Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:26 pm Post subject: Darwin, Marx and Turner: Day 1
For the first time I beat Rachel!
Darwin believed that there originally existed at most 4/5 progenitors for animals and plants(p.72). Then these original species evolved into more complex forms which might have come from two different species but now look very similar. Darwin said by looking at these animals/plants that exist today and think back, we could see the connections existed in history. Also, like Hegel, Darwin believed in the progression towards perfection as well.
Theory can be understood as “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be”. Darwin thought a good theory should be carefully thought out (p.6, and should contain fully stated and balanced facts and arguments on both sides (p.69). The fact that his theory wasn’t easy to understand was because the idea of the happening of great changes while not being able to see them was hard for human mind to grasp (p.71). This might be what distinguishes his philosophies different from Galileo’s, for the subject matter makes personal experience not that easy to attain (obviously nobody’s able to see a fish evolving into a lizard in everyday life). Aware of the fact his theory might be hard to understand, Darwin structured his work by dividing his whole theory into pieces and explain one bit at a time.
Like Hegel, Marx also believed mind played an important role in history (because of the relation between mind and existence). However, unlike Hegel, Marx proposed that instead of mind shaping the idea of nature (or existence), outside factors shaped human mind (p.77). These factors are class, status, wealth, skills, etc. These factors shaped the society and divided it into three parts that were constantly changing. So for Marx, studying history by merely understanding human’s perspectives wasn’t enough, because these perspectives were influenced by society, and society was then influenced by human. A good way to start, according to Marx, might be to start from the bottom of the social scale, then move on to the top.
Turner agreed with Hegel that human influenced history. But he also said human also influence the study of history (Historiography), and that every new decade or period human “revise” history and thus influence other humans influencing history. He believed Historiography is important because this gives people a sense of where everything comes from. But focusing on a small area is not enough, there needs to be a big picture. His idea of American life arose from the conflicting combination of European and Native American life also resembles Hegel’s idea of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
I guess Darwin, Marx and Turner are put together because many of their ideas comply with each other’s, and they were all inspired by Hegel (was Turner too?). Also for all of them, some of their thoughts were either taken too far or totally misunderstood, which brought them to be criticized. But there should be a lot more, it’s just my brain is so dead now I’ll come back later when I think of more
Question: It seems to me that Darwin and Marx are more related, but why is Turner also part of it? (I can see small connections but it would be great if you could help me see more)
Darwin believed that all the different species we see today were not created individually but rather descended from similar life forms, and an accumulation of slight changes over time made them distinct.
Theory: "A concept that has been well tested, and is accepted as an explanation to a wide range of observations."- biology online. I don't know how credible this source is but this definition seems to capture a lot of the elements I've seen separately in other definitions.
Darwin certainly did not have much evidence to back up his theory, nor did he test it. I can't find a specific definition of a theory in the Darwin reading but Darwin did admit that his conclusions were imperfect as he did not include all the facts he based his ideas on. I would not call "The Origin of Species" a theory, but rather a hypothesis. Darwin argued for evolution by refuting the current theories of that time which isn't a very strong method of arguing. He said it was impossible for atoms to simply jump together and form life, and asked would chickens be formed as eggs or chicks? (p. 72). Proving the current theory of biology did not make his own argument correct, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worth saying. The undulatory theory of light was not supported by hard evidence for a long time after it was theorized (p. 71). This idea of making a claim before finding all the evidence is very Hegelian. Darwin's "theory" of evolution is the thesis which will eventually be countered with an antithesis of empirical evidence, resulting in a synthesis of higher truth.
END OF PT. 1
pt. 2
In the excerpt we read from "the Assayer," Galileo spent a great deal of time defending against criticism from Sarsi for not understanding "precisely the way in which comets are produced." Galileo struck back at Sarsi, ridiculing him for trying to prove his theory of comets by means of witnesses when Galileo could disprove Sarsi through controlled experimentation. Galileo favored controlled experimentation over the unreliable senses, which often fail to tell us anything, or worse, deceive us. Galileo had this preference in common with Darwin.
