Evolutionary Philosophy and Reasons for Existence

why does anyone think human beings are all that elite? ... what about rats and cockroaches? they must be really adaptable in the sense that they can adapt themselves rather than fiddling with the environment. and what about the more simple life forms like bacteria or amoeba which must have remained secure by mutating for eons...?

The overreaching of many scientists into fields beyond their competence is perhaps explained in part by the loss of an important idea in modern thinking - final causality or purpose. Scientists understandably bracket the idea out of their scientific thinking because they seek natural explanations and other kinds of causes. Yet many of them wrongly conclude from their selective study of the world that final causes do not exist at all and that they have no place in the rational study of life. Likewise, many erroneously assume that philosophy cannot draw upon scientific findings, in light of final causality, to better understand the world and man.

Gilson sets out in this bookto show that final causality or purposiveness is an inevitable idea for those who think hard and carefully about the world, including the world of biology. Gilson insists that a completely rational understanding of organisms and biological systems requires the philosophical notion of teleology, the idea that certain kinds of things exist and have ends or purposes the fulfillment of which is linked to their natures. In other words, final causes. His approach relies on philosophical reflection on the facts of science, not upon theology or an appeal to religious authorities such as the Church or the Bible.

can we still ask why has life evolved in the way that it has?...

... for no particular reason....

does it make sense to speak of reasons and whys as if they exist outside the human mind? As if a reason, a why, is somehow intrinsic to existence (or at least our existence?

But really, this posits a complete discontinuity between 'the mind' and 'the cosmos'. If reason can only ever be something that is created by my mind, what basis does it have in reality?

This is really a primary dualism.

And the reason everyone is clinging to it so determinedly is because their ego is invested in it.

This is the basis of individualism - that I am something separate.

So even my reasons must be suspect - there is no reason to think they should be true.

This is actually a denial of the very basis of Greek philosophy.

By denying the idea of any kind of formal or final cause or purpose, we are actually undermining the very basis of Western philosophy itself.

Dawkins goes on at great lengths about how "rational" his view is, but I deny it. In terms of the tradition which gave rise to it, it is irrational. I think one of the reasons he is so annoyed all the time is that because deep down, he knows it.

Do you have any reason at all to believe that what you conclude to be a "reason" has any correspondance with an actual reason?

this may only turn out to be rambling, but i'll take a stab at it anyway.

i think evolution or natural selection is determined by that species which is the most adaptable to its environment. that is not a cause of course, but maybe an explanation for the changes that have lasted over time.

but why does anyone think human beings are all that elite? sure we have been able to adapt our living space to meet our needs, and beyond that to exceed them. but as you say we have only been here for a short time.

what about rats and cockroaches? they must be really adaptable in the sense that they can adapt themselves rather than fiddling with the environment. and what about the more simple life forms like bacteria or amoeba which must have remained secure by mutating for eons...?

so i guess what i would be wondering is why should people retain the capability to do the things they can do, like make music and write poetry...i have heard arguments such as 'it has to do with social grouping' or 'it helps a person choose a better mate' but they always sound kind of empty to me. why would people have developed a sense of humor, to help in warding off heart attacks brought on by worry, which why did they develop in the first place?

now i am thinking that there is so little rationality in the things we have developed yet they go on. anything could 'just happen;' but it wouldnt become a permanent part of the makeup of a species without there being some benefit in keeping it. yet at the same time if we were the most superior being, why wouldnt the other species fall by the wayside? i hear that biology is perfectly balanced and if it is upset everything will crumble. but i dont think so, i think it must be balancing itself intentionally. otherwise, why wouldnt it just quit? a chance progression would have to make a big mistake somewhere sooner or later, wouldnt it?

sorry, just thinking out loud...

However I have a very specific question which ultimately concerns the nature of causality, or how things can come to be. . . The question, which is really very simple, is as follows: given that evolution by natural selection occurs, can we still ask why has life evolved in the way that it has? (bold, underscore, italics, and color mine)

I don't have a creationist agenda and am not interested in proving whether God exists or not.

I believe in God - not 'a' God, not 'The' God, not the Christian God or this or that God or God of any other kind. Certainly not the God that Dawkin's disputes, which is an archaic mythical tribal deity. The 'God' I believe in is some great unknowable vast and vital reality, the ground of being, the beginning and end of all, that by which all else exists. Of course I know there is no such 'thing' and that such a God does not 'exist'. It is beyond existence, beyond disputation, beyond assertion and denial. So it is also beyond profane thought and reasoning.(1)

_________________
(1) That is why I have chosen the Buddhist path. Buddhists don't believe in God but in the Mahayana there is an understanding of the Ground of Being.

So - why is life on earth the way that it is. Is this a question that can be asked? Isn't this one of the questions that philosophy has always asked? And has Darwin really answered it?

Well, I think the fact that our mathematical abilities are able to describe to a very precise degree the first few microseconds of the existence of the cosmos

All of which I think is a vindication of the way the Greeks understood the nature of reason, and also a triumph of rationalism, as opposed to empiricism.

