Dawkins introduces the idea that evolution does not always occur genetically. Our culture is transmitted through “memes” at a faster rate than genetic evolution. These memes are embodiments of human culture— fragments of our thoughts and practices that gather together to form more complex ideas. This is much like our own development in that we are composed of many genes sequences that form a complex being. Dawkins goes on to demonstrate that natural selection and survival of the fittest applies perfectly to memes. Memes that cannot reproduce will die out, while others adapt to become cherished human institutions.
I found these ideas to be a fascinating look at the evolution of human culture. The theory of memes places abstract cultural ideas into scientific terms that can be more easily studied. The thought occurred to me that memes must evolve at a faster rate because they do not require sexual reproduction. They can reproduce many times in a single person’s lifespan. This gives them a more accessible power than genetic evolution, which we can only witness in our children. This idea also explains the evolution of ideas which cannot be genetically inherited, such as celibacy. The theory of memes places abstract cultural ideas into scientific terms that can be more easily studied. The thought occurred to me that memes must evolve at a faster rate because they do not require sexual reproduction. They can reproduce many times in a single person’s lifespan. This gives them a more accessible power than genetic evolution, which we can only witness in our children. This idea also explains the evolution of ideas which cannot be genetically inherited, such as celibacy.
The “self-perpetuating” meme operates on the greatest reproductive success, i.e. survival of the fittest. This brings to mind Fukuyama’s lecture from earlier in the semester when he mentioned the death of religious diversity. The loss of small religious sects could be the death of memes that could not compete and therefore did not reproduce. We can see “genetic” variation in memes when Roman Catholicism developed protestant offshoots. Then, reproductively unfit memes (Puritanism) were “selected” out. The development of indoctrination techniques were a means of coping with the environment, creating further reproductive success.
Memes can be used as a means of control in human culture. The goal of an advertiser is to give birth to a meme that will become self replicating. The idea will gain momentum, and the public will be swayed into buying a product because the meme has permeated their culture. Another example is Dawkins illustration of blind faith. Blind faith is self perpetuating because we are told that it is better to believe without questioning. We must ask ourselves, what is this meme’s means of survival? Is it harmful to trust this meme simply because it has culturally acceptable? We must be careful when addressing the memes that come to us on a daily basis. The self-perpetuating quality of memes makes them seem appealing, but we must learn to question what is considered socially correct.
The concept of memes reinforces the idea that “all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities.” The replication of memes is but one aspect of the natural selection that occurs in every aspect of life on this planet. Dawkins thorough presentation of his theory was extremely convincing and provided me with an innovative means of analyzing human culture.
Mentally Diseased?
The phrase “fundamentalism is a mental disease” suggests that Intelligent Design supporters must be lacking in intelligence. I seriously doubt that a person’s religious upbringing damages their actual mental capacity. The current wave of support for intelligent design in the classroom comes from ignorance and a lack of education, both of which are easily correctible with the proper education.
By understanding the scientific method, it is easy to see that science neither proves nor disproves religion— the two are in completely different spheres of thought. While science operates on observation and repeatability, religion is based on the premise of faith. Because intelligent design attributes aspects of evolution to an abstract “intelligent designer,” it is incapable of observation. Once the scientific method is understood, it is stringently clear that one cannot cop out of observable data when forming a theory.
Many people are raised with the idea that evolution is in direct conflict with religion. Without being taught otherwise, their beliefs are reinforced by peers and leaders in their community. Even our own president does not understand that the “methods” of intelligent design are false. These people are not mentally damaged, but are a sad product of an ignorant society. By focusing education on the scientific method as the basis for all science, more people may be able to see the incompatibility between ID and evolution.
I feel that the video spent too much time condemning instead of teaching. Instead of attacking ID proponents, perhaps the issue of education should be addressed. When the facts are laid out, it is practically impossible to accept that ID belongs in the realm of science. However, it is very difficult to overcome a lifetime of false information. This does not mean that ID proponents are incapable of thought, but that they must overcome the restraints of society and open up to new ideas.
