[MD] Social level for humans only

[david buchanan]

Krimel said:
Odd, it seems arrogant to me to assume that much of anything about us is radically different than what we see in other species. We are a product of natural selection and the same rules apply to us as to every other species. Comparing our social manifestations to that of other species, looking at how they arise from similar conditions and serve similar functions seems, what the word I am looking for... natural. On the other hand assuming that we are unique seems to me, what's that other word... supernatural.


dmb says:

The line between the social and biological is as supernatural and as the line between biological and inorganic. To say human society is no different than an ant colony or a pack of wolves is to reduce one level of reality to the simpler one from which it emerged. Before you jump to conclusions, this is not to say that there are no similarities or that we can't learn anything from them. I'm just saying that explaining social behavior in terms of its biological antecedents distorts the social behavior in question. It would be like explaining biological reproduction in the terms of physics or chemistry. Physics can illuminate biology but the fact is they play by different rules. Obviously, Pirsig did not invent this distinction. The MOQ's levels add a little something to distinctions that are otherwise already widely recognized and employed, even in the way we distinguish between scientific disciplines. Pirsig only adds to this by saying that the levels do not simply grow from simple to complex but rather they actually oppose each other in some way. There is a qualitative difference, he says, such their differences can actually create conflict. It's an evolutionary explanation of moral struggle. Among other things, it's supposed to show what's underneath our notions of good and evil, progress and decline, growth and decay. It's supposed to show how we can be amateur philosophers and features of the food chain at the same time - and what the differences are. 

Plato was operating within the rules of physics and was a member of the food chain. But if you say he was JUST a feature of the biosphere, you have definitely left some important things out of your explanation. That's the problem with reductionism. It reduces the object of inquiry to something else and so effectively eliminates the subject matter in question.