The later steals from the earlier, the better, the teacher, the master.
Freud stole from Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (as Newton from Leibniz, Marx from Hegel and Einstein from Hilbert), and Schopenhauer already anticipated Darwinism. He was the “better Darwin”.
But Schopenhauer drew pessimistic conclusions from his philosophy, left the occidental “church of reason” and became the first European Buddhist.
The line led from Schopenhauer, who preceded Darwin, over Nietzsche to Freud; so Nietzsche and thus also Freud were influenced by Darwin. Nietzsche and thus also Freud were already forced by the zeitgeist (Hegel) into the optimistic direction.
Schopenhauer was right when he stated that consciousness is bodily affective determined. Yet the opposite is also true. Consciousness determines the body affectively.
Darwin, in turn, started from Malthus, and Malthus was an economist. But what you call “Freudian economics” actually goes back to Schopenhauer. From Schopenhauer’s “will” Freud made “drive” to cover what he had stolen. It is not much different with the “economy” behind it.
Although Malthus was part of Darwin’s reference I do not think it makes sense to imply that Natural Selection NS started from Malthus.
Darwin’s thinking is part of a long tradition of evolutionary thinking that can name sources as diverse as Aristotle, Lamarck, the French philosphes of the enlightnement, and even his own relative Erasmus Darwin. His materialist basis relies from Lyell’s Principles of Geology, and the proposal of uniformitarianism.
Clues to Darwin being most highly influnced by Lamarck is evident, as it is clear that Darwin accepted his theory of acquired inheritance and included in in the 1859 edition of Origin of Species as part of the explanation along with NS (with Wallace) for evolution.
I can’t remember when Darwin removed references to Lamarckian evolution, but he spent many hours with his cousin Francis Galton, mutilating generations of rabbits to see if they could induce changes through this process. They failed.
He even had a tentative “gene” theory in which gemules were supposedly released inside the body to enact the appropriate changes in the germ cells for the next generation.
Malthus provided an idea that populations crash when they are too big. Which forms a tiny, but necessary, part of the theory of NS which was mainly based on observations of domestic breeders of farm animals and pets.
Darwin was NOT a scholar of any philosophy, nor did he have any interest in Shop or any other outside the direct interests of geological sciences.
Darwin himself admitted that he was influenced by Malthus.
That Lamarck was in the game, is not contradictory to that at all. But Lamarck’s theory is fundamentally different from the one Darwin arrived at via Malthus. As I said: Darwin admitted this.
Darwin was also a theologian (Kathrina has already said that). I don’t know any theologian who was not also influenced by philosophers. Moreover, Malthus was an economist and demographer, but not a philosopher.
I did not argue he did not. But the thrust of Malthus’ work is of a completely different complexion. It no more than one small part of a puzzle that had people vexed for millenia, but a puzzle that Malthis was not even addressing; evolution.
No. Darwin’s theory INCLUDED Lamarck. I can quote you chapter and verse if you like. What Darwin and Wallace did was to ADD Selection by Natural Selection.
Darwin was eventually to completely eject Lamarckism, but not for decades afterwards.
Try not to be a patronising twat. I know more on this subject than you do.
No one was allowed in to University unless you took holy orders. This did not make Darwin a “theologian” in ANY sense. On the contrary Darwin was always a skeptic and eventually embraced atheism as he made clear in his autobiography.
Darwin had ZERO interest in philosophy except as I have outlined.
I challenge you to find ONE quote from Darwin where he so much as mentions any philopher other than Aristotle who he mentions in the 1872 edition. It does not appear in early folios but I cannot say exactly when it first appeared, since my personal copies are the 1872, and the 1859 editions.
Aristotle, in his ‘Physicæ Auscultationes’ (lib. 2, cap. 8, s. 2) is quoted, in particular.
Darwin spoke no German. But as a fellow atheist he may could have shown interest in Schopenhauer, but I have found no reference to him in Darwin’s work. Though it is clear that others have references Darwin and Schopenhauer together; Darwin had no need of Schopenhauer. e.g. Norré (Ludiwg) Der Monistische Gedanke (Schopenhauer & Evolution).
Many have referenced Darwin, but Darwin mostly referenced NATURE, because he was a tireless seeker of knowledge.
You are arrogant, have no idea at all about what you are talking about. I have evidence that Darwin really said what I quoted. He even said it in one of his major works. You have no idea, but you always talk big.
You are a troll, as has been said many times, not only by me.
And your pseudo-argument about the language barrier is more than ridiculous.There were already translators at that time, even more than today, because today there are machines for it (but you have no idea about that!). Darwin knew also non-English texts, and that by means of translation, you fool.
Yes, and finally there is not much left of Darwinism than a theology. Considering nature as a selector - and Darwin has done that (also he has admitted that) -, means considering nature as God or God as nature. And at that time this was nothing special.There was the insanely rising natural science, there was romanticism, idealism, realism, naturalism, impressionism. Darwin was also just a typical “child of the 19th century”.