By understanding the scientific method, it is easy to see that science neither proves nor disproves religion— the two are in completely different spheres of thought. While science operates on observation and repeatability, religion is based on the premise of faith. Because intelligent design attributes aspects of evolution to an abstract “intelligent designer,” it is incapable of observation. Once the scientific method is understood, it is stringently clear that one cannot cop out of observable data when forming a theory.
Many people are raised with the idea that evolution is in direct conflict with religion. Without being taught otherwise, their beliefs are reinforced by peers and leaders in their community. Even our own president does not understand that the “methods” of intelligent design are false. These people are not mentally damaged, but are a sad product of an ignorant society. By focusing education on the scientific method as the basis for all science, more people may be able to see the incompatibility between ID and evolution.
I feel that the video spent too much time condemning instead of teaching. Instead of attacking ID proponents, perhaps the issue of education should be addressed. When the facts are laid out, it is practically impossible to accept that ID belongs in the realm of science. However, it is very difficult to overcome a lifetime of false information. This does not mean that ID proponents are incapable of thought, but that they must overcome the restraints of society and open up to new ideas.
Dawkins: Queerer than we Suppose
Richard Dawkins suggests that our brains are have not evolved to process the true queerness of the universe. Natural selection has developed our brains to model the world for our survival, not for the pursuit of space travel or pondering the origins of life. Because we have evolved to survive in “middle world,” we are cannot trust our common sense when it comes to explanations of the universe. Because of our inadequacies in understanding the true strangeness of our surroundings, the universe is “queerer than we suppose.”
Dawkins view is contrasted with Wilson’s conjecture that we are capable of knowing everything in the universe. Even a human being’s life can be predetermined through the gathering of genetic and social data. The fact that the human brain can evolve makes us capable of knowing and breaking all data down. When we reach the level of synthesis, we can move forward to even greater breakthroughs in science.
In my opinion, both Dawkins and Wilson have some truth to their arguments. Like Dawkins, my view is that blind faith is an excuse for belief without evidence. I do not suppose that anything my brain cannot grasp must have a mystical reason simply because I do not understand it. Therefore, as Wilson explained, everything in the universe must have an explanation and can be broken down.
The question remains as to whether we, as human beings, will ever have the capability of explaining everything scientifically. In this view, I stand by Dawkins— our physical limitations prevent us from possibly knowing everything. When we are able to overcome our intellectual limits and understand the true order of the universe, we will have evolved beyond what we know as human. Even so, the vastness of the universe will leave some knowledge forever untouched, generating the evolving melody that haunts Wilson in his search for knowledge.
Dawkins view is contrasted with Wilson’s conjecture that we are capable of knowing everything in the universe. Even a human being’s life can be predetermined through the gathering of genetic and social data. The fact that the human brain can evolve makes us capable of knowing and breaking all data down. When we reach the level of synthesis, we can move forward to even greater breakthroughs in science.
In my opinion, both Dawkins and Wilson have some truth to their arguments. Like Dawkins, my view is that blind faith is an excuse for belief without evidence. I do not suppose that anything my brain cannot grasp must have a mystical reason simply because I do not understand it. Therefore, as Wilson explained, everything in the universe must have an explanation and can be broken down.
The question remains as to whether we, as human beings, will ever have the capability of explaining everything scientifically. In this view, I stand by Dawkins— our physical limitations prevent us from possibly knowing everything. When we are able to overcome our intellectual limits and understand the true order of the universe, we will have evolved beyond what we know as human. Even so, the vastness of the universe will leave some knowledge forever untouched, generating the evolving melody that haunts Wilson in his search for knowledge.
Physics and Philosophy: Lecture Response
I found it interesting that each Philosopher attempted to give universality to the cosmos in a different way, though they were all scientists. While Owen Gingerich does this through a religious “sophistication” of the universe, Stephen Wolfram finds meaning through mathematical patterns that are present in nature. Lisa Randall, like Gingerich, theorizes about multi-verses, but does so through a purely scientific viewpoint. However, these physicists/philosophers have the common goal of finding a unified theory for our universe.