Darwin refuted the idea that species are immutable. He said the "best and safest clue" to their mutability was variation under domestication, (p. 69). The ability to isolate and pass traits down by means of selective breeding was known to be possible. Darwin used evidence not from observation of the natural world, but from selective breeding, from controlled experimentation.
Simple human observation of the natural world would make you think that all species are immutable. Chimps in the wild give birth to chimps not humans. But the senses are often deceiving. Darwin said that evolution happens naturally over long long periods of time which makes human observation incapable of observing evolution in progress today: "the mind cannot possibly grasp the full meaning of a million years; it cannot add up and perceive the effects of slight variations," (p. 71). Darwin favored controlled experimental evidence over observed evidence in proving evolution and this preference would appeal to Galileo.
However, the purpose of Darwin's work was to explain a seemingly unexplainable phenomenon, the origin of life, and Galileo believed he didn't need to explain the comets. Galileo said he never claimed to be able to explain the comets (53) which makes me believe he is comfortable with the existence of unexplainable phenomena. He ridicules Sarsi for his silly explanation that movement causes heat which is backed mainly by the experience of past scholars and societies (54). It seems that Galileo looks down upon people for explaining things with imperfect proof so I wonder if he would look down upon Darwin for his incomplete explanation.
Marx believed that the productive forces, the workers and industry, should determine the course of a society (77). He believes that economic structures should exist for the "development of the forces of production."
Marx agreed with Hegel that "history reveals the progressive manifestation of the (collective) mind" through a series of revolutionary steps, (76). They also agreed that history is approaching perfection- just look at the way Marx described the progression of economic systems, eventually improving towards communism. They differed in that Hegel thought experience flows from philosophy and Marx thought philosophy flows from experience (77.) This difference is very important to Marx's philosophy because he believes that the political and legal institutions, the manifested philosophies of a society, if you will, should be derived from the people (77). Hegel believed that the spirit of the people should determine the life of the people and that dictators could embody the spirit of the people. So, to Hegel, it was ok for a dictator to determine the lives of the forces of production.
Turner believed that the American identity came from expansion into the frontier, (81). Also, he believed that America is "one body, though it is a varied body," (82).
I though a lot about the dialectic method during this reading, especially during the part about frontier. America's unique identity comes from the meeting point between "savagery and civilization," (81). Westward expansion combined European culture with the rawness of the "uncivilized" frontier. The conflict between these opposing concepts resulted in the synthesis of American culture. The dialectic method also applies to Turner's idea about America being on body comprised of separate sections. Many differing identities come together to form another identity bigger than all of them.
Turner differed from hegel in that he did not believe in a final form of society: "Every age write the history of the past anew with reference to the conditions uppermost in its own time. History is thus ever becoming, never completed."
I think an interesting comparison between Marx and Turner is that Turner is all about individualism while Marx is all about a collective identity. One appeal of the frontier which has lived on in American pop culture is the idea of going "where no man has gone before." There's a sense of oneupsmanship in the idea of Westward exploration, going further than anyone else. This is a stark contrast to Marx who criticized capitalism for rplacing cooperation with with competition.
Competition and cooperation are both means of progress which can forward a society as well as a species (fighting for food/hunting in packs). Darwins "theory" of evolution made room for both as means of progress. I think Turner's ideas argued the competition side of darwinism while Marx argued the cooperation side.
How do cooperation and competition relate to Galileo? Who would Galileo favor, Marx or Turner?
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection suggests that species were not independently created but instead descended from primitive form. Species are modified into more developed and elaborate structure to adapt their surroundings, as Inheritance provides offspring with Variability and Natural Selection brings less-improved forms to Extinction.
