Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p4

Darwin didn't dispose of the idea of two sexes, nor did he blur the line between species in general. His theory blurred the line between man and nature - taking humans from their place as special creations of God and firmly placing them in the natural world. — Harry Hindu

Good point. The argument between Conservatives (religious & political) and Progressives seems to be about the scientific deconstruction of what one side views as a proper & fitting Natural Hierarchy, not just of sexes, but of species and various other demarcations of reasonable categories. The conservative side seems to prefer simple authoritative distinctions (special creation), while progressives prefer some leeway to interpret those classifications as they see fit. That may be why, as I said in the OP, my brief online review turned-up far more objections to the concept of continual evolution from a conservative perspective.

[note : I'm neither conservative nor liberal, but a bit of both. So, I'm trying to see where & why extremists draw their true/false, good/bad lines.]

This is just wrong. — Harry Hindu

Of course, that evaluation depends on your personal perspective. Right & Wrong are human moralistic categories. The moral authority of Nature is a rhetorical tactic labeled by philosophers as the Naturalistic Fallacy. And it is opposed to the Super-naturalistic Fallacy of monotheism. Nature-in-general is amoral, but Natural Selection seems to have an agenda of some kind. Pros and Cons can argue endlessly about what that the selective criteria might be : local adaptive efficiency or a teleological purpose, etc.

Under this scenario, we wouldn’t expect to see species falling into a nested hierarchy of forms that is recognized by all biologists. — Jerry Coyne - Why Evolution is True

Ironically, that's exactly why anti-evolutionists look to a divine creator to explain such rational (as opposed to random) organization.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p4

I'm still reading the book by David Berlinsky, Human Nature, so I've come to realize that he's not primarily concerned with most of the sex/gender topics discussed in this thread. Instead, he wrote a series of essays criticizing the implicit worldviews of several prominent writers on Scientific/Progressive interpretations of Human Nature in past and future history. The list includes Steven Pinker, Yuval Hariri, and Noam Chomsky, among others.

For example, his first direct attack is on Pinker's, The Better Angels of Our Nature, which found historical evidence that human-on-human violence has declined since the Enlightenment Era, when humans began to rely more on human Reason than super-human Revelation to establish moral boundaries. Both writers are secular Jews, but one is a social scientist, and the other a philosopher/mathematician. Yet, Berlinski ridicules Pinker's copious research and his interpretation of statistical trends. Pinker's reading of the numerical tea leaves is optimistic, in the sense that evolution is heading in a positive direction, while Berlinski's translation of the arcane numbers is just the opposite : "Things could not be getting better, gentler, or kinder, because they are not changing at all." That seems to assume the doctrine of Original Sin. which is ironic for a secular Jew.

Berlinski's negative bias also seems to be the opinion of religious Fundamentalists, who are expecting the imminent annihilation of a sinful world. In other words, the world started at the apex of perfection, and has gone downhill from there. By contrast, Pinker and his lot see the slope going uphill, from vicious amoral ancestors toward a better breed (maybe even AI or robots) that have learned from their mistakes. So one writer views Human Nature as inherently bad and worthy of global genocide, while the other sees innate imperfections, but also potential for improvement via Reason rather than by destruction of this failed experiment, and a do-over in a New World.

Humans can't seem to agree on Human Nature : are we essentially Bad, or essentially Good, or a bit of both? My wishy-washy worldview (BothAnd) agrees with the latter. Nobody is forced by human nature to "break bad", nor to sprout wings of angels. Instead, we are like pioneers blazing a trail into the wilderness, and making life-or-death choices without knowing what paradise or desert lies over the next mountain. But are our choices made freely, or by destiny?

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p4

Do you like Berlinski's book? How good are his criticisms of Chomsky, Pinker and the rest? — Walter B

I'm reading the book, Human Nature, in order to get a different perspective on Essentialism from the usual Darwinian concept of continuous evolution, and emerging species. Berlinski is an academic intellectual, and a secular Jew, not a religious fundamentalist --- even though he works with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Protestant think tank known for its publishing of Intelligent Design arguments. He supports his critiques with long strings of mathematical logical symbolism, and technical language not appropriate for general audiences.