Though Owen Gingerich attempted to apply theology to physics, he failed in providing any evidence beyond speculation. The idea that the universe MUST have a designer because of a gut reaction that he has would not bode well in the scientific world. He then states that scientists are uneasy about multi-verses, because Christians have already been there. Speaking down to scientists in this manner does not provide his argument any credibility. What proof does Gingerich provide that Christians communicate with other universes, other than hearsay? The fact is, science is based upon empirical, measurable evidence. Though Gingerich attempts to connect physics with theology, he fails in providing the necessary aspects that would make his theory scientific.
Though I am not well read in the evidence for Lisa Randall’s theories, she does not seem to make the leap from hypothesis to fact. It seems that she, like Gingerich, is proposing something that is based on a gut feeling. I found her example of the sphere entering the 2-D world compelling, but her statement that we still need breakthroughs and theoretical input from others admits that she lacks real evidence for her theory. This places her in the realm of philosopher rather than scientist. Her theories are interesting, but they lack the extra strength of scientific proof.
Wolfram, on the other hand, presents his theory in a mathematical and logical manner. By starting with very small patterns, he demonstrates on a very small scale a logical pattern in our universe. These patterns are easily observable in many plants and animals, such as the mollusk. As the patterns increase in complexity and have an array of influence by the environment, it becomes evident where the complexity of life stems from. In this manner, he finds a universal formula for the universe from a simple rule.
Providing scientific proof for philosophy serves to strengthen ideas beyond the level of mere theory. We must be careful, however, not to take ideas for truth simply because they are scientific in name only. It is perfectly okay to theorize, but falsely applying physics to philosophy can be dangerous toward those who lack a critical eye.
Though Owen Gingerich attempted to apply theology to physics, he failed in providing any evidence beyond speculation. The idea that the universe MUST have a designer because of a gut reaction that he has would not bode well in the scientific world. He then states that scientists are uneasy about multi-verses, because Christians have already been there. Speaking down to scientists in this manner does not provide his argument any credibility. What proof does Gingerich provide that Christians communicate with other universes, other than hearsay? The fact is, science is based upon empirical, measurable evidence. Though Gingerich attempts to connect physics with theology, he fails in providing the necessary aspects that would make his theory scientific.
Though I am not well read in the evidence for Lisa Randall’s theories, she does not seem to make the leap from hypothesis to fact. It seems that she, like Gingerich, is proposing something that is based on a gut feeling. I found her example of the sphere entering the 2-D world compelling, but her statement that we still need breakthroughs and theoretical input from others admits that she lacks real evidence for her theory. This places her in the realm of philosopher rather than scientist. Her theories are interesting, but they lack the extra strength of scientific proof.
Wolfram, on the other hand, presents his theory in a mathematical and logical manner. By starting with very small patterns, he demonstrates on a very small scale a logical pattern in our universe. These patterns are easily observable in many plants and animals, such as the mollusk. As the patterns increase in complexity and have an array of influence by the environment, it becomes evident where the complexity of life stems from. In this manner, he finds a universal formula for the universe from a simple rule.
Providing scientific proof for philosophy serves to strengthen ideas beyond the level of mere theory. We must be careful, however, not to take ideas for truth simply because they are scientific in name only. It is perfectly okay to theorize, but falsely applying physics to philosophy can be dangerous toward those who lack a critical eye.
Physics and Philosophy
As I began this week’s readings, I at first failed to see any connection between physics and philosophy. After all, science is a process of systematic observation, while philosophy attempts to answer questions that cannot be observed. The methodology of philosophy seems too theoretical to apply to the scientific method with its use of reason instead of hard facts. However, after reading the selections on “Physics and Philosophy,” and “Cosmic Inflation,” I began to realize the philosophical aspects of science.
Because our scope of observation is very limited, scientists, just like philosophers, must apply reason to advance their theories beyond what is readily observable. While the fundamentals of cosmic inflation and the big bang are based upon mathematical fact, these theories are still speculation because they lack hard empirical evidence. In this manner, scientists may become philosophers in their own way. Like other philosophers, they seek a “unified theory” that gives logic and reason to our seemingly chaotic existence. The cosmic inflation theory is one manner of organizing the grand scope of our universe.