Anyway, I don't buy the fact that this occured purely by natural selection.

And that 'something' is teleological. It is seeking an outcome.

There is actually some scientific argumentation to support this line of reasoning and I will dig some of it out.

How can you speak of Greek philosophy as if it's one monolithic thing? Heraclitus and Pythagoras would have fought to the death in an iron cage before agreeing with one another. Plato and Aristotle fundamentally disagreed on nearly everything.

And inasmuch as Reason has been held by traditional metaphysics to be an essential trait of existence, that's completely speculative and circular. Sure, Ptolemy's universe is rational -- until Copernicus overthrows it. Newton's universe is rational -- until Einstein overthrows it.

I hope you realize that you're philosophizing based on your annoyance at this one person. He is a spokesman for himself alone. He does science an enormous disservice by contaminating it with his own metaphysics.

But the point I am making is that, no matter how much the Greeks might have disagreed with each other, they nevertheless had the general understanding of 'the rational soul in the intelligible cosmos'. For the cosmos to be intelligible at all it must be rationally ordered.

And so we are back at the question I started out with: where does it originate?

Many people believe evolutionary biology provides the answer

Actually I mentioned Dawkins, Dennett, and Jacques Monod. For good measure I will throw in E.O.Wilson and P.Z. Meyers as well. As far as I am concerned, they're all in the same boat.

bet you a dollar to a house that H Sapiens are smarter than Octopus vulgaris.

I feel (having gotten over being annoyed by it) that the tendencies moderns have to liken H Sapiens to various species of insect, or animal, or 'chemical scum' (Hawkings) or 'biochemical fluke' (Monod) really signifies a profound inability to come to terms with our responsibilities. It is actually a covert attempt to escape from facing the awful burden of our uniquely self-conscious existence. After all, if were like an octopus, or a rat, or a cockroach, we would have no foreknowledge of death, any ability to contemplate our destiny, nor any larger responsibility for looking after the planet. So acknowledging our uniqueness is not arrogance. It is responsibility. I can't understand why denying it is felt to be 'scientific'.

I don't think Darwin's theory as far as it concerns micro-evolutionary development is even contestable. But it is impossible to rule out the idea of teleology or underlying formal laws as a factor in macroevolutionary development. I feel that Gould's 'puncuated equilibrium' supports this type of understanding.

I am interested in the view of Thomist philosopher Etienne Gilson on the matter:
The overreaching of many scientists into fields beyond their competence is perhaps explained in part by the loss of an important idea in modern thinking - final causality or purpose. Scientists understandably bracket the idea out of their scientific thinking because they seek natural explanations and other kinds of causes. Yet many of them wrongly conclude from their selective study of the world that final causes do not exist at all and that they have no place in the rational study of life. Likewise, many erroneously assume that philosophy cannot draw upon scientific findings, in light of final causality, to better understand the world and man.

Gilson sets out in this bookto show that final causality or purposiveness is an inevitable idea for those who think hard and carefully about the world, including the world of biology. Gilson insists that a completely rational understanding of organisms and biological systems requires the philosophical notion of teleology, the idea that certain kinds of things exist and have ends or purposes the fulfillment of which is linked to their natures. In other words, final causes. His approach relies on philosophical reflection on the facts of science, not upon theology or an appeal to religious authorities such as the Church or the Bible.

Anyway, I don't buy the fact that this occured purely by natural selection. I think humans evolved as described, but at some level, there is something other than the 'survival of the fittest' driving it. And that 'something' is teleological. It is seeking an outcome.

Anyway, enough polemics. There is actually some scientific argumentation to support this line of reasoning and I will dig some of it out.

So, from myself, regarding the OP, there are three main points of consideration which I am asking: [INDENT]1. We can ask the question of 'why,' but must keep in mind that it is a matter of practicing philosophy only (an art form), and not a question which can be answered so as to direct an understanding of application, from the answer, towards our daily living in the world which we find ourselves with all other life forms.

2. We can ask the question of 'how,' but must keep in mind that we must then do so in the discipline of science, and not religious belief-system-based dogma. Also, and especially due to the immediately above, we must understand that testing, and the better and purer form of reasoning and deduction of scientific method, is the key to reaching any practical and applicable in our daily life in the world with all life forms answer.

3. From the two points above, we can also demand that arguments against the time-tested-derived-through-scientific method understandings, assertions, and claims, be done so by the same methods used to reach those understandings. [/INDENT]Thus to answer your last questions in the OP (from myself), namely:
Yes, it is a question which can be asked, and which can be fairly answered if it were asking 'how;' but cannot be answered at all, with all our present valid and testable knowledge (including of course, knowledge of how a human can even emotionalize, or imagine such a scenario for an answer to the question) if it were asking the 'why' question. Yes, it has been a question for a long time, even before any more formal splits of philosophy and religious belief-systems, and no, I don't think Darwin was asking that question at all, so was not answering towards it.

