Posted on

HUMAN DESTINY – PART III – BIOLOGIC (continued)

In the lasts blog we introduced George Gaylord Simpson’s analysis of the meaning of evolution. His approach to human destiny is consistent with that  understanding. Evolution will continue in human and nonhuman species. Future evolution cannot be predicted, but we can discuss possibilities inherent in man and current life. First he thinks if man becomes extinct, it is unlikely that a similar (primate) species will evolve, though other animals may evolve intelligence and some human characteristics such as prehensile forelimbs. Second, while man exists, no other animals will develop human level intelligence. Ominously he predicts that  man will cause the extinction of other species while also noting that man is the first species ever that could cause its own extinction.

Future human organic evolution will be slower than societal evolution, and ,in fact, it is as likely that natural selection will lead to regression as to progression among Homo sapiens. Meanwhile targeted human evolution entails significant ethical problems.  Still, man can and likely will add purpose to evolution especially societal evolution where the goal is likely to be to an increase in knowledge including discovery of desirable traits for mankind. Even now we know man is not perfect and in theory can  be  improved . The most beneficial improvements are likely to be an increase in maximal intelligence and life expectancy both which will facilitate a higher order of knowledge. And since ethical  eugenics must be voluntary, that may be preferred by individuals once desirable traits, genes, and mutations are known.

Last he feels the future ethics of man in an apparently purposeless universe where man has choice and thus responsibility must be based on the proposition that knowledge is good and blind faith is morally wrong. The ethical society will likely be democratic wherein the integrity and dignity of the individual is maintained. He concludes that the chaos of our time can be reduced to order only with responsible human knowledge. I find this remarkably reminiscent of the teaching of Socrates who asserts that virtue is synonymous with knowledge.

Next we will investigate a physical science conception of the trajectory of evolution in the universe and the consequences for  man’s possible future.

————————————–

1Simpson, George Gaylord, The Meaning of Evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1949. Chapter IX.

2Ibid, Chapter X.

3Ibid, page 261.

4Ibid, page 262.

5Ibid, page 281.

6Ibid, page 286.

7Ibid, page 310.

—————————————–

Having trouble leaving a question or comment?  E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com

Posted on

HUMAN DESTINY – PART III –  BIOLOGIC

“Your destiny, O River,

It is even as the destiny of man.

O, ye are brethren,

Souls unharboured,

Seeking to regain the sea.” – Madeline Mason-Manheim

Last time we looked at the destiny of humanity as seen by the great paleoanthropologist, Richard Leakey. Today I would like to consider human destiny form the standpoint of the 20th century Harvard biologist, George Gaylord Simpson. His take on evolution is somewhat different; he notes few or no major classes of life go entirely extinct, rather species are replaced, based on randomness and sensate opportunism.1 He identifies three theories on the forces acting throughout the history of life: (1) materialistic, (2) vitalistic, and (3) finalistic.

The materialistic theory argues that the evolution of life is simply an extension of the evolution of all matter with only the difference of the organization of life. The vitalistic theory suggests the possibility of forces peculiar to and inherent in life. The finalistic theory assumes a force that brings progression toward foreordained goals or a transcendental purpose. Simpson tells us that all three theories have adherents, but he accepts the materialistic theory, as do most scientists.2

He points out that “evolution is not invariably accompanied by progress, nor does it really seem to be characterized by progress as an essential feature.”3 There is general but inconstant expansion of life, varying sorts of progress among different lifeforms, but no evidence of a supernatural perfecting principle. He admits that “man, is on the whole but not in every single respect, the pinnacle so far of evolutionary progress.”4

Nonetheless “the first grand lesson learned from evolution was that of the unity of life.”5 Man is an animal, albeit fundamentally a new kind with a second order of evolution – the ‘inheritance of learning’ or ‘societal evolution.’6 This new phase of evolution does involve purpose and plan unlike organic evolution. Man “can choose to develop his capacities as the highest animal and try to rise still farther, or he can choose otherwise. The choice is his responsibility and his alone.”7 Therefore while organic evolution is amoral, societal evolution is moral with social and individual facets.

