doug- i just re-read your post and am a little confused by this bit:
"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."
I thought that the "perfect" form of human living and being was more up Darwin's alley, or at least the struggle and continuous cycle of striving for perfecting a species by adapting to a constantly evolving environments. my notes say that Mark believed that "consciousness doesn't determine life but life determines consciousness" and that is where Hegel and Marx mostly diverged ideas
i'd love to understand what you meant by that more fully!
Like Knaide, I’m also struggling finding the common sense among three thinkers.
Darwin addressed that species with better traits will succeed in reproduction, thus will be ‘chose’ by nature, which means will survive better. This approaches to me as the species are not actually progressing, but ‘crossing out’ the inferior (any alternative word for this?) species, and leaving the betters. I should say this only brings the average (of the quality of species) up without the progression of whole.
Turner highlights the powerful individuals, the minorities who will lead the majorities. As we know, the power is limited. As more powerful the individuals grow, the majorities will suffer? Doesn’t sounds like the progress of whole, does it? Seems like another ‘bringing the average up by cutting the lowers.’
I mean, Darwin is suggesting the conflict between different species. Some species will overwhelm the others, hence it might looks like progress of some species. But in Turner and Marks, they are dealing with single species; human. There’s no conflict between species. Did we are agreed to distinguish the more powerful people and less powerful people as different species? Do we define progress by comparing with other species? Maybe I’m just lost in far behind, or thinking about something out of topic.
Tilly, thanks for this! Just like evolution of species, society and civilizations evolve as well according to changes in condition or need, always working towards a better 'something'. Or in Marx's case, I suppose eventually reaching perfection.
On another note, I tried comparing Marx's ideas of productivity to Darwins ideas of reproduction and they still seem to oppose one another. Marx describes efficient factory workers as 'dehumanized', but I feel Darwin would consider the efficiency a good thing. any ideas here?
and despite having familiar ideas, Turner still escapes me the most. I'm not sure if how he talks about the frontier, westward expansion is the same as the way I have been taught it my whole life, because plenty of things I thought to be true in this class have changed already.
tillyalexander wrote:
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.
so something interesting that's been turning up for me is the idea of "survival of the fittest". Although this idea is usually attributed to Darwin (and i think we learned in class today that social darwinists actually coined the term) i think that this idea is very relevant to Turner's ideas. His idea is that a leader (who as naya said will inevitably be a white middle class male) will arise and blaze the trail for others to follow, so in that sense the "fittest" man for the job succeeds. does anyone else see that connection?
also great Hegel connection in Turner I couldn't pass up, "History is thus 'ever becoming, never completed'" (81), which is so similar to what Hegel said that life is not merely being and death not merely non-being, but rather the essential step is the synthesis of the two, is becoming (63).
I think this was one of Turner's greatest contributions to History, the idea that "every age 'writes the history of the past anew with reference to the conditions uppermost to its own time'" (81). From what I understood, Turner believes that the knowers (historians) influence the known (the past) and change how the past is remembered, because their analysis changes depending on the current conditions of the present. This is, I think, a much more subjective view than Thucydides or even Kant (mister thing-in-itself) probably held.
i'm interested in Dylan's idea of Darwin as a historian. Something we talk about in my animal behavior class a lot is the idea of ultimate causes, which are the reasons why certain traits have been selected and persisted to the present. To get a full understanding of this though, you have to understand the history of the animal and its environment (or try to artificially recreate this). So Darwin's ideas really did spawn generations of historian scientists.
Something else i think is curious is that with all three men (perhaps Turner not to the extent of the other two, but you can definitely see this with his idealogy) people took their ideas and ran with them, applying their ideas to the future (in darwin's case to human interactions) in ways the men themselves never intended. not sure if this is relevant or not, but i think its interesting to think about why this might have happened. going of dylan and douglas' debate, i think this idea is something that keeps coming up for our class, how science/history can be applied to us now, or used for the future. but we can all see how things went to crap when people tried to apply the ideas that these men intended to be used as a lens for the past, to the future / used them to steer social change.
I think all three of them are similar in the idea of progress just in different ways. For Darwin, he sees progress in nature and within evolution. Marx sees progress through power and Turner sees power through economics.