“Physics and Philosophy” demonstrates that the push toward systematic, scientific logic began long ago, during the reformation. At that time, Descartes attempted to apply systematic logic to the human mind by breaking down all knowledge to “cogito ergo sum,” I think, therefore I am. Like the scientist’s attempts at a “unified theory,” he was creating a single, universal fact upon which to base all other knowledge. This began the current push toward a mathematical and scientific truth in our universe.
However we to frame it, philosophical science is still bound by our “method of questioning” and our own empirical observation. Scientists seem to feel that theories based in mathematics and physics would attain absolute certainty. However, we may never be able to find the answers to the big bang and the origin of the universe, because they are beyond human understanding.. In this way, scientists are no different than philosophers and theologians in their search for a unified truth.
Because our scope of observation is very limited, scientists, just like philosophers, must apply reason to advance their theories beyond what is readily observable. While the fundamentals of cosmic inflation and the big bang are based upon mathematical fact, these theories are still speculation because they lack hard empirical evidence. In this manner, scientists may become philosophers in their own way. Like other philosophers, they seek a “unified theory” that gives logic and reason to our seemingly chaotic existence. The cosmic inflation theory is one manner of organizing the grand scope of our universe.
“Physics and Philosophy” demonstrates that the push toward systematic, scientific logic began long ago, during the reformation. At that time, Descartes attempted to apply systematic logic to the human mind by breaking down all knowledge to “cogito ergo sum,” I think, therefore I am. Like the scientist’s attempts at a “unified theory,” he was creating a single, universal fact upon which to base all other knowledge. This began the current push toward a mathematical and scientific truth in our universe.
However we to frame it, philosophical science is still bound by our “method of questioning” and our own empirical observation. Scientists seem to feel that theories based in mathematics and physics would attain absolute certainty. However, we may never be able to find the answers to the big bang and the origin of the universe, because they are beyond human understanding.. In this way, scientists are no different than philosophers and theologians in their search for a unified truth.
Week 2, Gods too Decompose
It is difficult to determine in “Gods too Decompose” whether Nietzsche’s parable has a positive or a negative connotation. First, I found it interesting that the crowd was composed of non-believers. Perhaps Nietzsche is suggesting that there are no true believers left, because God is dead to them. There is not one person left who takes the madman seriously when they laugh at his “looking for God.” The serious nature of their loss is ignored.
Then, Nietzsche suggests that we have destroyed all boundaries and absolutes, because we have “[sponged] away the entire horizon.” As we pursue scientific inquiry, our knowledge of the world becomes larger and colder. We lose the warmth and community that God provides. Instead, there is a sense of nothingness, a hurdling through space without direction.
Yet, human beings ignore their loss when they “do not hear anything yet. . . of the gravediggers.” They do not smell the decomposition of their boundaries nor honor the loss of an enormous aspect of humanity. Nonetheless, the boundaries are too far gone to regain. There may be no purification at this point because there is no longer any sense of the finite. Our religious rituals are now meaningless, because God is dead to us. We call out to him, but he can no longer hear because our deed is “too great.”
The next statement can have two completely different meanings. When he states that “there can never be a greater deed,” greater can mean bigger/grander, or it can mean better. If it means grander, it implies that we do not perceive the enormity of our loss. Perhaps this is why the situation is too far gone for God to be regained. If it means better, Nietzsche is happy at the loss of boundaries. It may open up inquiry past the small world that God may provide, so that we can continue to increase our knowledge past the boundaries of religion.
God is not literally dead, but the boundaries of religion have decomposed to open up our universe past the periphery of the horizon. Our religious traditions have become meaningless, because we can not lose the knowledge we have gained and can no longer hold God truly in our hearts. Therefore, he is dead to us. Though we have “done it to ourselves,” we have yet to acknowledge nor see the enormity of our deed.
