Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:06 am Post subject: Darwin, Marx and Turner: Day 2
Make 2 lists:
• What do these 3 thinkers have in common?
• Where do they diverge from each other?
Post
• Are the philosophies and methodologies of science and history changing in ways that are compatible? Are they pushing against each other? Do they have any relationship at all?
Sorry I wanted to post more to the last topic, but I decided I really didn't have that much to contribute so
For history, the purpose changed from recording to pattern finding, understanding and predicting. The subject also changed from events to human. Along with the changes in philosophy, the methodology also changed from recording to questioning, combining and analyzing. For science the process might have been similar. The movie we watched on Friday made me think (I can’t remember why) that the original purpose of studying science (or nature) is to better understand God and The Bible. However, as time went on, people started finding new explanations that didn’t involve a higher power, but only nature. Then more theories suggested the relationship between nature and human, which once again shifted the focus of science to man. Of course there still existed many collisions but after all the ways history and science changed are compatible, because they both end up discussing similar issues, just from different approaches (or apply similar ideas to different situations). Darwin, Marx and Turner are great examples. They were all inspired by Hegel, who was both important to history and science, and applied their thoughts in different yet compatible ways. Darwin believed species evolved to better fit the environment (so outside factors are essential). Marx, similarly, also thought that society shaped people’s mind. Turner believed human actively shaped the world around them, but they still are influenced by the environment and people in it. So I guess many theories in history and science develop in a circular motion that sometimes would be brought back to a point that already existed by someone. But at the same time it’s still progressing.
Question: Forget about what I just wrote. If science and history are changing in a compatible way, does it necessary mean science and history and compatible? Then if they are, why we usually don't talk about science in history classes or history in science?
In common:
- Changes are inevitable.
- They all proposed theories/ideologies that fundamentally re-shaped people's view on natural world and/or the development of societies.
- Both nature and human society change toward a more perfect form. (But Marx and Turner's views differed on how the society should change.)
- Humans are not high above nature, but are part of nature. So the laws applied to natural world can also apply to human societies.
- Both Turner and Marx extended Darwin's theory to Social Darwinism. They used his scientific evidence to support their ideas on how the society should progress.
Divergence:
- Turner and Marx focused on the evolution of humanity/society whereas Darwin focused on the evolution of organic beings/nature.
- Darwin's methods: scientific
Turner and Marx: social and historical
- Turner and Marx took two completely different sides when interpreting Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Turner, or the American society in general, emphasized on the roles of the more powerful individuals. Turner saw the conquest of the west as the most important component of American identity. He believed America acquired its strength and momentum through bringing "civilization" to "savagery" and out-competing the weaker. His view represented the prevailing belief in America (especially during industrial revolution) that the rich and the powerful were the "product of natural selection".
Marx, on the other side, emphasized on the part of Darwin's theory that every organic beings has the fair chance to survive, as long as it responds to changes in nature. It's not the strongest, but the fittest who survive. He called for a social reform which he believed was a key step toward a better society where everyone, not only the rich, become "best-fitted". He wanted to give the control of destiny to the people who essentially had no power or wealth (proletariate).
- Individualism vs. Socialism
Question: What is a "materialist conception of history"(77)? Are Turner and Marx's methodologies "materialist"?
As what I saw from the three thinkers, science and history were not pushing against each other (as you can see from above, the two disciplines were closely related or even mingled), but I wouldn't say they are truly compatible either. In answering Mingwei's question, I think it would become quite awkward if we forcibly apply principles of science onto history or vice versa. I think the social reformers incorporated Darwin's theory into their ideologies because they wanted to convince people. The scientific discoveries were only tools they use to persuade the public and to make their claims seem more factual-based. I found it problematic to apply rules of nature to human society. Darwin's theory of evolution is applied to an extremely long course of time. The changes in organic beings happen so slowly that they can hardly be seen. But the social leaders wanted to see the progress of society in a short time, which is quite unrealistic in the natural world. Also, the study of human history is full of interactions within the human species, but Darwin's theory wasn't so much about the interaction within one particular species. Interactions among various species and response to environmental changes were indispensable aspects in his theory.
Question: I felt I was talking about the distinction between natural science and social science, and not so much about history and science. But when I think of history, I think of society, and therefore, social science. Is social science closer to Science or History?
Last edited by Yqi2013 on Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
The philosophies of science and history are changing in similar ways. Darwin, Marx, and Turner all brought new ideas to these disciplines during the eighteenth century. All of these people were, in some ways, influenced by the philosophies of Hegel. Each believed that everything was always changing and progressing. Darwin wrote of change of species and life, and how they adapted to survive in certain environments. He also talked about changes in Science. Marx and Turner wrote about change over history, about the "evolution of society" (pg. 80). Darwin, Marx, and Turner also brought science and history closer together, and farther away from Hegelian ideas. They believed that change and progress was caused by the physical world and material conditions. Darwin thought that an area environment would cause some variations of species to become extinct, or Marx thinking that the evolution of society was caused by some economic and class situations. They brought the focus of both Science and History away from what the mind and one's consciousness determines and towards what material conditions determine.