Berlinski claims that he does not support the theory of Intelligent Design. But he is famous for attacking the theory of random Evolution (which I also have a problem with). Specifically, in this book he attacks, not specifically atheists, but anyone who is optimistic about positive human evolution. He seems to accept the Genesis notion of "fixed kinds", although he apparently does not accept its divine authority. In general, Berlinski has no use for religion, but he seems to be a contrarian by nature. So he objects to the tone of certainty in the writings of evolutionists -- but not to the Bible-bias of Intelligent Design proponents.

His criticisms of evolutionary optimists are very detailed, but mostly boil down to "I see no evidence to support the notion of evolutionary progress". As a writer on arcane mathematical topics, he feels confident that his negative interpretation of Pinker's statistical evidence is rational & scientific, while Pinker's optimism is emotional and pseudo-scientific --- based on a prior commitment to an atheistic Darwinian worldview. I'm not a strict atheistic Darwinist, but I'm also not a theistic Intelligent Design defender. Instead, I have developed my own worldview that is somewhere in the Aristotelian mean between extreme positions. So, I enjoyed reading Berlinski's exposition of one extreme view, but my cautiously optimistic position is closer to that of Pinker.

[Gnomon]

Genetic arguments for human nature are philosophically neutral in regards to categories in the relevant philosophical sense. — Walter B

Apparently, Berlinski believes that mainstream biologists are biased in favor of atheistic interpretations of the genetic evidence. Hence, not to be trusted. But, since he claims to be a non-theist, it's hard to see how he arrives at his non-Darwinian rendition, which he supports mostly by criticizing the opposition.

I personally, have a non-theist, non-accidental understanding of biological evolution, but it's not the neither fish-nor-fowl [neither-theist-nor-atheist] view of Berlinski. It's based on the positive evidence of progressive enformation.


Enformation : noun - The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.

[Gnomon]

Individual essence is also problematic, because again - it would entail there being a set of necessary and sufficient properties for being that individual. There is no such set.[/i] — Relativist

If you are talking about the "essence" of a human person in the sense of a distinctive Self or Soul, I suspect that Berlinski would disagree. But since he didn't attempt to define his own notion of Essence in philosophical terms, I can only guess what his position is from his troll-like put-downs of Darwinists, rather than positive assertions. That's my main disappointment with the book. I was looking for an intuitive understanding of where he would draw the line between one essence and another, not a mathematical exposition.*1

For example, he discusses Quantitative mathematical Set Theory to define what's wrong with the Qualitative biological Species theory, and the annoying "politically-correct" rainbow gender categories of LGBTQ. His counter-argument was so technical that I failed to follow the implications. I suppose he would describe his two-value gender range as "scientific", and dismiss multi-value Queer categories as political Neo-Marxism, rather than democratic fairness.

I could better follow his oblique references to Venn diagrams, but again he seems to limit the real-world options to Either/Or; ignoring the human tendency to make finer-grained distinctions based on both rational analysis, and personal feelings. Where would Ockham draw the line?


CONFUSING GENDER DIAGRAMS, after science and politics got involved


SIMPLE TRADITIONAL GENDER CATEGORIES, back in the golden age


*1 Berlinski sometimes seems to be more interested in demonstrating his genius than in communicating to a general audience. For example, he adds some short addendum chapters entirely in foreign languages. And seems to think the fact that he lives in Paris makes him a more genuine intellectual than his American roots would indicate.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p4

Philosophically, a lot of the problems arise from the rejection of formal and final causality at the beginning of early modern science, and the attribution of active agency to matter. There’s your materialist program in a nutshell. — Wayfarer

Yes. Years ago I intuitively realized that the evolving world seemed to be directed by some kind of "active agency", rather than by random accidents. Yet the biblical myth of creation was a bit too naive & archaic to reconcile with modern knowledge. However, materialistic Science has no answer to philosophical Qualia questions. So I looked to the notions of Formal & Final Causality to fill-in the blanks.

Since I had long ago lost faith in biblical inerrancy, I have pieced together a modern Evolution Myth of my own, based on our current knowledge of the central causal role of Physical/Meta-physical Information in the world. Enformationism is a consilience of ancient Intuition and modern Science, of both Physics and Metaphysics, of both Creation and Evolution. That BothAnd philosophy is guaranteed to offend extremists on both sides of the Science vs Religion divide.