The biggest questions this parable brings to mind are who is the madman? Why is he “mad?” Is it because he is the only one who acknowledges the death of God? Does Nietzsche see the death of God as positive or negative? In what way would we need to “purify” ourselves?
I found this selection to be beautifully deep and poetic, and it brought many different ideas to mind. However, a piece as multifaceted as this really needs some context.
Then, Nietzsche suggests that we have destroyed all boundaries and absolutes, because we have “[sponged] away the entire horizon.” As we pursue scientific inquiry, our knowledge of the world becomes larger and colder. We lose the warmth and community that God provides. Instead, there is a sense of nothingness, a hurdling through space without direction.
Yet, human beings ignore their loss when they “do not hear anything yet. . . of the gravediggers.” They do not smell the decomposition of their boundaries nor honor the loss of an enormous aspect of humanity. Nonetheless, the boundaries are too far gone to regain. There may be no purification at this point because there is no longer any sense of the finite. Our religious rituals are now meaningless, because God is dead to us. We call out to him, but he can no longer hear because our deed is “too great.”
The next statement can have two completely different meanings. When he states that “there can never be a greater deed,” greater can mean bigger/grander, or it can mean better. If it means grander, it implies that we do not perceive the enormity of our loss. Perhaps this is why the situation is too far gone for God to be regained. If it means better, Nietzsche is happy at the loss of boundaries. It may open up inquiry past the small world that God may provide, so that we can continue to increase our knowledge past the boundaries of religion.
God is not literally dead, but the boundaries of religion have decomposed to open up our universe past the periphery of the horizon. Our religious traditions have become meaningless, because we can not lose the knowledge we have gained and can no longer hold God truly in our hearts. Therefore, he is dead to us. Though we have “done it to ourselves,” we have yet to acknowledge nor see the enormity of our deed.
The biggest questions this parable brings to mind are who is the madman? Why is he “mad?” Is it because he is the only one who acknowledges the death of God? Does Nietzsche see the death of God as positive or negative? In what way would we need to “purify” ourselves?
I found this selection to be beautifully deep and poetic, and it brought many different ideas to mind. However, a piece as multifaceted as this really needs some context.
On a side note. . . .
I found Lance Schaina’s views on “abortion” to be highly sexist. To refer to an old testament ritual where a woman is ritually unclean for 10 days during, and after, her period is demeaning toward today’s role of women in the world. The view of women as something holy and pure held strong through centuries of oppression, where women were nothing more than objects of reproduction. While men left the house to work, women were held captive by their corsets and their social role as the “moral center” of the household.
To bring back this old idea is to suggest that women are “holy,” not human beings that are equal to men. The obsession with the idea that the menstrual cycle is “holy” and that touching a women during her cycle is unclean also demeans a women’s reproductive freedom and her right of recreational sex against the rights of men, who have no menstrual restrictions. Abortion views aside, women are more than reproductive objects, and have every right to be equal partners in society, menstrual cycle or not. Anyone else have an opposing opinion on this?
To bring back this old idea is to suggest that women are “holy,” not human beings that are equal to men. The obsession with the idea that the menstrual cycle is “holy” and that touching a women during her cycle is unclean also demeans a women’s reproductive freedom and her right of recreational sex against the rights of men, who have no menstrual restrictions. Abortion views aside, women are more than reproductive objects, and have every right to be equal partners in society, menstrual cycle or not. Anyone else have an opposing opinion on this?
Week 1, Nicholas of Cusa
Nicholas of Cusa sets out to examine the source of human knowledge. When he states that “every inquiry is comparative and uses the means of comparative relation,” he suggests that everything we know is a result of comparing with other knowledge. I take this to mean that we know what a sphere is because we are told that a sphere is round from the knowledge of our elders. Then, we compare the shape of a triangle and see that it is different. Hence, we have knowledge of the triangle in comparison to the sphere.