The one of the definitions of "theory" provided by Merriam-Webster is "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena", while others all contain keywords like "assume", "abstract" and "hypothetical". Similar to Patrick's opinion, I think Darwin's "Origin of Species" is more like a hypothesis rather than a theory since theory, as explained by Dictionary.com, is more or less a verified explanation for known facts or phenomena while a hypothesis is "a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena as a basis of experimentation". Darwin admitted himself that "a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides" which "is here impossible"(69), his work cannot be viewed as a well tested theory since it's neither supported by enough evidences nor widely accepted or verified. His theory was hard to accept according to him that "we are always slow in admitting great changed of which we do not see the steps" (71). But in a similar way, Darwin's argument could just be hypothesis since he did not see the steps either. His theory was established by poking errors in the old theory. However his theory on how nature selects the more developed to survive was but a hypothesis lacking evidence.
While Galileo considered first-hand sense experience being the most important way of acquiring knowledge, Darwin also emphasized on the importance of reasoning because we cannot see the span of evolution through millions of years. Their ideas are similar on the suspicion of authority in acquiring knowledge, yet Galileo believed the more we learn the less we know while Darwin seems to think differently.
Marx believed that human are prevented by the economic and material conditions to achieving freedom / the unified spirit of 'Mind' in Hegel's words. That is to say we are all separated by class instead to state, and we are determined by the material condition rather than our own consciousness. And to fight against this structure of society determined by mode of production, we need the "propertyless working class to act in the interest of all of the people" (76) to achieve the unified, free and fair society.
Marx's approach to history is different from Hegel's in the way that he saw man's consciousness as a rather meager force in the progression of history while economic production dominated the formation of society and history, as opposed to Hegel's idea than "man is history"(64). Marx believed that the study of history reveals the modes of production we have went through and we can see different modes of human relations from it.
Turner's opinion is that American history is largely shaped by the west-wards expansion. He believed the pattern of development while settlers returned to primitive condition when moving towards the west "epitomes the record of the social evolution of humanity" (81).
Turner's way of seeing history sparks a new and interesting direction in the way he suggests to look at history with reference to the present and look at all the facets of past evidences.(81) He suggested to recognize the multiple causes of an event, which is different from Hegel's relatively linear projection if history.
In response to Mingwei, I think Turner was also inspired by Hegel since he shared Hegel's opinion that learning history can help us understand the present / our own image through an objective view. "in order to gain a complete view of society, they must study all the facets of past societies" (81).
(If this post is too long for you, start reading from here)
For me, these three readings are related in the way that together they pose an interesting question of how much of history is made by our own consciousness or our free will. Is history created by our adaptions to our surroundings or did our own actions create history?
In Turner's History, the importance of class distinction fades away while social and political equality were demanded by the settlers. The environment played a huge role in influencing human consciousness here. In Marx's theory, the mode of social production determines our social existence, which then determines our consciousness. And in Darwin's theory, we are "selected" by nature for the progress towards perfection, and free will plays no role.
These ideas all tie back interestingly to Hegel's idea that "history if the great transformer, the great mover, the justification for every accident of existence" (485). So I'm again very confused: maybe men indeed "make history", but it was made through we adaptions to the surroundings instead of our own consciousness/ free will?
Suppose the goal of history (according to Hegel) is the "liberation of humanity" (76), then how should we approach to that end goal?
Darwin:
• Succinctly state Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection
• Look up the definition of “theory”. According to Darwin, what makes a good theory? What made his theory so hard to accept?
• What was the structure of his argument?
• Is his philosophy of science different from Galileo in terms of purpose, methods, and acceptable evidence ?
Marx:
• Succinctly state Marx’s major ideas.
• Is his approach to history similar to Hegel’s or very different?Explain?
Turner:
• Succinctly state Turner’s major ideas.
• Is his approach to history similar to Hegel’s or very different? Explain?
Why did we choose to combine these three thinkers?