(continued next post)

—————————————–

Having trouble leaving a question or comment?  E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com

Posted on

HUMAN DESTINY – PART II – ANTHROPLOGIC

“It is deplorably anthropocentric to insist that reality be constrained by what the human mind can conceive…The limits of our mind are just not the limits of reality.” – Colin McGinn.1

It seems fitting that we begin our search for the meaning of human destiny with the view of an expert on the origin of man, the great paleoanthropologist, Richard Leakey, who echoes the maxim of his father: “The past is the key to our future.”

He starts with the simple reminder that all living humans belong to one species, Homo sapiens, with a particular evolutionary history and a particular relationship to the rest of the natural world. Humans are an accident or perhaps more accurately a chance event in Earth history. Optimistically he notes that humans appear to have evolved to cooperate; whereas violence and warfare are later cultural developments of the shift to agriculture.2

In speaking of the hominid line of evolution, he emphasizes that the “probability of a particular species going extinct is determined as much by external factors such as catastrophic change in habitat as by internal factors such as how well adapted or fit they are.”3 For example, it remains unclear whether Neanderthals went extinct by assimilation, destruction, or competition by our species.

He notes the evolution of reflexive human consciousness is the fourth great biological revolution. This led to our great creativity, but also great arrogance; to the point that we have an anthropocentric view of the world and perhaps the universe as well. He imagines that a visitor from a more advanced extraterrestrial civilization “might point out that the quality of consciousness of which we are so proud is in fact a fragile entity, a cognitive illusion created by a few neuronal tricks in the midst of gray matter.”4

In thinking about human destiny, he takes us back to the fossil record where we learn species do not last long on the cosmic or geologic time scale – about two million years for vertebrates. “Species go extinct for the most part not because they are in some way inferior, but because they succumb to the vagaries of mass extinction.”5 Our species is young, perhaps 100,000 years or so, and the periodicity of the extinction pattern suggests the next major event is not due for about twelve million years, so our prospects should be good. But a looming cause of human extinction would be humanity itself, that is, the ‘sixth extinction,’ in which case Earth’s biota will recover without humans and eventually a new intelligent life form may evolve.

He considers the alternative that humans might evolve into descendant species, but guesses this is unlikely as culture may block further evolution and genetic intervention or deliberate breeding programs would entail difficult ethical issues. But he concludes that a future Earth without humans is likely. The main lesson of his investigation for us is that we need to be better tenants of planet Earth.

It seems to me the anthropologist’s inevitability of human extinction mirrors that of our own individual deaths, but similarly does not eliminate the meaning of our species any more than mortality makes a meaningful life impossible.

——————————————-

1Leakey, Richard and Lewin, Roger, Origins Reconsidered. Doubleday, New York, 1992. ISBN 0-385-41264-9, page 310-311.

2Ibid. Page xiii-xxii.

3Ibid. Page 70.

4Ibid. Page 310.

5Ibid. Page 355.

—————————————–

Having trouble leaving a question or comment?  E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com

Posted on

HUMAN DESTINY – PART I – INTRODUCTION

“Let it be laid down in the first place, that humanity is destined to remain as it is.” – Pope Leo XIII.

Beyond individual freedom and the experience of fate, but critical to thinking about the meaning of life is the larger question of the destiny of humanity. Over the next few posts, we will investigate the thoughts of scientists, historians, philosophers, and theologians on this question. Of course any theory about the distant future of our species is highly speculative, but the conjectures of experts in these fields offer fascinating perspectives in which to frame one’s life and actions as a participant in that destiny.

My analysis shows five possibility futures for humanity:

  1. Self-destruction – nuclear war, climactic change, biologic agent, artificial intelligence, etc..
  2. External destruction – cosmologic, extraterrestrial intelligent life (including assimilation), etc..
  3. Gradual spread beyond earth.
  4. Evolution to one or more new species.
  5. Divine eschatology.