Next, Nicholas explains the difficulty in realizing where the original comparisons came from. When ideas that have been built upon slowly over time, its origins become lost. For example, language is used to represent (i.e. compare) objects and ideas. As time passes, language evolves upon itself, and the original comparisons become lost. Also, abstract concepts such as infinity are impossible to compare. That is why we do not fully understand their meaning. Hence, we cannot truly understand anything because we do not have a true comparison to its origin.
Some philosophers, such as Pythagoras, “deem all things to be constituted and understood through the power of numbers.” This idea hypothesizes that numbers are the only thing that is concrete, and that the world is made up of numbers. Everything else would be by “comparative relation” and abstract. However, since numbers are infinite and we cannot understand infinity by comparative relation, numbers are also impossible to fully understand.
Because of the difficulty in truly understanding abstract ideas and comparative relation, “wisdom and the seat of understanding are hidden from the eyes of all the living.” Though we desire to know all things, the true origins of thought are impossible to understand. When we fully grasp this concept “we will attain unto learned ignorance.” Nicholas of Cusa deducts, through a series of proofs, that we know nothing. Like Socrates, he understands that the root of all knowledge comes from knowing nothing. The fact that this is a recurring motif in philosophy demonstrates its importance at the root of our understanding.
Next, Nicholas explains the difficulty in realizing where the original comparisons came from. When ideas that have been built upon slowly over time, its origins become lost. For example, language is used to represent (i.e. compare) objects and ideas. As time passes, language evolves upon itself, and the original comparisons become lost. Also, abstract concepts such as infinity are impossible to compare. That is why we do not fully understand their meaning. Hence, we cannot truly understand anything because we do not have a true comparison to its origin.
Some philosophers, such as Pythagoras, “deem all things to be constituted and understood through the power of numbers.” This idea hypothesizes that numbers are the only thing that is concrete, and that the world is made up of numbers. Everything else would be by “comparative relation” and abstract. However, since numbers are infinite and we cannot understand infinity by comparative relation, numbers are also impossible to fully understand.
Because of the difficulty in truly understanding abstract ideas and comparative relation, “wisdom and the seat of understanding are hidden from the eyes of all the living.” Though we desire to know all things, the true origins of thought are impossible to understand. When we fully grasp this concept “we will attain unto learned ignorance.” Nicholas of Cusa deducts, through a series of proofs, that we know nothing. Like Socrates, he understands that the root of all knowledge comes from knowing nothing. The fact that this is a recurring motif in philosophy demonstrates its importance at the root of our understanding.
Apology
In “Apology,” Plato expounds, through the words of Socrates, one of the most fundamental themes of philosophy— that we know nothing. Though he is being punished for corrupting his followers, he first proves that he has nothing to teach because he knows nothing. He relates to the audience his effort to seek out men who do know something, but finds that they are even more ignorant than him because they think they know though they do not. Even when he is condemned to death, he still stands that death is nothing to fear because one cannot know what it holds. Because Socrates holds that knowing nothing represents true virtue, he has nothing to fear and knows that he is right in standing strong against pretenders.
It is human nature to enter into a situation carrying long held opinions and assumptions. The idea that one’s own opinion is always right operates on the assumption that all others must always be wrong. Because of this, most people shut themselves out from reason and are prevented from learning new ideas.
The ability to realize that one knows nothing is not a simple one. Socrates is aware of this, and therefore elaborates it through long proofs. Even then, he is condemned to death for “corrupting the youth” and challenging long held assumptions. Because of the difficulty in truly grasping this concept, it is something that must be reaffirmed everyday, during every lesson. Philosophy is a way of studying new ideas; therefore, one first must know nothing in order to be open to every possible manner of thought. We all apply labels to ourselves: liberal, conservative, male, female, Christian, Buddhist, etc. Until we realize that these assumptions are preventing us from opening our eyes to new ideas, we cannot grow as human beings. Though I often remind myself to let go of my assumptions, it is something that plagues me every day. By looking at Socrates ability to let go of fear and stand strong, I realize what it takes to truly accept that one “knows nothing.”
It is human nature to enter into a situation carrying long held opinions and assumptions. The idea that one’s own opinion is always right operates on the assumption that all others must always be wrong. Because of this, most people shut themselves out from reason and are prevented from learning new ideas.