Darwin believed that all living things are descendants of one or a few forms of life. Over time certain variations of animals and plants would become extinct because of environmental factors or a lack of food. The animals that were best fit to survive in their environment would survive and reproduce. While others would die. This process was named natural selection. Natural selection was the reason that the types of animals in a certain area changed over time. A theory is a statement that can be used to explain or predict certain phenomena. Darwin believed a good theory must have evidence, facts that can be adduced, and arguments for both sides of every question (pg. 69). Darwin's theory is difficult to accept because evolution occurs over such a long period of time. It is hard for someone to accept something that they cannot see during their lifetime. Darwin's argument was structured in such a way that he first presented his findings and evidence and then he explained why he believed the species changed and adapted over time. He broke his reasons for the adaptations down into individuals factors, such as natural section or the struggle for life. Darwin's philosophy of science was different from Galileo's. Darwin researched why and how the species adapted and where they originated from. Galileo was concerned only with how phenomena happened. Yet they both had scientific methods when approaching their research.
Marx's philosophies were, in many ways, similar to Hegel's. They both believed that society was always changing, and that the changes were progress. They both thought that "the goal of history was thus the liberation of humanity" (pg. 76). But Marx had a fundamentally different belief than Hegel; he thought that the material world created one's consciousness. While Hegel believed the knower would create the known, and gave importance to one's mind. Marx thought the way to liberate humanity must involve a change of the material world and society.
Turner believed history should be conducted by using many research methods, finding every possible cause, and using the past to analyze the present. In a manner similar to Hegel, Turner thought that society was always evolving and that there were specific causes for the changes in society. He also wrote mostly of the American expansion towards the west. Turner believed that life on the American frontier united the country into a society based on individualism.
Question: What was Darwin's theory about species before he traveled to South America?
Darwin:
Evolution is the progression of an organism that is constantly evolving to become better suited to its environment through the process of natural selection. In natural selection, an organism randomly produces a change in itself that allows it to better suit its own environment; through enough of these changes, a new species is produced that is an offshoot of the original.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been continually re-evaluated and supported with facts and experimentation. Darwin believes in the power of "direct evidence" that substantiates an initial hypothesis, much like this modern definition. His idea was so hard to accept because it was so radically different from anything at the time; scientists were obsessed with being able to fit God into the equation and all believed in an instantaneous change, all of which evolution denies.
He was able to support his argument through experience and scientific analysis, similar to Galileo really, although Darwin didn't at all intend for this to be the finished product. He states in the beginning that he believes it to be unfinished, and that more work needs to be done before he can truly introduce it as a scientific theory. I also disagree with Mijia a little bit; I think that by acknowledging his work as unfinished and saying that there is still much more to learn, I don't think Darwin thinks differently from Galileo in the 'science is endless' department.
Marx:
Marx wrote a lot about the societal and economic conditions of history, and specifically about how humanity loses its inherent freedom because of them. He wrote about history as a class struggle and that humanity would reclaim its freedom and 'Mind' by engaging in a social revolution that would satisfy the needs of every class.
Marx is similar to Hegel in the sense that he details history as a progression and that is essential to understand the past to understand the present, but he also differs from this philosophy in that he has a much more material view of the world. Marx disagrees with Hegel on the fact that the knower creates the known, and instead says that the known creates the knower, and that really the material world around you creates who you are. He seems to put an emphasis on philosophy in the real world, rather than purely conceptual thinking.
Turner:
Turner was most interested in the frontier, and said that American history at that time period could be defined exclusively by the frontier. His other main idea was that history was constantly being rewritten, and that each new generation was contributing their perspective.
Turner seemed very much in line with a Hegelian sense of history. Hegel's idea that the world is changed by certain individuals is very similar to Turner's idea that the history of the time period was defined by the pioneer ideals. His idea that history was constantly being rewritten was a reference to Hegel's idea of the knower and the known, as history (the known) is thus recreated by whoever the current knower is.
I think these three all are united in their Hegelian ideas of patterns and change as a the dialectic method. Each of these three thinkers analyzed change in a different way, but all focused on change in terms of progress, of a constant ideological or societal improvement. Each thinker wrote history as a series of revolutionary steps, where each one would replace the previous one, and all attempting to reach that final form that progress implies.