I will start with the thoughts of the great Richard Leakey, the famous paleoanthropologist, who helps us see how the trajectory of hominid evolution reveals the framework in which to consider human destiny.  We will follow this with the biologic view of George Gaylord Simpson and the general science view of Fred Kohler. Our last scientific viewpoint will be the cosmological speculations of Fred Hoyle.

Then we will evaluate the thoughts of three great historians, John Fiske, Will Durant, and Arnold Toynbee; followed by the philosophical views of Immanuel Kant, Karl Jaspers, and Lecomte de Nouy; and the theologian’s view of Saint John (Revelation) and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. For those who wish to look still further out and do not believe in a personal God, we will review  possible cyber-destinies and the cosmological understanding of the destiny of the universe.

Hopefully we will be able to distill from these sources a sense of the likely destiny of mankind and the adversity that must be overcome. This journey may be longer than the reader expected, but I hope it will permit us to clarify the role of the individual in the expansive future of homo sapiens and the universe.

—————————————–

Having trouble leaving a question or comment?  E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com

Posted on

EXISTENTIALIST FREEDOM – PART II – SARTRE

“There is no justification for present existence other than its expansion into an indefinitely open future.”  – Simone de Beauvoir.

Last time we looked at existential freedom in the thoughts of Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche. Today we will examine the utterly sweeping view of freedom advanced by Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre’s argument is quite simple: historically man was imagined as created by God with an essence or nature; but for the atheist, man is “nothing else but what he makes of himself,”1 that is, essence does not precede existence, rather existence precedes essence. Man is complete subjectivity.

In this view, man hurls himself toward a future and imagines himself within it. Man is condemned to be free and carries the weight of the world on his shoulders. There are no excuses regarding the world, emotions, actions, or inaction. The response that “I did not ask to be born” is a naïve way of dealing with our facticity. In truth, the real facticity is “I am condemned to be wholly responsible for myself.”2. One is not distinct from one’s epoch, and no one is an innocent victim. To continue to exist is a choice not to desert one’s circumstances or to commit suicide.

As for emotions and passions, he disagrees with William James who claims emotions are a set of sensations caused by a physiologic disturbance in turn caused by a disturbed perception or image. Sartre feels emotions require intentionality or a direction towards the world and are thus not simple sensations. Emotions have a finality or purpose; they are a strategy for dealing with the world. He also rejects Sigmund Freud’s notion of the unconscious and psychic determinism; emotions are conscious tactics, knowingly and willingly undertaken.3

He refers to the individual as the for-itself choosing its own destiny. The absolute freedom of man implies responsibility, not by way of resignation, but as the consequence of our freedom. “My situation is mine…the free choice of myself.”4 There are no accidents. The end result for us is we are “compelled to decide the meaning of being.”5

Perhaps Sartre is exaggerating in his complete disavowal of worldly circumstances, biologically determined human nature, and uncontrollability of emotions, but it is a refreshing viewpoint, challenging us to live as if we are totally free to accomplish whatever we wish in life and to find the ultimate meaning of our existence, impervious to determinism, fate, and fortune. It certainly justifies extended reflection by the serious philosopher.

 _______________________________________

1 Sartre, Jean-Paul, Existentialistm and Human Emotions, The Philosophical Library, New York, 1957. Page 19.

2Ibid, page 65.

3Solomon, Robert C. No Excuses: Existentialism and the Meaning of Life. The Great Courses. Lecture 19.

4 Sartre, Jean-Paul, Existentialistm and Human Emotions, The Philosophical Library, New York, 1957. Page 61.

5Ibid, page 66.

—————————————–

Having trouble leaving a question or comment?  E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com

Posted on

EXISTENTIALIST FREEDOM – PART I

“Intellect annuls fate. So far as man thinks, he is free.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson.

In this section so far we have investigated the arguments for and against free will and the extenuating factors of fate and fortune. Now I would like to look a little at the most radical presentation of free will; that is the existentialist position.