Active Agency : EnFormAction --- http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... sentialism

Berllinksi is allied with (actually a senior fellow of) the Discovery Institute which is the central ID organisation in the states so his disavowal of ID seems disingenuous. — Wayfarer

As I said before, Berlinski seems to be a contrarian by nature --- it's the essence of his personality. In the book, he describes his younger self as a "high-school bully" --- probably because he was smarter than the other kids. In an interview by Evolution News --- a Discovery Institute publication --- he was challenged to share his "hunches and suspicions about spiritual reality". His response was "No. Either I cannot, or I will not." So I suppose, as a teacher of Logic, he is confused or agnostic about such non-logical multi-valued issues.

I also assume that his reasons for criticizing of materialistic evolution theory is similar to mine : no place for Qualia. But, I don't know for sure, because he never articulated his view beyond accusing evo proponents of being "corrupted by a partisan, a political agenda, and so do not count as truths at all". Apparently acceptance or rejection of the concept of progressive evolution is "a matter mostly of taste." But that's not the kind of analysis of Essentialism I was looking for. So, my search continues.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... sentialism

Not science, politics. I already showed that science proves that two genders are the biological realities. — Harry Hindu

Biological science does indeed assume two fundamental genders. But it also has found genes that don't fit neatly into the simple binary assumption. Besides, Social science has documented a wide range of cultural attitudes toward gender roles. And the science of Ethology has found that the boundaries of animal gender roles are flexible. Moreover, academic Ethical studies of animal behavior have applied human political values to non-humans, with the usual room for savage debates.

For most practical purposes, I assume that the human essence is either male or female. But when politics and human rights get involved, I must be more flexible to be fair. Is TV host/hostess Ellen male or female? I can only say that she/he is whatever she/he says she/he is. Whew! Political correctness is confusing for us simple-minded folks.

Male or Female? : http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/male-or-female

Scientific Study of Animal Behavior : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology

Ethical Animal Studies :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_studies

[Gnomon]

the reasons that they aren't what they say they are is their morphology and the behaviors that go along with that morphology, then why do we make an exception for one's sex? — Harry Hindu

I assume we make an exception to the rule of binary genders for people like Ellen, because we realize they are not talking about objective morphology, but about subjective emotions and psychological self-image. When Americans see an Asian looking person, they may assume their religion is Buddhism. But that's simply an example of racial/cultural ignorance and prejudice, because religious beliefs are not limited by physical morphology. Likewise, gender identity is a belief, not a physical fact.

If I meet a person who claims to be a Martian Priestess of Barsoom, the PC thing to do would be to welcome the priestess to our little pale blue dot, without criticizing her idiotic illusion. But, if we get into a philosophical discussion of Barsoomian theology --- which involves a trinity of genders --- a frank, but respectful, critique might be appropriate.

[Gnomon]

But that's not the kind of analysis of Essentialism I was looking for. So, my search continues.

— Gnomon

Most philosophical and religious traditions assume that each human individual has a unique essence (a Soul) that defines him and distinguishes him from other humans and animals. Opinions on the exact nature of that essence are various though. For example, the Buddha referred to the notion of "I" and "me" as an illusion. He didn't deny that we have a self-image, only that it is an actual thing. Instead, it is a personal & cultural belief, an image of something immaterial, that in Western traditions is envisioned as some eternal unchanging invisible substance like a ghost made of supernatural ectoplasm.

For the Buddha to call the Self-image an "illusion", was merely to disparage its role in human suffering. But in Evolution, the emergence of a self-image also gave humans the power to change their environment to suit their personal desires. The Soul represents me as an agent with power over nature, like a little god. But, as the Buddha observed pessimistically, that power is a two-edged sword. If we desire to be warm in winter, we can make fire to ward-off the suffering of cold weather. But that same useful tool can cause the suffering of too much heat, if it gets out of control. Nevertheless, it's a two-sided coin that can be biased by optimism to land on the bright side of desires fulfilled, thereby allowing us to persevere despite setbacks.

I doubt that anyone can deny that humans, and some animals, have a self-image. As demonstrated by Descartes, my reasoning Self is the only thing I know for sure. But, is it a will'o'wisp of fleeting imagination, or something more durable that can survive death? Is the Soul a gift of God, or of Evolution? Is it a spark of divinity, or merely a tool for genetic survival? These are some of the Essential questions that I was looking for insight on.