Marx was more about humans achieving freedom and breaking down that economic and materialistic shade. In order to do that one needed to revolt. He thought that the poor had more power as well. It was fascinating at how much influence Hegel had on Marx.
Marx and Turner were different in their approach to history though. Turner believed that in order to gain a complete view of society, one must study all the facets of past societies. For Marx, by studying history, one reveals that society has passed through a number of distinct modes of production, like feudalism and capitalism.
For Darwin I do agree that it is very hard to not think about social darwinism and "survival of the fittest" because its what people most associate Darwin with.
It's okay dylan! there definitely is a huge difference between progress and perfection, and i agree that progress was mainly what they were all striving for in one way or another.
Bree!! Maybe you're right! I can't decide if I like Douglas' idea, your idea, or maybe still mine (probably not) best. I think you and Doug were saying the same thing in different ways, which is that science is constant and in the present, and things get messed up when we look towards the future. yeah?
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:00 pm Post subject: Darwin Marx and Turner
I think it follows very naturally that we read Darwin and Marx first, and then Turner. I can really see a chain of influence here, obviously in terms of 'social Darwinism' but also a theme of dynamic change, or revolution. These new ideas are not presented as a continuation of previous theories, but (for the most part) in direct conflict with them. How Hegelian, right? Of course, a struggle ensued, and about a century later, we're looking back on these events and seeing how they shaped history and science. Maybe History itself is Synthesis.
Another thing that kept coming up in my mind, was misunderstanding. It seems that much of the criticism that these men faced was due to the fact that people had misinterpreted what they were trying to say. Darwin was accused of being a heretic, we all know what happened when people tried to extend Marx's principles to the modern world, and other historians didn't like Turner's frontier argument. What's important is that Darwin's theory answered more questions than the ones before it, people just had trouble letting go of a God who intervenes. Marx's philosophy was a historic one, not so different from Herodotus' Soft/Hard culture one. People thought that logically, it would work in the present. Except that interim dictator part, that didn't pan out so well. Lastly, The idea of a 'Frontier Forge' just sounds so cool, there's a real machismo that Turner captured, and people just nitpicked. He wanted us to really look at the history of more than America, to become more worldly. It would help us understand current events and our own pasts. _________________ "We have two ears and one tongue so that we would listen more and talk less." - Diogenes of Sinope
Last edited by edalven on Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:28 am; edited 1 time in total
naya-
i probably should have elaborated on my argument cause that sentece i wrote was a little too short and incomplete. What i meant to say was that darwin did say that beings evolve towards perfection, but not a final perfection, and hegel would also make that distinction, towards perfection but not a final perfection. for them it was more progress, which someone said on teh post, lilia was the last one to post it but i think possibly there was someone who did before. what marx said was that there was a final perfection that humans were striving towards, which was his ideal of all people with equal power striving for nothing but teh good of the people. what i'm trying to say is that hegel and darwin would say the idea or goal of perfection constantly changes as time and history passes, shaping a new world where a new type of perfection would be key,so it would be more like progress of teh species to be better. Marx says that there's a final definate perfection that man is goign towards which is less hegelian and more marx's world of bestness. He did agree that perfection is achieved through conflict as hegel and darwin would say, but they are different cause marx made it seem like there was a final perfection to be reached. i hope that clarified what i was saying.
also i actually completely missed that quote which is upsetting cause it's so true, that;'s so not hegely. thanks for pointing that out.
Bree i really like this but i don't have the energy to comment on it so i'll just quote it. "I think this was one of Turner's greatest contributions to History, the idea that "every age 'writes the history of the past anew with reference to the conditions uppermost to its own time'" (81). From what I understood, Turner believes that the knowers (historians) influence the known (the past) and change how the past is remembered, because their analysis changes depending on the current conditions of the present. This is, I think, a much more subjective view than Thucydides or even Kant (mister thing-in-itself) probably held. "
I really like Bree’s comment abut the survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest has always been really interesting to me... also the fact that I have spent almost my entire life thinking hat the phrase was “survival of the fetus” like an unborn organism... awkward.
I also really like reading Dylan’s post... it brought up a lot of ideas that I hadn't given much though to such as all three of them connecting to the past, even though Darwin’s ideas obviously are about change and progress.