In response to Yiwei, I'd say History is a subdivision to Social Science. In my understanding History is the study of humanities using scientific methods.
In response to the other question about "materialist", I think the "materialist conception of history" relates to my question yesterday regarding how much of history is made by human. Marx's idea is "the material conditions determine the nature of human consciousness and society, rather than the other way around" (77) This idea challenged the way we used to view history as [the past created by our own activities] and pointed out a new direction that the history is our interactions with the material world (or our adaption to the outside world according to Darwin's theory and Turner's History) (I guess in Turner's view of history, the connection between us and the material world is more than a single direction relationship but rather a loop: as we created history by our intention to conquer the West, our traits and characteristic are also derived from experiencing the rugged environment.)
Thus I'd say Marx and Turner are materialist but at the same time a new kind of materialist different from their antecedents who saw human senses and consciousness as passive and relatively useless. Marx and Turner started to saw the interplay between our consciousness and the objective, outside "matter". Which is to say, in their concept, our relation to "matter" is the driving force of history instead of just the "matter" by itself.
This is just my guess so correct me if I'm way off the route.
I think the methodology we use to study science and history started to get intertwined. The example would be Darwin used history of geology to propose the theory of evolution and Marx took a rather scientific structured way to look at how material conditions determined our society.
The idea of causality and progression, produced by the interaction between science and history, are two great philosophies that play great roles in the methodology of science and history.
The only good push I can think of is that science produces theories that seem counter-intuitive and thus challenge the way we view history. But I guess this push also destroyed the way we see history as absolute truth and pushed us to approach it through scientific methods.
I have a weird, not very precise answer to this question. Hopefully once I get it down on "paper" it will solidify.
In one way, I think history and science are diverging as disciplines. In the time of Aristotle, we thought of the great thinkers as philosophers, not scientists or historians. They set out to answer big questions about how the world worked, like why and how do things change and what's in the heavens. A lot of the time these answers fit into the scheme of the Bible, and thus by studying what we may now define as science, they were explaining their history. Fast forward several readings and we arrive at Kant and Hegel. Again, to me these men were not historians or scientists, but philosophers. They didn't as much study the world as try to explain it. As we addressed in our essays, both of them had great impacts on the study of both science and history, and thus in their day is seemed like history and science were still rather entwined disciplines. But I wouldn't say the same of Darwin: he was a scientist. A philosopher yes, but just because the discipline of philosophy and grand and vague, but he was a scientists first. As the age gets more and more modern, the disciplines began to define themselves more and more. With a framework in place to study within, people stopped setting out to answer just the grand questions, but they got to focus and observe and analyze. There is of course still some blur, because any study of the past can be considered a study of history, and much of science revolves around the past. But a historian does not study how the universe was made, a scientists does. And that distinction did not seem to exist in our earlier readings.
I think a bit of my struggle here is that my definitions of science and history, and of scientists and historian are very clear in my mind, but they must be equally clear in the mind's of others and most likely at least slightly different. It's a hard conversation to have without first laying down a good groundwork (thanks Kant).
Divergent:
Although realizing that nature and human are connected, the three approached differently, as Yiwei mentioned, Darwin looked at animals and then applied to humans. The other two sort of looked at humans as animals, looking at their (our) own society.
Otherwise I agree and have not much to add to this section that Yiwei didn’t already mention.
Common:
The world is always trying to become a more perfect form of itself.
Which leads into the next ->
Change is natural.
Nature and humans are inseperable, again going back to Kant and Hegel.
Turner and Marx used Darwin’s ideas creating their own applied theories. (social Darwinism).
They were all searching for the reasons, the why and sort of how of the world.
Well what Mijia said in her response really struck me. I’m not sure exactly what social science is, I think she is pretty much right, but it seems to me that when looking at these connections the most important part is maybe that in order to study social science of humans you need to look at their history. SO in this way it is inseperable.
And after reading over the post yesterday, I see the rest of mijia’s post in context. And I think that the “materialistst” question, sounds sort of like the beginnings of philosophy. When the ancient Greek philoshophers started moving away from mythology to describe and explain the world, and instead turning to solid reasons and thinking. (no matter how unrealistic it may sound to us). Those steps mirror the thinking of Marx and Turner, trying to do more than just be a part of it, or think that all they are is a part, they are moving towards effecting the surroundings, setting in motion the change. Not sure if that makes sense, but that’s what I got.
I think the philosophies of science and history changed in ways that are compatible. Hegel believed in History and people changing for the better just as Darwin believed in species evolving towards perfection. I think the methodologies are slightly different although they have the same goal, finding the truth, Science has two different ways of finding truth, the scientific method and chasing after a made up hypothesis that has no evidence. History is more about looking at past records and drawing conclusions from different accounts.
