Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:53 pm Post subject: my 1st post of the night
I thought there were major differences between Darwin and Marx, but after class today I feel as if I could be interpreting their views because I wasn’t thinking of them separately as a scientist and a historian. It is still difficult imagine the two Ideas working together (Thesis and Antithesis, ay ay?) Equality and the struggle for survival just don’t mix in my brain, so I look forward to seeing if anyone posts similarities between them.
Turner’s ideas are really extreme, more like ‘survival of the fittest’ to me. Almost like America should go out looking for ways to dominate the world even when it really could be well enough alone.
I'm kind of having the same reaction to Darwin and Marx that Knaide is talking about. I had originally thought that they were very different and that I couldn't connect their ideas but after our discussion I'm sure that there are connections that I'm just not seeing. I keep trying to connect equality and survival of the fittest but I'm struggling.
well it should be remembered that it wasn't survival of the fittest that darwin was saying, but what social darwinists were saying. and it's interesting cause it seems that marx made this connection and then made series of theories against this idea.
THey all are very hegelian in the idea of continuing change. the only thinker that missinterpreted hegels ideas was marx, for he predicted a perfect form of human living and being. which is odd for he was the one who studied under him.
turner was the one that didnt digress to much from darwin's idea of contimnuing evolution, infact his theory of new pioneers creating new frontiers continuously matches wuiht the hegel idea of continuous change for perfection (not to perfection... for it) and also darwin's idea of changing to adapt, but alos these ideas are very different cause turner's adaptaion is more intelectual and society like, not like evolution which was darwin's cup of tea.
science nd histories ideas are continuously becoming more simlar, a pattern here matches apattern there, but they are still seperate subjects, their patterns are just very similar. study of the past proves the present, study of the present proves the past. yayness.\
marx's ideas aer actually not too different from darwin's and hegels, marx's idea of revolutions occuring in systems of society are very consistant with hegel, darwin and turner ideas, but hwere he went wrong was his idea of a perfect world where ll was equal, which was probably a conclusion based on the pain he felt reading these horrible stories of history and master and slave relationships, he was definately an idealist, so his idea of a perfect society was nice, the problem being is that it was been theorized (and i think proven from history) that the human thing to do is progress, and his idea of a perfect world would not be progression, it would be an end of progression which is not what darwin hegel and turner were talking about. (it would be death of humanity in my opinion but that's just my say).
Another thing that I'm realizing as I think more about Darwin is how difficult it is to stop thinking in terms of social Darwinism and remember that Darwin wasn't actually talking about survival of the fittest. I know that doesn't really relate to the questions but it's been on my mind.
I thought all three came together in the idea of a necessary struggle for progress. (very hegelian) I'm also going to call them all historians, even Darwin. He studied the past, and looked into how man adapted to nature, which seems pretty historical to me. He also did the obvious science stuff, too. I did a mini venn diagram in my head, and it seems like Turner connects well with everyone. I really liked Knaide's connection to social Darwinism and Turner's emphasis on the individual. Mark and Turner were similar in their focus on economics shaping struggles of the future. I had trouble connecting Darwin and Marx, too! I guess I understand Douglas' point about revolutions being similar to natural selection... sort of.
Science and history definitely have a relationship. I almost got into this in the Kant/Hegel paper, took it out to be more specific, and then turned in a paper about nothing. BUT, it looks like all the thinking I did is going to be helpful now. Science and history, in my mind, come together in the present. I'd like to cite a specific source, but my definitions of science and history at this point are such a weird combination of all the readings and class discussions we've had, I cant pin down a single moment that made everything click for me. My idea of history is much more concrete than of science. History is about man in the past. Science is something truth related maybe, and about prediction. So if one's about the past, and another is about the future, there's something present about their connection... I think. Part of the reason I threw this idea out of my paper is because it wasn't concrete. It still just really isnt all there.
Anyway, if someone could comment on the present thing, and maybe help me use that to connect Darwin as a scientist and Marx/Turner as historians, that would help!
So i was able to make connections and see differences between Marx and Turner today, but how does Darwin fit into all of this? I mean the only thing that is bulging out to me is that the all talk about change. But most people talk about change. Could someone help me make the connection between D and MT? hehe
Turner and Marx both had interesting ideas about what/who we are in conflict with. You know in English class how you learned to write things like "man vs self" "man vs society" ect? I'd say with Turner it's "man vs nature" where as with Marx it's "man vs man". Because with Turner, conflict comes from the environment, and with Marx it's conflict between people in competition.
I've also been trying to make connections between Darwin and Marx. I think Sonya was onto something when she said she was seeing a connection between Marx's idea of equality and Darwin's idea of natural selection. As Douglas was saying, I think Marx used a variation of Darwin's ideas (social darwinism) because that could more easily be applied to humanity and governement. I think Marx recognized the reality of natural selection. He saw the struggle for resources among different groups of people and was able to put Darwin's idea of natural selection in nature to into a different context for humanity in history. Instead of struggling to survive (though you could argue this is ultimately what they were doing) different groups were struggling for power.
He created a kind of framework for how it has worked in history (oppression, revolution, etc.) and Darwin created a framework for the changing and evolution of living things in nature. I think there's a lot more to say on this but I'm still collecting my ideas, so I'd love to hear what other people have to say about this.
Question: So I think I'm starting to get a handle on how these guys relate one one on one, but what do people think about the three of them together? I feel like they are similar to each other for very different reasons, so its kind of hard to think of similarities between all three of them.
