Academic literature on the topic 'Darwinian philosophy'

Based on a review of different Darwinian paradigms, particularly sociobiology, this work, both, historically and philosophically, develops a metaphysic of gene-Darwinism and process-Darwinism, and then criticises and transcends these Darwinian paradigms in order to achieve a truly evolutionary theory of evolution. Part I introduces essential aspects of current sociobiology as the original challenge to this investigation. The claim of some sociobiologists that ethics should become biologized in a gene-egoistic way, is shown to be tied to certain biological views, which ethically lead to problematic results. In part II a historical investigation into sociobiology and Darwinism in general provides us, as historical epistemology', with a deeper understanding of the structure and background of these approaches. Gene-Darwinism, which presently dominates sociobiology and is linked to Dawkins' selfish gene view of evolution, is compared to Darwin's Darwinism and the evolutionary' synthesis and becomes defined more strictly. An account of the external history of Darwinism and its subparadigms shows how cultural intellectual presuppositions, like Malthusianism or the Newtonian concept of the unchangeable laws of nature, also influenced biological theory' construction. In part III universal 'process-Darwinism' is elaborated based on the historical interaction of Darwinism with non-biological subject areas. Building blocks for this are found in psychology, the theory of science and economics. Additionally, a metaphysical argument for the universality of process- Darwinism, linked to Hume's and Popper's problem of induction, is proposed. In part IV gene-Darwinism and process-Darwinism are criticised. Gene-Darwinism—despite its merits—is challenged as being one-sided in advocating 'gene-atomism', 'germ-line reductionism' and 'process-monism'. My alternative proposals develop and try to unify different criticisms often found. In respect of gene-atomism I advocate a many-level approach, opposing the necessary radical selfishness of single genes. I develop the concept of higher-level genes, propose a concept of systemic selection, which may stabilise group properties, without relying on permanent group selection and extend the applicability of a certain group selectionist model generally to small open groups. Proposals of mine linked to the critique of germ-line reductionism are: 'exformation', phenotypes as evolutionary factors and a field theoretic understanding of causa formalis (resembling Aristotelian hylemorphism). Finally the process-monism of gene-Darwinism, process-Darwinism and, if defined strictly, Darwinism in general is criticised. 1 argue that our ontology and ethics would be improved by replacing the Newtoman-Paleyian deist metaphor of an eternal and unchangeable law of nature, which lies at tire very heart of Darwinism, by a truly evolutionary understanding of evolution where new processes may gain a certain autonomy. All this results in a view that I call 'ecological idealism', which, although still very much based on Darwinism, clearly transcends a Darwinian world view.

The core aim of this interdisciplinary research is to provide a critical analysis of the influence of Darwinism and Social Darwinism on a sample of modern Chinese writings. To achieve these aims, the researcher uses a range of both Chinese and English sources to explore their close affinities with Darwinism and Social Darwinism. Following this course, the research examines how Darwinian thought was introduced to the Chinese reading public in the late nineteenth century through a translation of Thomas Henry Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics by Yen Fu, and the subsequent impact of this work and Darwinian thought in general on seven literary and political figures: K'ang Yu-wei, Liang Qichao, Lu Xun, Hu Shih, Chen Duxiu, Sun Yat-sen and Mao Zedong. From an historical perspective, the Opium Wars and imperial invasions of China in the nineteenth century severely weakened the country’s political, economic, diplomatic, military, educational and cultural power. For these reasons and others, from 1840 to 1949, China experienced a tumultuous period of social and political transformation, which has eventually led to her revival in the twenty-first century. It will be seen that each of the literary figures examined here used evolutionary thought to justify revolution at various points on China’s long march to modernity. Progressive Darwinian ideas sharply contrasted with the old Confucian values upheld within Chinese communities. Nevertheless, the faults and weaknesses of Qing China awakened many pioneering revolutionaries who sought to reverse the status quo by initiating a series of radical reforms and revolutionary movements. Many within the Chinese intellectual elite looked to the tide of change and progress coming from the West, which they hoped might replace the recent historical stagnation and Confucian dogma embedded in Chinese culture and society. In this vein, many of these pioneering revolutionaries set about driving the historical transformation of China by selecting, translating and interpreting Darwinian ideas in their own writings. From Yen Fu in the nineteenth century to Mao Zedong in the twentieth century, evolutionary thought went hand in hand with China’s modernization.

My aim is to challenge recent attempts at reconciling moral realism and naturalism by pushing ethical naturalists into a dilemma. According to one horn of the dilemma, ethical naturalists must either (a) build unique facts and properties about divergent social structures (or varying moral belief systems) into their subvenient sets of natural facts and properties, and so jeopardize the objectivity of moral truths, or (b) insist, in the face of all possible worlds in which people have different moral beliefs than ours, that they are all mistaken—this despite the fact that the belief-forming mechanism responsible for their moral beliefs was never concerned with the truth of those beliefs in the first place. This will bring me to suggest that moral properties might only weakly supervene upon natural phenomena. But, according to the other horn of the dilemma, weak supervenience is a defeater for moral knowledge.