I do not think they are pushing against each other and they definitely have a relationship. It can be seen really clearly when Darwin talks about how the geological remains of past animals can show migration patterns and thus determine ancient geography. I think the information that is produced on both sides influences one another.
Commonalities
-All three men broke down history into ". Turner for instance, took note of all the different elements that influence history. Turner noted the different aspects of american culture, Marx the progression of economic society, and Darwin the evolution of species.
-I consider all three men historians
-both Turner and Marx were social scientists
Differences
-While Marx believes people should for the good of the community, Darwin showed that survival of the fittest is the natural order of things. Not all can be equal.
-Darwin was the only one of the three who I consider a natural scientist
I believe that the philosophies and methodologies of science and history are usually, but not always, compatible.
For Darwin, historical philosophy kept much of society from accepting the origin of species. Most people believed in the Bible as true historical fact. This also kept scientists (like several in the movie) from finding the "truth". Instead of letting their science lead them to new discoveries, they had to mold their science around the agreed upon history of the time.
I did not see any relationship between science and history in the works Marx or Turner BUT...
Turner did mention scientific research on the first page of page 82. I don't really understand how it relates if anyone can help me out.
I'm really excited 'cause this reading made me add a lot to my definition of H/history, but so much that it's a bit overwhelming
The bad thing about not posting near the beginning is that almost everyone has already said what they have in common and how they diverge from each other but here they are anyways
Common:
-nature and humans are always intertwined with each other
-the world/nature is evolving towards perfection
-change is never going to stop
-created their own theories/hypothesis
-Turner and Marx used social darwinism to help support their ideas
Divergences:
-I would consider Darwin a natural scientist/ Marx and Turner social scientists
-Marx talked a lot about politics and communism and a little less about nature (Marxism)
-And basically everything that Yiwei said….she summed everything up perfectly
I think that science and history are always evolving. There will always be great scientists and great historians who will push the envelope and never allow things to stop changing. However, again I would need to do more research on recent developments in history and science….unless we are just talking about in the past, in which case Woops.
Question: Who is the Father of Science? (When you are only considering Darwin, Marx, and Turner)
Common:
Humans are a part of nature, not above or below nature, but in a way an extension
change is inevitable in the world
change is towards making the world more perfect/always for good
Difference:
Going with a more historical method vs. a more scientific method
socialism vs. individualism
good for the community vs. survival of the fittest
I do not believe that the relationship between the philosophies and methodologies of science and history effect each other enough so that there is much level of compatibility or not. Perhaps there could be a level of influence with the current methodologies and philosophies of an era, but I believe that Science and History are still able to stand alone. They can be combined if one wishes to look into a mixture of the two, but true Science and History in my eyes, does not need a mix of the other to influence itself.
the three thinkers believed that society or life were on the course to perfection, Marx and turner used a social Darwinist view, they all prescribed to the thought that change happened whether it was sought or not.
diverging elements were that Darwin had no social element in his theory, Darwin thought that organisms were evolving towards perfection not societies, Darwin used science rather than history or political philosophy.
Both disciplines seem to inevitably appreciate methodology/ approaches that allow for revision and outside contribution and in that sense are compatible. Maybe revision isn't the right word, because I don't mean alterations that are made on the basis of a specific agenda, but simply that it seems that many of these 19th century figures exposed the flexibility of their respective disciplines. Lyell, Wallace, and Darwin all challenged the status quo truths of natural science, while using empirical evidence that predates the formation of these previously held beliefs. (In fact, they were illuminating the nature of changes that predated modern Humans in general.) Contemporary understanding of both Science and History must be informed by the past nature of these fields- Marx philosophy of the class struggle altered our current perception of History, placing the common man's plight front and center. Turner echoed the nature of these change's in his writing as well, stating that every age "writes the history of the past anew with reference to the conditions uppermost in its own time" (81).
Question: Did Walker's claim that American identity was defined largely with our relationship to colonialism and the frontier seem to illustrate a move towards a more perfect culture? (Like Darwin's belief of evolution tending toward perfection, or Marx's belief in a perfected social structure) - or a more ambiguous sense of historical progress, similar to Hegel's idea?
I find that throughout this class, the more I study all these great thinkers the more my definitions of history and science seem to intersect. I think they're both about pattern finding and studying the past to apply this knowledge to the present/future. A lot of philosophy overlaps into both territories, suggesting to me a certain ideological overlap. And so really I think the only way they are starting to differ is in subject matter. In the beginning, there was really only philosophy, a strictly abstract, east-thinker way of looking at the world because they didn't have the means to do it or conceive a way to do it. But then, as the study of history and the study of science really took off, they began to diverge simply because of subject matter. I believe history and science use similar philosophical lenses for a real world application, using the ideological to understand a practical discipline.
Hopefully I'll develop these thoughts more over time, because I only have the slightest idea of what I'm saying right now.
Anyway, my question is not really about any of this but I've been wondering: why haven't there been any revolutionary philosophers like Kant or Hegel in a long time?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