Like Dylan, I thought that all three were similar in the sense that they all seemed to believe in some sort of perfection that we're all supposedly striving for; they all believed in the idea of progress. Darwin thought that the world used natural selection as a way of progressing towards perfection for each living species in the world. Marx believed in progress towards a society in which there is no hierarchy and in which people act in accordance with plans devised for the good of everyone in that society. Turner stressed the progress towards people better understanding history, which he believed would make them into good citizens. On the other hand, while Darwin believed that the strongest of each species would survive and flourish, Marx wanted nothing to do with the social ladder and how the richest are supposedly on top. Turner almost met in the middle of these two extremes - Darwin's belief that the 'best' survive and Marx's belief that the proletariat (working) class acted in the interests of all of the people - by bringing up the idea of the 'frontier', which he defined as 'the meeting point between savagery and civilization.' (81) These are just my initial thoughts, sorry if they're a little far fetched...
I definitely think that science and history are compatible in many ways, one of which is that both are used by people to strive for a better understanding of the world. I don't know if I'd say that they push against each other...I just view them as two separate fields that often have connections. They definitely have a relationship-from what we've read, scientists and historians seem to kind of feed off of each other's ideas. I'd say that science and history have a pretty good relationship.
Yup, there's my rant. I hope it makes at least a tiny bit of sense.
i really like lilia's idea that turner brought both the ideas of marx and darwin into the frontier, i think there's a lot of truth in that, and it connects them well.
i think contrary to dylan (sorry dylan) that science is not so much about the future as it is about the present, and history about the past. Science is about what happens every day, what is consistent and continuous, history is strictly the past, which is why it concerns people, because they have a definable past. with the study of the past and the continuous (what the present consists of) we try to predict the future.
and really science is used to prove history as i said before. history can prove science also.
to ellaborate on tess's point, i agree that turner is very man vs nature, but i think that's an extension from a man vs. society (or man i suppose) problem.
Jessica-I had trouble connecting Darwin to the other two also. The only connection that I could clearly see between all of them was that they all talked about progress of some form. Darwin's definitely kinda the outcast of the three (no offense to him...) hopefully we can talk about all of them more and try to find more connections, because as of now, I see Darwin as his own separate entity.
I kind of have the same question as Kate. It is very obvious to me the connection of change and/or progress the three of them all seem to talk about, but besides that I'm not really sure. I also agree with Shari as saying about their ideas of change. From what we've read so far I think that all of their philosophies/methods applied to their disciplines, science and history alike, are similar to lists we generated as a class on monday. And since both cause and effect and the dialectic method transcend both disciplines, they fit nicely into how I look at each of these men's work. For Darwin, the idea of progress shows pretty obviously through reproductive success and natural selection, which are both ways in which science continues forward... hehee evolution.
To completely shift my train of thought to something else all together... and this relates more so to the idea of cause and effect. Darwin believed that each species was dependently created, and no one thing could ever evolve or change on its own... everything must come from something. Marx took a similar approach to looking at the changes in society. When one people is being overpowered by another, they revolutionize themselves or evolve to create a power shift, and hopefully better society from that point on. Not that this can happen in a handful of events. Hence why Marx, in my opinion, felt that history "was thus the liberation of humanity" (76) and why some people took his ideas of the past too far. I had trouble connecting Turner to this train of thought, partly because I keep connecting his philosophies to the idea of the American dream and economic success of the individual. Probably interpreting that wrong. But then Turner was also saying, and Rachel today in class too, that for people to move forward, we need those leaders who take the huge steps onto the frontier. Also, I think his section from "Sections and Nation" on page 82 talks about how "we are members of one body, though it is a varied body".
I don't really know how to answer the question we're supposed to post about. Guess I'll keep reading.
[/quote]I'd say with Turner it's "man vs nature" where as with Marx it's "man vs man". Because with Turner, conflict comes from the environment, and with Marx it's conflict between people in competition.[quote]
I'm not sure if Marx believe or stated that man was in conflict with man. Man was in conflict with the system set by man, but not man himself.
All 3 individuals proposed huge changes in the way we saw what was deemed as true; receiving huge backlash, with few people being able to disprove their claims. I would say all three individuals were the champions for progress, but I'm open to being wrong. I welcome your rebuttals.
Also, civilization and being more "civilized" played a huge role. There was a sense of civilized order in Darwin's Natural Selection, Marx's idea of communism, and Turner's thesis on the Westward Expansion.
Where the 3 best showed similarities in their thinking is an idea set by Darwin that there are some aspects of species that work best in a certain place at a certain time. Marx believed that the system should be set from the past, not for the future, and Turner believed the way civilizations went about "societal systems" were outdated (ie Europe.) Selection for traits that work best in a certain place and at a certain time.
I also wonder what role money would have played in the ideas Darwin and perhaps the discipline of Science. Perhaps history is less honest because money is involved... Food for thought.
I love what you said about man vs. man tess, I think that is definitely what Marx is studying. He seems to be most interested in power dynamics within changing culture and how society is shaped around them, depending on what is presently most important- land or money, etc.
Something I wrote in my notes today next to Darwin was "progress of species", and I think that also applies to Turner, because he was interested in the progress of America, even if it's headlined by one person (specifically one white upper-mid class male, as he was accused speaking for only this genre of american by some of his critics) I agree with Kate that Marx was more caught up in power dynamics within whole society, rather than the entire progress of the mass- as the "mass" is the underdog in most of the scenarios he's referring to (i.e. industrial revolution).
Just a clarification. (sorry Lilia). I didn't say the connection was perfection, I said it was progress, and I think it's a very important distinction.
also, douglas, don't be sorry! i wasn't set in my idea, and your point is very convincing.
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