La carrière intellectuelle d'Ernest Seillière de Laborde (1866-1955) s'étendit de l'affaire Dreyfus (son premier essai remarqué, une étude consacrée à Ferdinand Lassalle récompensée du prix Marcellin-Guérin de l'Académie française, parut en 1897) à la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (il fit son entrée sous la Coupole en 1946). Parce qu'il considérait que tout bon représentant de l'élite avait pour mission de guider l'ensemble de la civilisation sur la voie du progrès, ce polytechnicien de formation dédia sa vie à l'élaboration d'une doctrine. Sa philosophie de l'Impérialisme, appuyée sur une vision organiciste de la société et une conception disciplinaire de la religion, imprégnée de darwinisme, de nietzschéisme et de gobinisme, et marquée par la mode des sciences psychologiques ainsi que par certains courants de la pensée allemande de son temps, n'avait pour autre but que de permettre à une bourgeoisie déclinante de répondre de manière adaptée à la montée en puissance et aux revendications sociales et politiques des masses. Le Romantisme, d'abord perçu comme un facteur de dégénérescence, fut progressivement envisagé par Seillière comme le pourvoyeur d'une formidable énergie qu'il importait de canaliser dans un sens impérialiste utilitaire. Opposant un Romantisme allemand énergique et virile à un Romantisme français féminin et anémiant, le germaniste en vint à faire la promotion d'un Socialisme rationnel que lui-même et certains de ses commentateurs crurent identifier dans les différents régimes totalitaires qui se développèrent au cours de l'Entre-deux-guerres. Celui qui se présentait comme un historien-psychologue se garda de jouer les premiers rôles dans les grands débats qui agitèrent le monde intellectuel français de son temps. La pensée de cet auteur prolifique ne fut pas pour autant ignorée de ses contemporains, et fit même quelques émules aux sensibilités et trajectoires diverses, mais dont les pensées demeuraient animées par une même obsession du déclin<br>French thinker Ernest Seillière de Laborde (1866-1955) pursued a long career from the affaire Dreyfus (his first notable study dealing with Ferdinand Lassalle, rewarded by the prix Marcellin-Guérin of the Académie française, was published in 1897) to the end of the World War II (he entered the Académie française in 1946). The polytechnicien dedicated his entire life in developping a doctrine, claiming that an authentic member of the elite had to lead the whole civilization on the path to progress. His philosophy of Imperialism, based upon an organicist outlook of society and a constraining approach of religion, imbued with Darwinism, Nietzscheanism and Gobinism, and affected by a growing interest for psychological sciences and a number of contemporary german thinking movements, aimed to enable a decaying bourgeoisie to respond efficiently to the issu of the political rise and social demand of the masses. At first, Romanticism was seen by Seillière as a degeneration factor. But it was soon considered by the thinker as a provider of a great power that had to be controlled in an imperialistic utilitarian way. Drawing a comparison between a virile and dynamic Germanic Romanticism and a feminine and weakening French one, the Germanist promoted a rationalitic Socialism he and some of his commentators foresaw in the totalitarian regimes that emerged during the interwar period. He who described hisself as an historian-psychologist did not play the first part in the various intellectual debates of his time. However, the thought of this prolific writer was not ignored by his contemporaries, and raised interest within various thinkers obsessed with the idea of decline

L'objet de cette thèse est de réaliser une revue critique des principaux modèles Darwiniens de l'évolution culturelle, de montrer dans quelle mesure et de quelle façon l'évolution culturelle est analogue à l'évolution biologique et de proposer des instruments conceptuels et formels pour étudier l'évolution culturelle dans cette perspective. Trois ensembles théoriques distincts sont étudiés. La mémétique repose sur l'idée qu'il existe dans le domaine culturel un mécanisme psychologique équivalent à la réplication en biologie. Nous montrons que l'imitation n'est pas assez fidèle pour jouer pleinement ce rôle et donc que le modèle mémétique ne peut pas servir de base à une théorie générale des phénomènes culturels. La théorie de la coévolution gène-culture part de l'idée que la sélection est un facteur dominant de l'évolution et soutient qu'il existe plusieurs mécanismes psychologiques et forces propres au domaine culturel. Nous montrons que l'importance de la sélection est à relativiser et dépend d'autres forces. Dans une partie dédiée à l'étude de l'épidémiologie culturelle, nous défendons l'idée selon laquelle les mécanismes psychologiques tendent à être modulaires et à maximiser la pertinence. Ces deux propriétés font que les mécanismes psychologiques construisent les éléments culturels qu'ils transmettent. Le phénomène d'attraction, conséquence à l'échelle de la population de ces transformations successives, permet d'expliquer la stabilité et l'évolution des éléments culturels. Attraction et sélection sont les deux sources de la stabilité des éléments culturels. L'évolution culturelle est donc à penser dans un cadre Darwinien populationnel.