In this tradition, freedom is the central fact of human existence. Our choices determine our very nature. Every action in life requires choice; inaction is a choice as well. The criteria used in human choosing are themselves chosen; that is they are not deterministic as such and defy traditional modes of causation; therefore determinism is rejected.1

For example in Either/Or,  Soren Kierkegaard sees choice as the only authentic means to self-hood. Action fits into a coherent way of life with three main alternatives: the aesthetic (pleasure-seeking), the ethical, or the religious.2 In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, he reminds us that existence is individual in character, that an existent individual is one in the process of becoming, and that since death is imminent, every choice has infinite worth and every moment is a unique occasion for decisive action. In this way each individual achieves his being through decision.3

Friedrich Nietzsche  grants that we are born with certain abilities, dispositions, and personalities, but this does not mean we must accept what we are, rather we have the responsibility to make something of ourselves, for each person to “become who you are.” Talents are not self-realizing; it is the responsibility of the individual to cultivate them. The ultimate ethic of human freedom transforms life into the search for self-realization.4

In Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche describes the individual standing alone with his fate in his own hands unable to rely on help from others or the supernatural. He must make himself; life is the ‘will to power’ – the feeling that one is in command of oneself and the future. Virtue then is to be true to oneself and follow where the self leads. 5 In Beyond Good and Evil, he argues the metaphysical debate on free will should yield to a focus on the strength of the will. For Nietzsche, cause and effect are fictitious concepts useful for common understanding, not explanations. Instead of ‘free’ or ‘non-free’ will, we should recognize ‘strong will and weak will.’6

It appears these existentialist philosophers recognize a degree of limitation imposed by human circumstances, but nonetheless assert complete freedom of choice, individual responsibility for one’s actions or inaction, and autonomous creation of one’s own character and destiny. However an even more radical position on freedom  is described by John Paul Sartre. That is the subject of the next blog.

———————————————————-

1Edwards, Paul (editor), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. & The Free Press, 1972.   Volume 2, page 149.

2 Magill, Frank. Masterpieces of World Philosophy. HarperCollins Publishers.  1990. ISBN 0-06-270051-0. Pages  612-613.

3Ibid, page 626

4Solomon, Robert C. No Excuses: Existentialism and the Meaning of Life. The Great Courses. Lecture 12.

5 Magill, Frank. Masterpieces of World Philosophy. HarperCollins Publishers.  1990. ISBN 0-06-270051-0. Pages  686-691.

6Ibid, page 696-698.

—————————————–

Having trouble leaving a question or comment?  E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com

Posted on

FORTUNE – PART III – SERENDIPITY

“Fortune is powerless to help one who does not exert himself.” – Leonardo Da Vinci

Last time we saw how Boethius analyzed the situation of extreme misfortune, and found the opportunity it offers for reinforcing detachment and self-mastery as well as helping to identify true friends. Fortune can be approached by the philosopher from additional standpoints.

Philosophers offer advice on the role fortune plays in life and our ability to resist it. Diogenes Laertius is skeptical of the importance of fortune when he says, “Chance has a small impact on the wise man, while reasoning has arranged for, is arranging for, and will arrange for the greatest and most important matters throughout the whole of life.”1 Epictetus seems to differ, giving the typical Stoic view which echoes Boethius, “We must make the best of those thing that are in our power, and take the rest as nature gives it.”2 Machiavelli offers a pragmatic analysis: “Fortune is the arbiter of one half of our actions, but still leaves us to direct the other half, or perhaps a little less.”3 Shakespeare challenges passivity in the face of ill fortune when Hamlet asks “Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them.”  His queen, Elizabeth I of England, advises against reliance on chance, “Never think you fortune can bear the sway / Where virtue’s force can cause her to obey.”

