yliu2012@csw.org
Joined: 18 Feb 2011
Posts: 27
Location: United States of America
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:49 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. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
