Acabo de comprar el último libro de E.O. Wilson, con el ánimo predispuesto a la reconciliación. El mero hecho de que escriba un libro con este título, me hace pensar que el ogro se nos ha hecho melancólico.
Pero lo que me ha animado a la compra son estos extractos del libro:
IIn ordinary usage the word “meaning” implies intention, intention implies design, and design implies a designer. Any entity, any process, or definition of any word itself is put into play as a result of an intended consequence in the mind of the designer. This is the heart of the philosophical worldview of organized religions, and in particular their creation stories. Humanity, it assumes, exists for a purpose. Individuals have a purpose in being on Earth. Both humanity and individuals have meaning.There is a second, broader way the word “meaning” is used and a very different worldview implied. It is that the accidents of history, not the intentions of a designer, are the source of meaning. There is no advance design, but instead overlapping networks of physical cause and effect. The unfolding of history is obedient only to the general laws of the Universe. Each event is random yet alters the probability of later events. During organic evolution, for example, the origin of one adaptation by natural selection makes the origin of certain other adaptations more likely. This concept of meaning, insofar as it illuminates humanity and the rest of life, is the worldview of science.Whether in the cosmos or in the human condition, the second, more inclusive meaning exists in the evolution of present-day reality amid countless other possible realities.
IIA spider spinning its web intends, whether conscious of the outcome or not, to catch a fly. That is the meaning of the web. The human brain evolved under the same regimen as the spider’s web. Every decision made by a human being has meaning in the first, intentional sense. But the capacity to decide, and how and why the capacity came into being, and the consequences that followed, are the broader, science-based meaning of human existence.
IIIHumanity … arose entirely on its own through an accumulated series of events during evolution. We are not predestined to reach any goal, nor are we answerable to any power but our own. Only wisdom based on self-understanding, not piety, will save us.
IVAre human beings intrinsically good but corruptible by the forces of evil, or the reverse, innately sinful yet redeemable by the forces of good?[...]We are all genetic chimeras, at once saints and sinners, champions of the truth and hypocrites — not because humanity has failed to reach some foreordained religious or ideological ideal, but because of the way our species originated across millions of years of biological evolution.
VTo be kept forcibly in solitude is to be kept in pain, and put on the road to madness. A person’s membership in his group — his tribe — is a large part of his identity. It also confers upon him to some degree or other a sense of superiority. When psychologists selected teams at random from a population of volunteers to compete in simple games, members of each team soon came to think of members of other teams as less able and trustworthy, even when the participants knew they had been selected at random.
VIWithin groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. Or, risking oversimplification, individual selection promoted sin, while group selection promoted virtue. So it came to pass that humans are forever conflicted by their prehistory of multilevel selection. They are suspended in unstable and constantly changing positions between the two extreme forces that created us. We are unlikely to yield completely to either force as the ideal solution to our social and political turmoil. To give in completely to the instinctual urgings born from individual selection would be to dissolve society. At the opposite extreme, to surrender to the urgings from group selection would turn us into angelic robots — the outsized equivalents of ants.
Una observación sobre esta tesis de la nota III: "Only wisdom based on self-understanding, not piety, will save us". Yo he aprendido de Sócrates que la comprensión de uno mismo nos conduce de manera natural hacia la piedad, como Calvino vio perfectamente. Y esto es así porque si no nos situamos ante la naturaleza con la boca abierta, no nos comprendemos bien a nosotros mismos.
Adhoc. Filosofia a secundària
(25 sin leer)Associació filosófica de les Illes Balears (101 sin leer)
aprendre a pensar (70 sin leer)
ÁPEIRON (16 sin leer)
Blog de Filosofía - Filosóficamente - Blog de Filosofía - Filosóficamente (23 sin leer)
Boulé (267 sin leer)
CREACIÓ FILOSÒFICA II (28 sin leer)
El café de Ocata (4693 sin leer)
El club de los filósofos muertos (88 sin leer)
ESTÈTICA DE L'EXISTÈNCIA. (570 sin leer)
Filolaberinto bachillerato (209 sin leer)
FILOPONTOS (10 sin leer)
Filosofia avui
FILOSOFIA I NOVES TECNOLOGIES (36 sin leer)
La lechuza de Minerva (26 sin leer)
La pitxa un lio (9417 sin leer)
LAS RAMAS DEL ÁRBOL (78 sin leer)
Minervagigia (24 sin leer)
Orelles de burro (498 sin leer)
satiàgraha (25 sin leer)