But Leonardo da Vinci expresses best the use of good fortune in the quote above and in another, “When fortune come, seize her with a firm hand. In front, I counsel you, for behind she is bald.”4 While we must develop detachment in the case of unavoidable misfortune, we must be prepared to seize on good fortune, not waste it. This is particularly well demonstrated in cases of serendipity – the occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way. Most of us will experience this as ‘being in the right place at the right time.’ But better examples show the importance of preparation for and openness to lucky events such as when Scottish bacteriologist Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928, when he came back from a vacation and found that a green mold called Pennicilium notatum had contaminated Petri dishes in his lab and were killing some of the bacteria he’d been growing.

In conclusion, fortune or chance is an inevitable modality of the experience of life. Misfortune often requires detachment and perspective although it can perhaps be combatted at times. Good fortune requires preparation, openness, and firm action. However, fortune cannot be forced nor relied upon. Free will and ethical behavior offer more dependable means to achieve the goals of life.

—————————————————-

1Inwood, Brad and Gerson, L.P., Hellenistic Philosophy, Hackett Publishing Co., Inc., Indianapolis. ISBN 0-87220-041-8, page 27.

2Adler, Mortimer J, et. al., The Great Ideas – A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World, Volume II, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, 1952, page 185.

3Ibid.

4MacCurdy, Edward (editor), The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci, George Braziller, New York, 1955. Page 86 and 1093.

—————————————–

Having trouble leaving a question or comment?  E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com

Posted on

FORTUNE – PART II – BOETHIUS

“But Fortune, who never forgets her duty, turns her wheel suddenly.” – Marie de France

Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius, commonly called Boethius lived from 477-524 CE and was a Roman senator and counselor to the Ostrogothic King of Italy, Theodoric the Great. He was also a philosopher who translated Aristotle into Latin wrote philosophical texts of his own, and was likely a Christian though his “real religion is philosophy.”1 He was convicted (probably unjustly) of high treason and for one year prior to his execution, imprisoned in a dungeon where he wrote one of the great masterpieces of human civilization, The Consolation of Philosophy. Here we can witness the response of a great philosopher to the most extreme of ill fortune.

It opens with Boethius’ lament about the reversal of his circumstances, about injustice in the world, and the fickle nature of Fortune. He is visited by Lady Philosophy and a dialogue ensues. She urges him to cease in complaining and seek healing and courage. She reminds him that philosophers often clash with the ways of men in their opposition to evil and must reconcile themselves to the consequences of this clash, conquer the fear of death, and be unyielding to good and bad fortune alike.

The basic question for Boethius is whether the universe is guided by a rule of reason or by chance?  He concludes that all things have the reason of God as their source. Therein we can analyze the nature of fortune – life cannot stand still, change is integral to living, and fortune may bring one alternately high and low – these are the rules of the game and understanding them prevents unnecessary misery. The solution is detachment from fortune; if one bears everything with a calm mind, one’s lot will be blessed. Happiness lies within not without. The mastery of yourself is the most important of all possessions, and fortune cannot take that from you.

And ill fortune has an upside; it distinguishes true friends from doubtful acquaintances, and true friends are more valuable than any amount of riches. Dejection is caused by a too limited, too human perspective; philosophy’s job is to raise man’s sights, to give him divine vision. Any individual turn of fortune is not understandable in isolation, but must be placed in the total scheme of things, and to do that is to philosophize. Philosophy does not change events or reverse fortune but it does provide the understanding by which the events of life may not only be accepted, but also enjoyed. When fortune reverses itself, the first cry is for restoration, but philosophy teaches that man’s chief need is not for change, but for understanding. The goal is to seek the highest good and scorn the gifts of fortune.2

In summary, Boethius teaches us that the philosophical approach to chance in life is: (1) acceptance of and detachment from the inevitable cycles of good and bad fortune, (2) maintenance of perspective on individual fortune in the larger picture of the cosmos, (3) identification of enduring goods such as true friendship through changes in fortune, and (4) recognition of the ultimate value of self-mastery and internally-focused contentment. What greater legacy can one man hope to leave to humanity?