My question is, What would Aristotle think of evolution?
Darwin's theory of evolution contains the thought that all current species are descended from a few progenitors rather than being separate creation. (72) he goes on to state that amongst the differing descendants of these progenitors only the most suited survive and thus propagate. (74)
the structure of Darwin's argument was laid out as easy to understand pieces backed by evidence and contained a fair bit of self defense.
a good theory to Darwin is one that fully states "and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" (69)
Darwin lists 4 struggles 1 changing of organs 2 instinct 3 hybridism, 4 imperfection of the geological record.
Galileo and Darwin differed in that their fields in science require different methods, while Galileo could experiment to show that Sarsi was wrong about his flaming lead theory while it is impossible to witness evolution first hand as it is a very long process he could however show the effects of domestication and crossbreeding plants as evidence.
Marx believes that the core of a society the "productive forces" should be the ones to lead the country (77).
Marx's view is similar in process and different in outcome to Hegel in that they both believe that History is a series of revolutionary steps Marx believing that those steps go to communism Hegel nationalism
Turner's main points are western expansion is the key to the american identity (81) America is "one body,though it is of varied blood." (82)
Turner follows Hegel's idea of every change is progress, specifically that america is progressing as it settles the frontier
all the thinkers are alike in that they run along Hegelian idea of progress that all steps no matter what are in some way progress on the road to perfection
I. Darwin
-Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was that, "animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number" (72.) These basic number of animals and plants have expanded through reproduction and natural selection has weeded out the species that won't exist in our contemporary world/conditions.
-For Darwin a good theory consists of carefully thought out evidence that has been tested and proven, however I do agree with Patrick and Mija that at this point his book was made up oh hypothesis instead of one theory because he didn't have enough evidence at that point to make the book into a compacted theory. His "theory" was controversial because of religion. He believed that throughout time, species will become closer to perfection and when they were placed here by God that they weren't perfect but instead basics. This would've been hard to accept at that time because people believed that God put all of the animals and plants on Earth as perfect beings because he is perfect.
-His argument was based on analogy. "Analogy would lead me one step farther, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype...Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their cellular structure, their laws of growth, and their liability to injurious influences" (72.)
-I believe that Galileo and Darwin are different in the way that Galileo focused on finding hardcore evidence, whereas I believe that Darwin didn't search for hardcore evidence of natural selection. (However I think with more research it would be easier to see more similarities between the two.)
II. Marx
-Major Ideas:
-wanted to keep communists throughout the world in contact
-"...neither religion nor ignorance of Mind, but current economic and material conditions that prevented humans from achieving freedom" (76.)
-human alienation requires a practical solution such as a social revolution (lower class who had nothing to lose and everything to gain.)
-ascend from earth to heaven
-divides society into: productive forces, relations of production, and superstructure
-history has gone through different stages of production
-"Capitalism, Marx believes, comes into the world 'dripping from head to foot from every pore, with blood and dirt, and as such sows the seeds of its own destruction" (78.)
-I believe that Marx and Hegel are similar in the way that they were always looking for a location of liberation and a society that was in its purest form. At one point it says "Marx's hopes of living in a free, fair society led him and his family to..." and a few paragraphs down it talks about Hegel's ideas on history, "The goal of history was thus the liberation of humanity" (76.) However it does say that Marx has a "fundamentally different approach to history" (76.) As well as "Hegel starts with philosophy, Marx starts with people's experiences" (77,) which means that Marx likes to focus on what actually occurred in history and getting the first-hand experiences.
III. Turner
-Major ideas
-look at major differences in American History and how it affects history today
-look at the big picture and find ways to understand subjects through every possible tool that you have access too
-you need to understand the basics of topics in order to understand the details (somewhat like natural selection)
-history never stops evolving, "history is entwined with the study of contemporary events, every age 'writes the history of the past anew with reference to the conditions uppermost in its own time.' History is thus 'ever becoming never completed'" (81.)