The ability to realize that one knows nothing is not a simple one. Socrates is aware of this, and therefore elaborates it through long proofs. Even then, he is condemned to death for “corrupting the youth” and challenging long held assumptions. Because of the difficulty in truly grasping this concept, it is something that must be reaffirmed everyday, during every lesson. Philosophy is a way of studying new ideas; therefore, one first must know nothing in order to be open to every possible manner of thought. We all apply labels to ourselves: liberal, conservative, male, female, Christian, Buddhist, etc. Until we realize that these assumptions are preventing us from opening our eyes to new ideas, we cannot grow as human beings. Though I often remind myself to let go of my assumptions, it is something that plagues me every day. By looking at Socrates ability to let go of fear and stand strong, I realize what it takes to truly accept that one “knows nothing.”
Reaction to Fukuyama's "End of History"
I found Francis Fukuyama's lecture on The End of History to have the substance of a science fiction dystopia. First, Fukuyama'sconcept of a utopian society is one without culture, history, or scientific advancement. In his view, each culture is slowly being engulfed into a single world society where all live in piece in harmony and are not subjected to the constant upheaval of science. Religious and cultural singularity is the goal of this society, where each person thinks in exactly the same manner and therefore has no reason for war.
Cultural singularity leaves no room for the philosopher, the artist, and the revolutionary. I was reminded of a concept I recently read in Crime and Punishment, where Dostoevsky states that all great men are criminals because they have transgressed the cultural boundaries of their society. Men such as Fukuyama can only see the criminality of revolutionaries because they seek a world where everyone follows a singular ideal. Those who are not within the"moral universalism" would be weeded out and we would lose the great thinkers that form the substance of literature and philosophy.
Instead of embracing diversity, Fukuyama sees it as a means ofconflict. He chooses to completely ignore the intolerance and ignorance present in fundamentalist religion, seeing the rise of fundamentalism in America as a sign that we are achieving our goal of"moral universalism." In reality, a singular morality usually breeds intolerance towards diversity. Hatred towards Muslims, Atheists, and homosexuals is growing as they are increasingly seen as the "enemy"against a growing majority. This intolerance will only increase when the positive aspects of diversity are not addressed in our culture.
If Fukuyama sees the loss of history, art, science, and diversity a positive thing, he may continue to live in his shallow universe. Enough sci-fi has dealt with Fukuyama's idea to see theharm in a society where we are all automatons. His ironic statement that communism did not work because it was against human nature demonstrates his lack of critical thinking about his own idea. Personally, I embrace the diversity that makes us human and will continue to enjoy my world of cultural diversity.
Cultural singularity leaves no room for the philosopher, the artist, and the revolutionary. I was reminded of a concept I recently read in Crime and Punishment, where Dostoevsky states that all great men are criminals because they have transgressed the cultural boundaries of their society. Men such as Fukuyama can only see the criminality of revolutionaries because they seek a world where everyone follows a singular ideal. Those who are not within the"moral universalism" would be weeded out and we would lose the great thinkers that form the substance of literature and philosophy.
Instead of embracing diversity, Fukuyama sees it as a means ofconflict. He chooses to completely ignore the intolerance and ignorance present in fundamentalist religion, seeing the rise of fundamentalism in America as a sign that we are achieving our goal of"moral universalism." In reality, a singular morality usually breeds intolerance towards diversity. Hatred towards Muslims, Atheists, and homosexuals is growing as they are increasingly seen as the "enemy"against a growing majority. This intolerance will only increase when the positive aspects of diversity are not addressed in our culture.
If Fukuyama sees the loss of history, art, science, and diversity a positive thing, he may continue to live in his shallow universe. Enough sci-fi has dealt with Fukuyama's idea to see theharm in a society where we are all automatons. His ironic statement that communism did not work because it was against human nature demonstrates his lack of critical thinking about his own idea. Personally, I embrace the diversity that makes us human and will continue to enjoy my world of cultural diversity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)