Dylan, I really liked your idea of the relationship between science and history. I think it is an idea that we could really expand on. As far as DMT goes I agree with a lot of what people are saying. I see, like many others, the connection between the three of them and change and progress. I found the comparison of Marx system compared to Hegel's really interesting. The revolution being the conflict leading to synthesis. I definitely found more comparisons and differences between Marx and Turner, trying to figure out how Darwin goes in to all this but the posts are helping! Also I love Naya's point about "progress of species". I think that does apply to Turner because of his want for expansion by strong individuals. On another note about Turner (I know this post is all over the place) I found the economic strategy of expansion fascinating and how he felt that the extremely rich must be there for people to follow. It just seems so polar opposite of Marx.
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:50 pm Post subject:
For all three of them, I think they all believe in some kind of revolution, progress, or change, just in different kind of form.
For Darwin, he believed that species did not create seperatly, they were inherited. They reason that they look different now is the natural selection. Overtime, species have to adapt to the changing environment, only the ones that can fit better can easily survive. The result of that is that the species are slowly changing.
But, for Marx, he looked at revolution from a different perspective. He looked at revolution through historian lences. Through economics and society changes, he saw the shifting in power. The ones that are essential to revolution are proletariat because they have nothing to loose. Why is that important and essential? From my understanding, because when the power is really unequal, people tend to fight for equality. Marx claimed that “Human alienation requires a practical solution”(p.76). He believed that there would always been some kind of revolution about power.
On the contrarary, Turner believed that “frontier...was the key to American history and indentity”(p.81). The reason that his idea of frontier was different from Marx’s idea of revolution was that he believed that as pioneer moving west, the socail class would weaken, and new power would emerge. What that means is that there is always a way to become more powerful. At the end, he mentioned that “profound the economic changes, we shall not give up our American ideas and hopes for man”(p.82). He believed that economic would be the next step to go for change.
I think the part that both Turner and Marx talked about economics as a force to cause revolution is another common that they share. However, I do not see that many connection between Darwin and them two beside that they all believe in some kind of changes.
From reading these three philosopher’s ideas, I feel that history and science are slowly come together. Both two of them can somehow expalin one and another. I actually even see it in Hegel’s philosophy. He believed that we should unfold the past and use its knowledge to grasp the present and future. Although it can be describe in History’s perspective, it could also apply on Science because Hegel and Darwin’s studies were all based on the past to put them into a format to study them. Now, Darwin, Marx, and Turner all used the Hegelian’s idea of change to explain History and Science. Also, Science used the past events to explain its theory. By that I see a really close connection between the two studies. They are no longer explain seperately.
O no. Sorry Douglas. If you're yamsham then I was referring to you in my post, not Shari I guess.
Anywho. I still haven't come up with any sort of a solid answer to the question about the relation to science and history. Every time I find a point that might be valid, I can find a perfectly good counter argument. I'm looking over what I think goes into each of these disciplines, and whenever I imagine history or science advancing, I think they affect each other in one way or another. How we define science and how we study it changes over time, and the same with history. But I feel like if something is discovered in either field it may only affect history or science with no capital letters. Does that make sense? Maybe the change has to be huge for it to alter our methods?
I'm having some issues connecting Darwin, Marx and Turner, since they all have very different viewpoints. I keep looking at my chart that I made in class today and trying to find a crossover between the information on the three but I have had no such luck. I think I need more time to ponder this before I can submit an eloquent response. So, my understanding is that the post was supposed to focus on the question posed and we were supposed to make separate lists about the three thinkers similarities and differences? Most people seemed to have converged the two, so I'm not sure. Anyways, I will just answer the science and history question.
The philosophies and methodologies of science and history are quite possibly changing in compatible ways but we find it difficult to admit because the changes aren't ascertainable. "We are always slow in admitting great changes of which we do not see the steps." (p.60) I don't believe that they are pushing against each other. There is a definite connection between science and history. Like Doug said, science is used to prove history. Science is about the continuous cycle of our natural daily life and history primarily pertains to people and the events of the past. A combination of history and science is needed in order to understand humanities past, present and future.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
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