-you have to understand the big picture of past history in order to understand current events
-"'We are members of one body, thought it is a varied body" (82.)
-I agree with Mingwei that a major point of both Hegel and Turner's focus was based on how people influence history, as well as looking at the bigger picture in order to understand the small facets that make up the big picture.
I am a little confused on how all of these men were chosen to be connected. They were all misunderstood in the end, as well as had some basis off of Hegel in some way. I think that in order to understand them we have to understand their view points of history and science and how they play into these studies or topics of worlds. Such as Turner said, I think you need to know how things intertwine such as how "our destiny is interwoven with theirs" (81.)
Question: Why do you think the chapter that talked about natural selection in Darwin's book was called "Divergence of Character"?
Darwin:
Dictionary.com has two definitions for "theory".
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact
I think Darwin's theory falls under the first definition, and I'm not quite sure how the second definition is used. His shocking and revolutionary theory of evolution explained why creatures are the way they appear right now (or at any given point in history). He basically stated that animals and plants are not created independently, but rather they go "modification and coadaptation" that enable them to cope with their environment better. The ones that are more adaptable to changes are less likely to extinct and more likely to produce offsprings. They are therefore "naturally selected". In general, the traits that are favorable to one's survival and growth are passed onto the successive generations.
It was hard to find adequate evidence in nature to support his theory, but he used an alternative way, which was to study domesticated animals. Both Darwin and Galileo conducted experiments that were affected by power of men. To them, studying things in their pure natural states was not a reliable pathway to achieve scientific discoveries.
What made Darwin's theory good and hard to accept was that it explained phenomena that people either intentionally or unconsciously avoided explaining. "It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the "plan of creation," "unity of design," &c., and to think that we give an explanation when we only re-state a fact."(71) Here Darwin criticized people's cowardice of not being able to face their ignorance. Darwin was not the first person to suspect the immutability of life forms, but to have the courage to elaborate his theory was another thing. His Origin of Species pointed to people's fear of knowing the truth behind things. Sometimes people feel more comfortable not knowing or knowing very vague explanations that can't really explain. Attributing everything on earth to God would make life much easier. The theory of natural selection brought up the concept that things are always changing, as opposed to the older view that things were static.
Marx:
He believed that people's "material condition" is the determinant of their ways of thinking and acting. In his view, one's economic status and one's position in productive relations came before one's consciousness and actions. His approach to history was a materialist way, but Hegel say history as something mainly made up my men.
Turner:
He emphasized that "western expansion was the key to American identity." And I want to respond to Mingwei's question. Turner's theory to me, is almost opposite to Marx's. Turner said we first have a common identity, and our society is built after it. But to Marx, one's position in society shapes one's ideals and hopes.
Darwin's theory of Natural Selection by evolution is that the strongest animal survives to pass on the traits that helped it to survive to the next generation. With time, an entire species will develop traits to help it survive. Just for fun, I decided to choose a definition of theory that's a bit different. One of the many ways thefreedictionary.com defines theory is " An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Relatively, Darwin's theory of Natural Selection was still in in its early stages.
Darwin states, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating an balancing the fcts and arguments on both sides of each question (p.69)" Interestingly, he immediately follows with "...and this here is impossible". It's a kind of weird question, but what exactly does he mean by this javascript:emoticon('')
Darwin's theory was difficult to accept because it is challenging to comprehend. Not that only smart people could understand, but that it is difficult to wrap your head around a theory that goes against the way you, your parent's, your grandparents, and most of civilized society have understood the world. It is near impossible to comprehend a theory that makes no sense in the context of the world as you see it.
I think that a similarity between these Darwin and Marx is that their ideas went against the status quo. Not quite sire why Turner is in the mix.
For the question, Please refer to the above question mark.javascript:emoticon('')
A different question: what are any of these three men's opinions on G-d?
AAAAHjavascript:emoticon('') I always underestimate how long these are going to take me.... Here's what I have as of eleven...
