Anyhow, at the time I thought it was one of the most thought provoking ideas I'd read to date. Among a number of other human (and animal) characteristics it attempted to explain was the evolution of intelligence itself using this model. That being that these "altruistic" acts in fact done with a certain "expectation" that the individual or it's species will benefit in the end by this act, even if that act leads to the death of the perpetrator. This naturally raises the genetic issue, an issue that I felt it addressed well .
I haven't gone looking for it as yet, but if someone can find it based on what I've given above, it is definitely worth a look.
Gary Williams
ravi wrote:
> On 07/25/05 12:30, snitsnat wrote:
>
>>What is religion? Is your commitment to animal rights and veganism a
>>religion, ravi?
>>
>
>
> small correction: i wish i had the courage to be a vegan, but currently
> i am only a vegetarian.
>
> perhaps it is a religion -- or perhaps i am not smart enough to find any
> grounds for it other than in shared[?] notions of morality i.e., some
> argue that since self-interest is the only self-evident shared desire,
> all attempts at moral rules should be reducible to it. i think there is
> a growing body of work, especially in game theory, not yet conclusive
> (IMHO), that points to the paucity of the self-interest
> approach/reductionism. but i do not think animal "rights" (for lack of a
> better word) is any more axiomatic than human rights, and i cannot yet
> completely reduce either to rules that may be axiomatic/self-evident.
> so, perhaps there is a religiosity, in my preaching the cause.
>
>
>
>>Is there a reason why it's important to continue using
>>"religion" in a derogatory way -- to diss people's belief systems --
>>while (on the surface) appearing to defend it? Or is it just an attempt
>>to charge people with hypocrisy?
>
>
>
> my post is not an attempt to diss religion or people's belief systems
> (for the record: i am an atheist, and i do believe that the religious
> types have a more powerful voice than atheists do)... quite the
> contrary. i am not quite charging folks of hypocrisy. the first version
> of my post included an additional part: "what about science?".
>
> from the little i know of the history of marxism, and from what i see of
> the left (western intellectual left). there is one particular [narrow]
> brand of rationalism that is highly valued. i will call that
> 'scientism': to put it awkwardly, an awe of science and an attempt to
> mimic it, in order to gain credibility (almost always seen as a contrast
> to the woolly-headedness of religion and non-scientific
> activities/beliefs/methods) -- my forward of enhrenreich in response to
> doug, is somewhat related. this, as many have pointed out, is in
> itself a form of religiosity (or perhaps machismo???), but let me set
> that aside for a second.
>
> the important thing, to me, is that in both the history of science
> itself, and human matters at large, there may be no single theory,
> process or method that is infallible or usable (even if perfect
> solutions exist they may be unreachable due to various reasons, such as
> the complexity of the solution).
>
> some on the left may wish to ridicule the religious. some on the right
> may wish to ridicule the marxist left: my admittedly minimal
> understanding of marxist theory tells me that it is nowhere close to a
> science, especially an accepted one.
>
> 'tolerance', to me, should be a basic left principle (or at least, as
> PKF puts it, tolerance in matters epistemological/methodological).
>
> the point of my post is to question if perhaps the "hard-core" leftists
> (marxists and such, as opposed to social democrats, market socialists,
> liberals, yuppie fadists(*) like me ;-)) are trying to have it both
> ways: ridicule the religious ("religion is a crock" as per doug, who
> perhaps is not really a "hard-core" leftist, thus not fitting my
> caricature!) on grounds on which they themselves are susceptible for
> ridicule. doug (not to pick on the good man) says that "marxism may be a
> religion -- depends on the practitioner", while jimD says "marxism could
> be a religion, but it need not be". perhaps, in the same vein, "religion
> can be a _religion_ but need not be", or "religion could be a crock --
> depends on the pracitioner". or is there something inherently crockish
> about religion?
>
> i know that sarcasm has become the default assumption when
> characterizing questions, but this is an instance of a genuine question.
> there are, of course, some assumptions that i hope to confirm (or
> refute) by asking that question.
>
> we (kelly and i) have spoken about related things off-list. i know you
> have strong arguments, IIRC, against bourgeoisie/liberal/white-collar
> notions of [the pretense of] politeness, etc. i do find some of those
> arguments convincing. tolerance, you may agree, is a different beast.
> [responding for completeness, not to any argument you have made] and the
> use of something in a coercive way should not mean that it's authentic
> use is impossible.
>
> --ravi
>
> (*): i am making some large assumptions and doing some perhaps uncalled
> for labelling here. 'yuppie fadist' is what i was actually called for my
> placing animal rights at the level of labour rights, etc.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
--
Gary Williams
Prohibition Funds Terrorism ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 28/07/2005