big thoughts here
Darwinianism as scientific construct has a prooven record of results. As philosophical insight into science itself it has been a balefull distraction: Matter evolves; Mind develops.
But lets stipulate that God is teaching and grading a class on Darwin, who gets a higher grade?
Larry perhaps, one would assume. Is God grading on an actual truth basis or on a correspondence theory with inside knowledge of how Darwin understood himself? (he is omniscient correct?…God! Seriously you people!)
That is I am not sure Darwin himself is fully Darwinian. Not denying that patent medicine and advances in bio-chemistry have proven results. I am somewhat doubtful that the individualism of medicine however isn’t a political construct(the FDA does the grading) that is economic in nature, that is decisions to hire or fire researchers and to give out grants, and maybe even the entire network of laws revolving around who pays what for medicine (patent law itself maybe). Can a company make enough on certain drugs to afford research into special drugs more narrowly tailored to groups of people with niche conditions? I for one have no clear and distinct impression of what Darwinianism is, but I don’t mock Ambassador Huntsman’s devotion to funding hospitals and cancer research centers. That doesn’t actually make Huntsman a Darwinian either…just a billionaire angel investor of sorts, the Darwianism is delegated via the division of labor to experts in cellular mutation evolution.
For fun we could toss one of these experts in the development of patent/cancer medicine into the class with Lawler and Arnhart. As another commentator who “believes” in experts noted a strange result might occur if God is grading pure correspondence with Darwin’s own insights. Lawler could theoretically get a higher grade than the narrow expert, and yet not be in possession of any narrow mechanical knowledge which has given rise to actual medicine.
Even with God, there could theoretically be a “bubble” in education…and this is a Heglian insight stemming from the notion that even with good faith man tells the truth he knows, not the truth he does not.
If God is grading on a Phosita basis(the legal patent standard) for developments in the field of evolution of a particular type of cancer my hypothetical loses steam, but then this isn’t Darwin, it is literally Progressivism pace Article I Section 8, clause 8, the evolution of a body of knowledge made possible in part (in a butterfly wing type way) by a courageous administrator William Thorton who stood between the bullets and gave the English a stern talking too about progress, when they sought to burn the patent office. (If you think it might have been rebuilt you underestimate the deficit hawks of the time)…albeit Jefferson himself donated/sold to restock copyright/library of congress. D.C. was rebuilt, progressivism restored and Washington marched on as the Federalists effectively converted Monroe+Calhoun “The First RINO”…except for Jefferson, but such a theory while accurate makes RINO’s of all Republicans, and puts/brings the epistemic/historical standard into question.)
And yet Existentialism arises out of the Heglian insight of imperfect objectivity, or imperfect correspondence…that is in this case imperfect actual possession of Darwinian insight, something always possible. I don’t have actual possession of Darwin, Hegel or Satre…and actually have grades confirming a middling property interest in them. So I don’t see how the accurate view isn’t that I simply walk along in a way that could be imperfectly construed as both existentialist and Darwinian.
In addition how do you know that Larry isn’t Lockeian…in so far as his actual capacity is more directed towards activities involving justifying a political doctrine, than actual research in medicine/biology one could argue that Locke himself for his time was more directly involved in Medicine(Darwinianism as a scientific construct with proven results). Locke was a Darwinian pre-cursor…and his essay concerning education was really highly progressive medical advice, complete with Opium tincture dossing. If Larry is really argueing that Darwin has something to say about traditional family values, then in effect he is following Locke’s Some Thought’s Concerning Education. No one in America really doubts that Doctor’s are pillars of the community…even Ron Paul and Howard Dean, so medical knowledge/expertise can cut a broad ideological(or at least political party) swath.
I only jest in part because arguing that Larry is Lockeian and not Darwinian isn’t far from the game of argueing that Jefferson or Monroe were not “Republican”. Could the “brand” or label withstand presidential level strict scrutiny? (because there is no difference between Locke or Darwin on rational basis?)
That is if you want to be a cherry(reading material) picking Historian couldn’t you teach Locke as Darwin and Darwin as “reasonableness of Christianity” Locke(he was concerned about the social impact of his theories)?
Mail (will not be published) (required)