Darwin's theory of evolution is that organisms who are being challenged by their environment change their physiology to better thrive and defeat these challenges. By changing themselves they create a new species, which is an offshoot of their old one. After years upon years of this, the world reaches the massive number of current species, each uniquely adapted to their environment.
Theory, defined by Google: Idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture. Darwin believed more in a theory being backed up by direct evidence. His own theories were harder to swallow because they went directly against the Bible, in a time where scientists were trying very hard to fit their own theories to the book. In a very Hegalian way, it took a 'hero' to change the course of history. Darwin presented his work evidence first, and conclusions after. This actually feels very Galilean to me, as he took the evidence that he found and then worked it into a theory, as opposed to starting with a theory and crushing aside the evidence until it fits (Sarci, cough cough).
Marx views history as a struggle of class. All of history is moving from the conflict between the classes, and moving towards a classless society. This feels partially Hegalian. It definitely views history as a driving force, and promotes change in history through the impact of heroes. But Hegel's concept of a world that does not exist until it is known, doesn't quite seem to fit. Marx was very focused on class, and thus on the material world. But in terms of history, and of the dialectic process (all change is done through struggle), and that fits with Hegel.
Turner seems pretty easy to sum up with the idea of Manifest Destiny. History is created through westward expansion. History is always being changed and advanced through the work of great men. This all seems very Hegalian: history as a defining force, heroes impacting and changing it's course. Like with Marx, his ideas of reality seem unrelated here. Not necessarily refuted, but unmentioned. Though perhaps his idea of an uncertain world fits in with Turner's constantly changing view of history.
These are seem united by their use of the dialectic method. They all believe that through struggle and conflict the world will be changed. Some in terms of history, and some in turns of physiology, but they all agree with Hegel that the world is in constant conflict and thus, progress.
When populations grow, individual beings will vary or adapt to changes, thus making them more apt to survive and be selected in nature. The definition I found for theory was “a system of ideas intended to explain something.” Darwin believes that natural selection is “the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification” or evolution(70). Darwin knew his theories would be misinterpreted, and explicitly stated he did not believe that natural selection was the only answer to why we evolve. He also noted several things that could poke holes in his theory such as the relatively sparse geological record at the time.(69) I think Galileo and Darwin have some similarities, like the emphasis on first hand knowledge. Galileo also states that the more a person studies a subject, the less apt they are to reach fast, concrete conclusions due to their growing knowledge. I think Darwin was less apt to jump to conclusions about evolutionism and/ or creationism because of his conflicting religious beliefs and scientific theories. However, Galileo emphasizes the sense experience, which I don’t think is as important in Darwin’s scientific studies than Galileo’s philosophical studies.
Marx’s believed that unstable “economic and material conditions prevented humans from achieving freedom.” He also believed that capitalism alienates humans from one another and suggested a social uprising by the poorest classes could overtake the capitalist societal structure. Marx outlined four ‘modes of production’ – as he called them – primitive communal mode, ancient mode, feudalism, and capitalism. (77) Based on his philosophy, I’d say his views of an ideal society are closest to the primitive communal mode, though he does identify many problems with it. Marx considers the human experience to be the basis of history, whereas Hegel says philosophy is history’s basis. (77) I’d say his approach is different than Hegel’s because Marx relies more on historical patterns and present day problems than Hegel does in evaluating history.
Turner considered America’s westward expansion was key to explaining American identity and the development of the new nation. He also said that the study of history makes citizens more aware of their country (80), and traced the gradual transistion of the hunter-gatherer Indians and small-time farmers of new America to organized manufacturing and industrialization.(81) I think he is different from Hegel because Turner does not consider philosophy in writing about history, nor does he believe that a ‘Universal Spirit’ was key to the state’s (in this case, America’s) identity.
To answer isabella’s question, I don’t think any of them regarded god as significant to their respective works. I think Darwin struggled with his religious beliefs and his relationship with god, but I don’t think Marx or Turner talked about him at all, and certainly god was not significant in their works.
Question: Are any of Turner’s idea’s relevant today?
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