[lbo-talk] Sociobiology

[Ted Winslow]

As I've pointed out before, "creationist" nonsense is not the only  
alternative to the scientific materialism of the orthodox neo- 
Darwinian explanation of the fact of evolution, the explanation  
underpinning "sociobiology".  The self-contradictory (e.g. it's not  
possible without self-contradiction to to derive from them any claim  
about what we "ought" to do in our sexual or any other activity)  
ontological ideas constitutive of this explanation are also  
inconsistent with the continental tradition in philosophy represented  
by Hegel, Marx and Husserl.  As I've also pointed out before, the  
role given to these ideas in orthodox evolutionary theory have been  
made the object of explicit criticism by another representative of  
this tradition, A.N. Whitehead.  The most succinct version of this  
criticism is found in The Function of Reason.  This is now available  
free online at:

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=6326292

The following passage from Chap. 1 summarizes a key criticism.

“there is another factor in evolution which is
not in the least explained by the doctrine of the
survival of the fittest. Why has the trend of evolution been upwards?  
The fact that organic species
have been produced from inorganic distributions of
matter, and the fact that in the lapse of time organic
species of higher and higher types have evolved are
not in the least explained by any doctrine of adaptation to the  
environment, or of struggle.

	“In fact the upward trend has been accompanied
by a growth of the converse relation. Animals have
progressively undertaken the task of adapting the
environment to themselves. They have built nests,
and social dwelling-places of great complexity;
beavers have cut down trees and dammed rivers; insects have  
elaborated a high community life with a variety of reactions upon the  
environment.

	“Even the more intimate actions of animals are
activities modifying the environment. The simplest
living things let their food swim into them. The
higher animals chase their food, catch it, and masticate it. In so  
acting, they are transforming the environment for their own purposes.  
Some animals
dig for their food, others stalk their prey. Of course
all these operations are meant by the common
doctrine of adaptation to the environment. But they
are very inadequately expressed by that statement;
and the real facts easily drop out of sight under
cover of that statement. The higher forms of life are
actively engaged in modifying their environment.
In the case of mankind this active attack on the environment is the  
most prominent fact in his existence.

	“I now state the thesis that the explanation of this
active attack on the environment is a three-fold
urge: (i) to live, (ii) to live well, (iii) to live better.
In fact the art of life is first to be alive, secondly to
be alive in a satisfactory way, and thirdly to acquire
an increase in satisfaction. It is at this point of our
argument that we have to recur to the function of
Reason, namely the promotion of the art of life.
The primary function of Reason is the direction of
the attack on the environment.

	“This conclusion amounts to the thesis that Reason
is a factor in experience which directs and criticizes
the urge towards the attainment of an end realized
in imagination but not in fact.”

Ted