Theologians, by the way, have always been interested in philosophy. The first philosophical topics were even without exception theological. Moreover, “theology” and “theory” are related to “theo”, thus: to God. This is still the case today, but fewer and fewer admit it. Darwin was a theologian. That is a historical fact.
If theology is underestimated today, it is not my fault.
Do not forget that “Sculptor” is illiterate. He is not capable of reading properly. Of course, he has also not read that you, Great Again, did not speak at all about Darwin having stolen from Germans, but only that Newton had done it.
i have never replied to sculptor
as i noticed that every posts of his
is nothing but provocation
I hope in time people here will learn
not to dignify sculptor with a reply
he deserves nothing but your complete indifference
it is absurd to say this
the work that Darwin published was in accordance with the scientific method
there is the critical element of difference between the two
that in nature there isn’t a driving consciousness, or a will, or a mind, whatever have you
that is clearly present in most creation myths
particularly true of the christian belief
and at that time this was a major shitfest
it most certainly is underestimated today
but that does not bring validity to any of what you said above
but it does
given that theology and science
are distinct realms of study
in which different rules apply
besides
it is not at all honest to equate the two words
given that they have had distinct uses
for over 100 years
a theological theory
is not comparable to a scientific theory
and would not be accepted in a scientific publication
which is why i used the word “most” instead of “all”
But in the particular context of this conversation
which is darwinism vs the prevalent religion of the time
that was the case
it certainly does not seem to be you
though i can tell you are just disingenuously pushing your agenda
and not necessarily being truthful or fair to the context of this conversation
as you are supposed to be
if that thing in your sig means anything
But they are not so distinct. And though science method involved independent observation when it comes to theories, it is all abstract - of the “devine” - of “theos” - “theo-ry”. The “gods” were merely the theoretical rules/laws that govern different aspects of nature and the universe. “Theology” being the study of those rules - long before the discipline of independent observation became the method of study for knowing - “science”.
Truth and what is publishable are two different religions.
One theory challenged the reigning authority - “masks don’t help” vs “masks are essential” vs “it’s our business not yours” vs “obey or else”.
That pretty much says it all.
You do not have the knowledge on the subject.
The the thing about “evidence” is that it can be shown. Please do so.
I suppose you also have evidence that the world is flat too?
LOL
If trolls are people that have educated themselves on topic that they are willing to share, then I am a troll.
But what seems to be going on is that I am showing peals to swine.
I did not say it was a barrier.
Maybe you would like to show which of these translations were available to Darwin before 1859, if you think Darwin was influnced by Shop.
… Oh wait. I’ll not hold my breath
Please cite!!
what a stupid thing to say, since all translations that have been written are still available. Whereas back in the day, there were fewer.
You continue to make my laugh.
Please cite!
Trying to cover your stupidity and ignorance.
You could try evidence.
??
You have nothing with which to feed me. All you have is bullshit, and blather. You might know something about shop, though I have seen very little evidence of that. But you know fuck all about Darwin.
Only to Katrina and Great Again. They do not understand the importance of evidence and knowledge.
Darwin had no interest in using god as an explanation. By the time he lost his favourite daughter, he had rejected god and refused to enter a church with his wife.
I said that Darwin was a theologian. It is true that he was a theologian. Newton was also a theologian. There were and are many theologians. I did not say that Darwin disregarded any method. I did not say that in a word.
not just independent observation
also reproducibility
control
use of an adequate sample
accounting for a margin of error
discussing alternative hypotheses
and peer review
none of which are possible in the study of religion
where in theology you use the word “abstract”
as in something that cannot be rooted in a physical event
in science the process of abstraction
is to develop a model or idea that must not be dependent on any particular event
because it will always occur
i see you muddying the waters there kiddo
with etymology and word games
words are only useful to us
when they are used responsibly
the simple fact that a similar vocabulary
or words of similar origin
are used in both field
does not equate them
yes we know that historically
the scholars were the clergy
our academical culture was born from them
but we have come a long way since
i did not say a single word about “Truth”, sir
as far as I can tell this short exchange has been about
comparing theology with science
so you’re going on a tangent here
if you want to start a new thread i’ll follow
it seems that you may have lost the trailhead of the conversation
you said that consciousness [of a deity] ]is not required in theology
i said that under this context, that is the case
now this thing you just posted
is one of the wildest non sequiturs of my recent ILP history
do you typically get away with discussing like this, here?
not with me, kiddo
i am not going to address this
if you want to talk about masks, go to a covid thread
this science is indistinguishable from religion thing
that you’re trying to get off the ground
and dude
there is a case to be made about that
for sure
i may even throw a couple pennies at that
but there is no need to be dishonest about it
you have not flat out told a lie
but you are employing dishonest tactics
attempting to put theology on a equal footing with the scientific method simply because both use the root word “theos”
adding a third variable to a two-way comparison
throwing in a random contentious theme
i hope you realize that i am not picking a fight with you
i’m compelling you to tighten up your case
you must start by not lying to yourself
just to win an argument
don’t say things that you know are not true
you’re better than that
