do I persist in calling the guy "Pink?" I can read....

veil of ignorance

I always found Rawls deeply repulsive and this idea highly dangerous. It is the mentality of the Gnostic social engineer seeking to redesign mankind in their image of what is "perfect".

Rawls is attempting to use Western Man's sense of fairness and justice against him to destroy both fairness and justice. Our culture was based on the notion that equal opportunity was what each person should receive. The Rawls doctrine ultimately wants either equal results or inequalities that benefit the "least" among us.

Rawls doctrine becomes laughable if carried over to one other part of human life--having a mate. The Rawlsian just mating system, one presumes, means that beautiful women must be siezed by the state and held in captivity until the state planners determine the appropriate criteria by which they are to be awarded to lucky men. Perhaps, the Rawlsian might argue, marriage of such women to one man is not fair. Perhaps they should be given out by lottery for a month at a time or a week at a time.

This is the mentality we are dealing with....

In a just world, in a fair world, John Rawls would have been a garbage collector. He doled it out--and he should have been made to clean it up.

Rawls is attempting to use Western Man's sense of fairness and justice against him to destroy both fairness and justice.

Great point, cgbg! This seems to be standard operating procedure for the progressive activist.

I too liked Pinker's book.

Thanks for posting.

...when you consider Pink's claims about the primacy of inherited behavior and intelligence, his apparent avoidance of the topics of race, class, culture, etc probably reflects something more than a bow to the "tenured radicals."

Oh, just go ahead and call him "Pink" if you want to, r9etb! :^) (Hey, "if the shoe fits....")

WRT the above italics, I gather this is mainly an evasion of certain implications of his work. As you say, he probably doesn't relish being classed as a social Darwinist; but that's pretty much where his argument lands him. Given the primacy he accords to inheritence, some people are just naturally "more equal" than others.... I don't see any principle at work that justifies the inalienable rights of the "less equal." One might go to the extreme of saying that they're just taking up "Nature's space" and not contributing much of anything to the well-being of the species, but consuming scarce resources all the same....

You wrote: "He cannot have failed to recognize the moral implications of his work." Yes. I'm sure he sees the matter quite clearly. Perhaps he's just hoping that we won't notice the problem. I agree that "this void is, in part, deliberate -- not simply because of the moral implications of atheist materialism, but also because it would require Pink to dance around the underlying assumption that there is no God." Since he dropped God down the old rathole of personal and cultural memory in his first premise, I'm pretty sure he'd just like Him to stay there.... So it won't be "Pink" who "recalls" Him.

I think your "corollary" is spot on (IMHO): "To an atheist, the concept of 'unalienable rights' is inherently irrational."