[MD] Social Darwinism

[david buchanan]

Krimel said:
Social Darwinism was based on a misreading of the theory of natural 
selection. Having an argument with one is not the same as having one with 
the other. Which are you having?

dmb says:
As I already mentioned, social darwinism pre-dates Darwin's famous book. In 
fact, Spencer was the one who coined the phrase, "survival of the fittest". 
The biological theory only lent scientific support to already existing 
Victorian social values.

Krimel said:
I don't know what Hofstadter was arguing but in the quote you cite saying he 
cited, James was not discussing the theory of natural selection. He is 
arguing against using it as a measure of betterness.

dmb says:
I think that James repeated use of the word "survival" makes it abundantly 
clear that he was knocking the idea of evolution as the "survival of the 
fittest". And Pragmatism itself is at least partly a rejection of the same 
notion. Are you saying that natural selection is somehow significantly 
different from the idea that the fittest are the ones that survive. Isn't 
fittness the basis on which the survivors are natually selected?

Krimel said:
Here is what James was arguing against: "Then as to Ethics: Clifford's great 
discovery is that what is objectively good, is distinguished from what is 
merely pleasant, is what conduces to the survival of the tribe. Loyalty to 
truth and all other virtues draw their nobility from being means to this 
effect."
-James, Collected Essays and Reviews, Clifford's Lectures (1879)

dmb says:
When James was Young he loved Spencer and Darwinism. As a kind of act of 
rebellion against his Swedenborgian father, he was pratically a positivist 
for a while. And you tend to quote from this part of his career to dispute 
what he said later in his career, which I tend toward. You do this as if 
James only ever had one changless opinion. That's goofy. Something like 30 
years passed between the quote above and his radical empiricism, for 
example. Shouldn't we suppose that James was very well aware of what he used 
to think and that he changed his mind for a reason? Shouldn't we both 
suppose that his later work is more mature and refined than his early work? 
And don't you think your reading of James has been influenced by the more 
natualistic and behaviorist schools of psychology? Don't you think that such 
readings are almost always going to focus on his immature early stuff? It 
looks that way to me.

Krimel said:
As I said I respect Hofstadter and I have never been a fan of social 
Darwinism. But I really don't trust you to interpret either accurately.

dmb says:
Why the distrust? I understand that you don't agree, but its pretty much 
impossible to discern the basis. I need some actual thoughts here, not just 
attitude. This is the emptiness complaint again.

dmb had said:
[Hofstadter] ...quotes a lecture wherein James doing a parody of Spencer. 
"Evolution is a change from a nohowish untalkaboutable all-alikeness to a 
somehowish and in generral talkaboutable not-all-alikeness by continuous 
sticktogetherations and somethingelseifications." ...Immediately following 
that line, Hofstadter says, "It seems clear that James's objection to 
Spencer arose partly because James was in search of a philosophy that would 
acknowledge active human effort in the bettering of life."

Krimel replied:
Yeah this one was fun. As it turns out James did not say that. It is a quote 
from a Professor Tait. 
http://evolvethought.blogspot.com/2005/01/spencer-and-critics.html I found 
two other notes confirming this if you are curious. And just when I was 
getting all gooey over Hofstadter.

dmb says:
I took a look at the blog you reference here and found the quote in 
question, but it is attributed to a Mr. Kirkwood and was subsequently 
reported by Tait. Apparently the quip has been widely attributed to James, 
probably because it sounds like James and it puts the quote on famous lips. 
But this is all just trivia.

Krimel said:
The book you are citing is about social Darwinism not natural selection. 
Your failure to see the difference underscores my point.

dmb says:
I know what the book is about. Anyone can see that it's not a biology text. 
The title really gives it away; "Social Darwinism in American Thought". And 
the central idea of the criticism is that social darwinism seeks to explain 
society by way of a biological mechanism so that the central idea of this 
criticism is that social darwinism confuses natural selection with 
non-biological evolution. I mean, the criticism is centered on their 
conflation of the two. I mean, I'm not confusing social and biological 
forces but rather complaining that social darwinism does and that you do 
too. So how does this underscore your point and, more importantly, what is 
your point? You really need to be more specific.

Who is confused about what here? (That's a rhetorical question.)

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Catch suspicious messages before you open them—with Windows Live Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_protection_0507