I haven’t heard a case made as of yet regarding the effect that evolution would have on philosophy. Perhaps if I had a more in-depth study of philosophy, I’d discover more and more cases which would remain unscathed and unaffected by evolutionary theory. But I feel that, even if subtly or slightly, evolutionary theory has an impact on certain philosophies, and I would like to ask that the more well versed philosophers describe, in your opinion, what impact the evolutionary theory would have had on philosophers of the past, had they known this fact.
Before reading the remainder of the post, please keep in mind this is geared towards those who accept evolution as fact. I am hoping to share my own insights as to the implications evolution has on some philosophical questions, and your extrapolations and opinions are greatly appreciated.
Inevitably on the timeline of evolution, there came a period where our species, in remote parts of the world, subconsciously began to do something no other species could do: plan for the future. At the time, we undoubtedly had the basic reasoning abilities: we undoubtedly used tools that worked better for finding food, with the assumption that those tools would work better consistently (the future would be no different than the past). We set goals, and gained the ability of foresight. At this time, the meaning of logic was simply that we could accurately make predictions about the future based on observations of the past. We created language to share ideas and concepts. Our cranium size increased to allow more thought, more goals, more planning, and more insight into the future. It’s safe to assume that at this time, we didn’t have a concept of God, and didn’t believe in a higher power, other than whatever powers were capable of making us a short afternoon snack.
As time went on, our language became more complex to accommodate our more complex planning and goal setting. Just as logically we concluded that the tools we used for a specific purpose, say, using a rock to crack open a coconut, would always be able to accomplish this task. Our logic was strictly dependent on our reality, on results that could be used over and over again. When we used an animal’s pelt to draw water from a river, we concluded it would work every time. It was these simple assumptions we used to enhance our survival. Slowly, the “truth†of the world around us was being revealed. At some point, it seems likely that this cause and effect view of reality began to make other assumptions. Perhaps a certain group noticed that each time they killed an animal, it would rain. Perhaps we began to imagine that the effect of killing the animal was rain, and our understanding of the world at that time would be so limited, it is easy to assume that somehow we were being rewarded for the kill. But who were we being rewarded by would be the next question? Well, another entity that enjoyed food as we did, and viewed rain as payment for the food. An exchange of sorts.
I could continue going through details of this very mysterious period of time when mankind began developing an idea of the world, an idea of what reality was, and how we made conclusions based upon our limited view of the world at that time, as self consciousness and self-awareness grew. There were some very unique and interesting mental developments throughout this period of time, and looking back through history, it is quite interesting to see how complex our thoughts, language, and ideas became.
At the time of Socrates, and Aristotle, and essentially most philosophers up through Darwin, and most likely after Darwin, this knowledge wasn’t available. They were trying to analyze an end product, without realizing how the end product originated. There are many concepts in philosophy that wouldn’t be affected by the knowledge of our origins, but for many others, the effects would seem inevitable and obvious. “Good†and “Evil†weren’t things that always existed: in fact, they’re a very modern development in our history on this rock. So many of the things we take for granted, looking only through the scope of the finished product, might seem mysterious and difficult to analyze if one doesn’t first closely think about the origins of such things. Emotions, truth, logic, reason, ideas, semantics. How does one begin to accurately analyze love, or happiness, or honor, or justice, without having a very clear idea of our origins? How would our analysis of such concepts change, knowing that they were not always something that existed, but rather developed only a short time ago on the timeline of our existence?
What are your thoughts on how the development of philosophy would have changed had these philosophers known about our true origins? From this point forward, how will philosophy continue to change with this knowledge? To say that it will not change at all would seem to only be possible if we ignore this evidence, as many of the questions philosophers have posed were posed without the knowledge of our origins and beginnings.
What are your thoughts on the impact of the fact and theory evolution on philosophy, both in the past and the future? Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.
I probably should’ve included this, it prompted me to think about this post:
youtube.com/watch?v=13NPZ5Nv_fc
It’s a great watch, whether you hate Dawkins or not.