But the point I am making is that, no matter how much the Greeks might have disagreed with each other, they nevertheless had the general understanding of 'the rational soul in the intelligible cosmos'. For the cosmos to be intelligible at all it must be rationally ordered. The Greeks generally presumed this was because of The Gods, whether it was Zeus, or the Demiurge, or the One. It was implicit, or explicit, in much Greek philosophy - certainly Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and all the neo-Platonists.

So in all these traditional philosophies, this order is presumed. It was 'crystallised' into the various versions of theism and deism that have now come under question by scientific philosophers. But in rejecting the metaphysical basis of Western philosophy, the locus of 'reason' has been shifted (or is that 'shafted'). It is no longer seen as as attribute of the cosmos itself; it is seen as 'an attribute of primate intelligence'. So in the scheme of things, 'reason' has now become subordinate to 'survival'. For a evolutionary philosophy to be applied consistently, it has to deny that there could be such a thing as an 'intelligible order'. Intelligibility, insofar as there is such a thing, can only exist in the primate brain. And so we are back at the question I started out with: where does it originate? How did intelligence bootstrap itself out of pond slime? Many people believe evolutionary biology provides the answer, but I am questioning it.

Reason is the cognitive faculty by which we come to understand things. Because of that, it is inevitable and inescapable that the cosmos will appear rational. And that is why when the cosmos appears irrational, we undertake science in order to reconcile it with our reason.

I started of by agreeing that evolutionary biology provides the mechanism. What I am interested in is something very simple, in some respects: it is a spiritual connection with the universe. a 'why'? I think most people are after the same thing. Furthermore I think many of the traditional philosophies provided this - and that is one point I don't agree on. I don't think they have all been superseded in all respects, by science. There is great wisdom in many of the old traditions which like every else is being dissolved in the acid bath of materialism.

I am only writing this because evolutionary psychologists and neuro-bots are basically always telling us that the universe is blind, indifferent, meaningless, and we are accidental tourists in it. It's a stupid argument and basically meaningless. If you win, you lose. Say if you manage to prove that the universe is purposeless (as if you could). What would be the first prize?

i dont see why you stated 2-why must we ask 'how' only within the discipline of science? asking can be speculation, i believe philosophy is asking. your number 3 could be requested or hoped for, but there are times when an intuitive answer comes to a scientific question or a tested empirical answer comes to a theological question.

basically, questions and answers can come in various forms, and if we choose to ignore them or limit them we may lose a lot.

Science is neutral on such matters.

We can easily enough stipulate that to ask 'how,' is different from asking 'why,' and thus demand that they be segregated. Which one are we asking here?

We can thus take it that you are coming from the position of a religious belief-system which, in part (as parts of Buddhism do hold that there is a god of being), holds existence to be a base; according to the assertion of its dogma. That much may be fine and good, but to argue against positions and understandings based on the much more empirical knowledge (and theories and hypotheses based on these...over the passage of time) of what we H. sapiens have accumulated (as usually and fairly presented in the discipline of science [as opposed to negative scientism here]), one will have to use the same methods to do so. To use religious belief-system tenets to argue against scientific-method derived understandings, theories, and hypotheses, is an incorrect method of going about it.

So, from myself, regarding the OP, there are three main points of consideration which I am asking:

[indent]1. We can ask the question of 'why,' but must keep in mind that it is a matter of practicing philosophy only (an art form), and not a question which can be answered so as to direct an understanding of application, from the answer, towards our daily living in the world which we find ourselves with all other life forms.

2. We can ask the question of 'how,' but must keep in mind that we must then do so in the discipline of science, and not religious belief-system-based dogma. Also, and especially due to the immediately above, we must understand that testing, and the better and purer form of reasoning and deduction of scientific method, is the key to reaching any practical and applicable in our daily life in the world with all life forms answer.

3. From the two points above, we can also demand that arguments against the time-tested-derived-through-scientific method understandings, assertions, and claims, be done so by the same methods used to reach those understandings. [/indent]

actually nobody knows what an actopus thinks or knows. can we be sure a cockroach has no knowledge that death will eventually overtake it? so i dont buy any of that as setting us apart from all the other organisms.

i dont deny the uniqueness of humanity (and of cockroaches and rats) it is the idea of superiority that i cant agree with, and i am not saying you had that in mind in your comment, but many people do.

a final cause could just as well be an end result, couldnt it? even one who believes in a god or controller or creator could accept the possibility that that entity did not have a set end result in mind from the beginning, as a work of art changes shape and often seems to take on a life of its own.

what i colored red seems to be the answer to me. what we are determines our purpose. the purpose is not an intention before we existed, and it could be that we have a modicum of choice in directing that purpose.

Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms that derive from their evolutionary history, adaptation for reproductive success, or generally, due to the operation of a program.

is the whole of creation seeking an end or result?

I am thinking that reason can be subordinate to survival-because without survival reason hardly matters. and I believe we try to find reason in what we see, but sometimes we cant and therefor conclude it is irrational. but why do we not conclude our reasoning power is inadequate?