———————————————————

1Edman, Irwin, Editor, The Consolation of Philosophy; The Modern Library, New York, 1943. Page x.

2MacGill, Frank and McGreal, Ian, Editors, Masterpieces of World Philosophy; Harper-Row Publishers, New York, 1961. Pages 264-268.

—————————————–

Having trouble leaving a question or comment?  E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com

Posted on

FORTUNE – PART I – INTRODUCTION

“Fortune, Good Night! Smile once more; turn thy wheel.” William Shakespeare, King Lear,  Act II, Scene II.

In this section so far we have looked at two modalities of our experience of the unfolding of life – free will and fate. Today we will look at the third modality – chance or fortune.  Fate refers to deterministic aspects of our existence such as our human form, gender, physical attributes, time, place and family of birth, world events, and so forth – typically considered the necessary aspects of life. Free will represents our ability to choose our future within the limits of the environment and our abilities – that is the contingencies we appear to control. Fortune represents the contingent aspects of life that appear to be outside our control such as weather, people we meet or who influence our life course, or other chance events.

Fortune then is simply the factor of chance in human affairs. Fortune can be good or bad, but very few of the greatest people who have ever lived deny the part serendipity played in their accomplishments. The role of philosophy is to recognize chance as an inescapable factor in life and to guide us in how to use fortune (or overcome it) in living well.

We can start by looking at the phenomenon of chance. Bertrand Russell defines chance as an event whose cause is unknown. Other philosophers such as Aristotle and J.S. Mill think chance is the concurrence of two independent causal chains – coincidence as it were. Alternatively Epicurus, Charles Peirce, and William James all see chance as events that are uncaused.1 It seems to me that we should accept all three of these facets of fortune.

In Greek myth, Fortune is a goddess who combats against the Fates and like them has power even over the other gods. Aristotle lumps good fortune into the category of external goods. Such goods are beyond man’s power and merit, rather they are unpredictable. But no philosopher or myth of antiquity investigates the human experience of fortune as lucidly as Boethius does in the sixth century. That is the subject of the next blog.

—————————————–

1Edwards, Paul (editor), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. & The Free Press, 1972.   Volume 2, page 73.

—————————————–

Having trouble leaving a question or comment?  E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com

Posted on

FREE WILL AND FATE – INTRODUCTION

   

“But still I don’t know quite what to believe!                                                                             For there have been great scholars, many a one,                                                                   Who say that destined fate we must receive,                                                                  Yet others prove this must not be done.                                                                                   Add that free choice hath been denied to none                                                                   Alack, so sly they are these scholars old,                                                                                 I can’t make out what doctrine I should hold.”                                                           – –  –  –  – Geoffrey Chaucer, Troilus and Cressida, Book IV, 139.

Now we turn to one of the oldest debates in Western philosophy, does man or for that matter any living creature have free will, the choice to act in the way it prefers, or are all actions determined by outside forces or chains of causation? On the face of it, most of us will say we do have free will. If I raise my left arm right now for no particular reason, it was my conscious choice to do so. But very good philosophers have strong arguments, not all sophistical, against that action being purely volitional. This section will parse out the arguments for and against free will.

But there is a larger issue that emerges out of this discussion – the subjects of fate and determinism which affect not only us as individuals but humanity as a whole; projecting us into questions of human destiny. Therefore this section deals with the fundamental reality of human striving, the course of civilization and the future of our species. It is essential to our formulation of the meaning of not just any individual life, but of every human life ever.

This section will be divided into the following specific topics:

  1. Causation.
  2. Arguments for and against free agency
  3. Determinism and Fate
  4. Fortune in the philosophical understanding of life.
  5. Theological concepts of predestination
  6. The existentialist theory of freedom
  7. Human destiny
  8. Synthesis

As in the sections on good and evil, God, soul, and death and immortality, no philosopher can offer a definitive answer in these matters, and the point of this investigation is only to help the reader develop a lucid view for planning the best possible path in life. Join me next post as we begin with an examination of causation.