07-11-2004, 08:54 AM
Yeah, the pre-eminence accorded to man in the scheme of things is wholly baseless. I think this kind of thinking has been a bane to philosophy and has biased the minds of many otherwise rational thinkers. Allied to this is the attitude which placed the Earth at the center of the Universe. Fortunately, astronomy has helped us realize the insignificance of the Earth. Perhaps, some day, what Astronomy did to lower the exalted status of the Earth, the behavioral sciences would do dispel our "anthropo-centric" attitude. As we understand better the ways of chimps bonobos, and gorillas, as we refine the phylogenies of primates long gone by, we may soon learn to see ourselves thru the same prism.
But the position which man accords himself is a much more fundamental dogma than the shape of the Earth! For, man's ego always comes in the way and biases things. Ideally, we need to view ourselves with the same objectivity that a biologist from outer space would have while making a catalogue of the species on Earth.
One pitfall of the man-centric attitude is the notion of progress in evolution. (I suspect that the great Dobzhansky himself might have subtly contributed to this kind of thinking. I wonder what Darwin's view on this was). We are somehow inclined to believe that things get better; that things tend towards perfection. When we look at the various life-forms so well adapted to their environs and so well engineered in form, it gives an impression that natural selection is progressive. But true objective science must eshew any biases towards teleology : explanations of what "something" is for, don't imply that they are there in order to achieve a certain end or result. It is sufficient to say that they are the result of selection.
This sticky point requires some explanation. As philosophers, when we, in our awe, ask "how and why" we may fall prey to a very subtle trap due to teleology. Here is a wonderful example I came across :
" In science, teleology is a way of modelling a system's behaviour by referring to its end-state (or goal). It is an answer to a question about function and purpose. <i>Why do vertebrates have hearts?</i> In order to pump blood around the body to distribute oxygen and nutrients etc. Now, this is a functional explanation. The function of the heart is to pump blood. In evolution, the question <i>'why do organisms exhibit adaptation?' </i> is not answered teleologically with <i>'in order to survive', </i> but historically - 'because those that were less adaptive didn't survive'.
Thus, when we are forming a world-view, I guess we need to be careful as to where we use teleology and where we use "hindsight" or "history" to explain things.
On the other hand, a philosophical extension of this teleological (goal seeking)thinking is a utopian belief that tomorrow the world would be a better place to live in; that man would tomorrow attain a sublime perfection.
I think in the context of phylogenies, the word "tree" is a bit of a misnomer.
"Evolution is a bush, not a tree. "
~ Stephen Jay Gould
Coming back to the "manuShya-centric" thinking, the karma theory in Hindu philosophy is a case in point. It is amazing how deep-rooted this dogma is in the Hindu mind. I think the whole karma doctrine has serious cracks. Now, one of the fundamentals of Vedanta is there is only Brahman. But, despite the fact that everything in the universe is pervaded by Brahman, the karma theory posits the pashu at a lower rung than man. How can this be so when there is only Brahman? Moreover, Brahman is absolute and impersonal, whereas karma induces a moral edge to things. A common notion in the philosophic texts was that Indra and other devas had attained their lofty stations by means of their karma. Now, there is no denying that effort and sacrifices will get you to the top, but when you extened the argument by saying that sin and dereliction will throw you back to animalhood, it becomes a bit far-fetched. These things may be true on in a allegorical sense, but I believe the ancients implied them in a very literal sense. They believed that the soul would actually be reborn as something else -- a human birth being the result of accreted "merits" and suffering in life being the result of accreted "sins".
But the position which man accords himself is a much more fundamental dogma than the shape of the Earth! For, man's ego always comes in the way and biases things. Ideally, we need to view ourselves with the same objectivity that a biologist from outer space would have while making a catalogue of the species on Earth.
One pitfall of the man-centric attitude is the notion of progress in evolution. (I suspect that the great Dobzhansky himself might have subtly contributed to this kind of thinking. I wonder what Darwin's view on this was). We are somehow inclined to believe that things get better; that things tend towards perfection. When we look at the various life-forms so well adapted to their environs and so well engineered in form, it gives an impression that natural selection is progressive. But true objective science must eshew any biases towards teleology : explanations of what "something" is for, don't imply that they are there in order to achieve a certain end or result. It is sufficient to say that they are the result of selection.
This sticky point requires some explanation. As philosophers, when we, in our awe, ask "how and why" we may fall prey to a very subtle trap due to teleology. Here is a wonderful example I came across :
" In science, teleology is a way of modelling a system's behaviour by referring to its end-state (or goal). It is an answer to a question about function and purpose. <i>Why do vertebrates have hearts?</i> In order to pump blood around the body to distribute oxygen and nutrients etc. Now, this is a functional explanation. The function of the heart is to pump blood. In evolution, the question <i>'why do organisms exhibit adaptation?' </i> is not answered teleologically with <i>'in order to survive', </i> but historically - 'because those that were less adaptive didn't survive'.
Thus, when we are forming a world-view, I guess we need to be careful as to where we use teleology and where we use "hindsight" or "history" to explain things.
On the other hand, a philosophical extension of this teleological (goal seeking)thinking is a utopian belief that tomorrow the world would be a better place to live in; that man would tomorrow attain a sublime perfection.
I think in the context of phylogenies, the word "tree" is a bit of a misnomer.
"Evolution is a bush, not a tree. "
~ Stephen Jay Gould
Coming back to the "manuShya-centric" thinking, the karma theory in Hindu philosophy is a case in point. It is amazing how deep-rooted this dogma is in the Hindu mind. I think the whole karma doctrine has serious cracks. Now, one of the fundamentals of Vedanta is there is only Brahman. But, despite the fact that everything in the universe is pervaded by Brahman, the karma theory posits the pashu at a lower rung than man. How can this be so when there is only Brahman? Moreover, Brahman is absolute and impersonal, whereas karma induces a moral edge to things. A common notion in the philosophic texts was that Indra and other devas had attained their lofty stations by means of their karma. Now, there is no denying that effort and sacrifices will get you to the top, but when you extened the argument by saying that sin and dereliction will throw you back to animalhood, it becomes a bit far-fetched. These things may be true on in a allegorical sense, but I believe the ancients implied them in a very literal sense. They believed that the soul would actually be reborn as something else -- a human birth being the result of accreted "merits" and suffering in life being the result of accreted "sins".