Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:02 pm Post subject: Darwin, Marx, Turner
Good stuff! If I'm correct, we only need to ask/answer questions here... I took plenty of my own notes, and I don't think we're necessarily supposed to share them here... I emailed Marilyn about it, and she seemed to confirm what I was thinking. Anyway.
Q: So, why is it that the Greater Forces Above (i.e. Marilyn and Rachel) are having us study Darwin, Marx, and Turner all at once? Is there something fundamentally in common between the three thinkers?
I know I just said that maybe we're only supposed to ask questions, but whatever... if I could hazard a guess, maybe it has something to do with Hegel's dialectic and how it naturally grows toward progress - Darwin has biological progress, Marx has economic progress, and Turner has social progress.
Each theory demonstrates a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis:
Darwin - any given species; the continuous struggle for survival and need for procreation; adaptation, natural selection, and evolution into a new form
Marx - the working class proletariat; the alienation of said proletariat within the capitalist system; the uprise of the proletariat and the establishment of the communist state
Turner - civilization in the American east coast; the journey into the foreign, savage western frontier; modern American values of individualism, freedom, ingenuity, practicality, and cooperation
...or is that completely bull? Is there something else completely, outside of Hegel, the dialectic, and progress, that binds these three thinkers together?
Last edited by Mark Gartsbeyn on Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Turner's breakdown of American history is extremely similar to Marx's breakdown of the entire history of civilization. According to Marx, the state of civilization closest to his ideal is the "primitive" community that shares everything. According to Turner, Americans on the frontier were a lot closer to that than humans had been for a very long time.
How would Marx explain why history keeps showing that communist and near-communist societies break down so quickly? Why did America change from the communal culture of the western frontier to the extreme capitalism our society is built on today?
Joined: 31 Mar 2014 Posts: 9 Location: United States
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:06 pm Post subject:
In regards to Marks question, I think that the thing that ties these three thinkers together is the idea of synthesis and an ever-changing truth. Charles Darwin saw this though natural selection and evolution saying that all things “tend to progress towards perfection.” Darwin of course is talking about plants and animals not knowledge as Hegel was, however, the idea stands. Turner interpretation is that “History is ever becoming, never completed.” Again this mirrors Hegel’s Dialectic process. Lastly, Marx believed that revolution and dissent were a crucial part of an ever changing, ever improving society. Marx also was also made a very intent study of Hegel and his theories come up many times in his work. So the connection between these three men is indeed the dialectic process as Mark inferred.
Question: it was clear while reading the section on Marx that Hegel was a large part of his influence. Is this true for the other two men? What are some other connections in thought between Kant and Hegel and these three men?
Mark's Question: There is a connection between these three men on how they started to write. They used their minds and other people's minds a lot. Darwin's theory is kind of complicated, I lost track on remembering exactly what the theory is, but I think the way he wrote things is his own analyze, of course, and how the animal or plants changed themselves during the evolution. I know this is about natural selection, but I feel Darwin sees this species have their own "emotions". For Marx, he wrote things based on people's experience. Also for Turner, his writing involves a lot of emotions form the people he wrote about, he didn't write everything based on what he saw or learnt, he wrote something based on how the people he wrote thought. So the connection is they all write their theory regarding on what other people (or species in the Darwin one)'s thoughts and feelings.
My question:
What is the difference between Mind and mind?
Interesting question, Cote... it doesn't seem like Darwin or Turner were directly impacted by Hegel. Maybe their unintentional portrayal of the dialectic is simply indicative of how effective/universal Hegel's philosophy might actually be?
At the very least, it seems that Marx was the only one of the three thinkers who actually studied philosophy, so it makes sense that he would be the one to draw from Hegel. Similarly, it doesn't seem that either Darwin or Turner really drew on Kant - I don't have real proof, this is just from a cursory Wikipedia search.
In response to Cote, I don't know whether Darwin or Turner were influenced by Hegel directly but I do notice some similarities in their ideas. Darwin's idea of evolution ties in to Hegel's idea that history is a progressive; that things get better and better over time. I know that Darwin lived after Hegel so I'm guessing that Hegel's ideas were of partial influence to him.
In terms of similarities between Hegel and Turner, Turner sees history as incomplete, "History is thus ever becoming, never completed." (p.81) This idea of an ever changing history is something that I think Hegel touched on by saying that history is always progressing.
The only similarity I see between Kant and any of these three thinkers is between Kant and Darwin, and I am not sure how much sense it makes. My thought is that Kant's belief in a priori space time and morality are similar to Darwin's belief that only a few species were initially created and all other species evolved from them. The similarity here is that for Kant all empirical thinking is based off the foundation of a priori consciousness, and for Darwin all species are based off a few initial prototype species.
My question is do you think that the similarity I mentioned above between Kant and Darwin is relevant?
Question : Do you think that writers like Marx, Darwin and Turner were influenced directly by Hegel’s dialectic or that Hegel put words to a process that already existed? Thus, were the three writers’ discoveries and theories bound to exist even without Hegel?
Would Marx have created communism if Hegel didn’t exist? Would someone else have created it because of the time in history that it was developed, ie. the industrial revolution and the alienation of workers?
Would Darwin have understood biology, or the development of species as a synthesized process?
Would Turner have thought of the Westward expansion as a destructive or progressive/expansive process? That is, their was a lot of war, death and destruction in the process of this expansion. One might see it as a destructive process, but he saw it as progressive or resulting in a synthesis – something better.
In response to Hope's question:
Do you think that writers like Marx, Darwin and Turner were influenced directly by Hegel’s dialectic or that Hegel put words to a process that already existed? Thus, were the three writers’ discoveries and theories bound to exist even without Hegel?
I think that by articulating the dialectic process, Hegel was just putting into words one of the ways that already existed of finding the "truth." I think that without Hegel, Darwin and Turner would definitely have had the same ideas and discoveries, although it is interesting to think about how Hegel's work as a historian affected the study of history. Maybe Turner's methods and even ideas about what history is would have been different without Hegel. Because we know that Marx studied Hegel, we can't assume that he would have had the same ideas without Hegel's influence. However, it seems that Hegel influenced Marx more in his ideas about how and why people act the way they do and what the ultimate goal of humanity is than in the process of finding truth and knowledge.
In response to Mark's question...
A similarity I noticed between all three people we did reading on was that they all have something to say regarding history, but each from a slightly different context. Darwin - the scientist (or "naturalist", as he seemed to refer to them by). Marx - the political activist. Turner - the nationalistic historian (I couldn't have been the only one who felt like Turner was EXTREMELY nationalistic, right?). Together, they all had something to say not only about history, but how each of their philosophical beliefs on "What is history?" had some relevance to what they wanted the future to be -- that is, each person not only studied the past (in some way or form), but also used that knowledge as a tool to change the future. Lastly, each person's work was groundbreaking / shocking in some way or form...but then again, would we be studying anyone else?
My question:
Turner said that history was extremely important for people to learn because it "repeats itself", and that you could use knowledge of what happened in the past to better interpret the present (pg 80). However, doesn't this work under the assumption that little to no change is made to society, no matter the date on the calendar? How large a significance would history have, if the world was constantly changing in everything from culture to technology? I guess what I'm asking for is thought's on Turner's whole "history repeats itself" interpretation in general.
To Hope's question: Do you think that writers like Marx, Darwin and Turner were influenced directly by Hegel’s dialectic or that Hegel put words to a process that already existed? Thus, were the three writers’ discoveries and theories bound to exist even without Hegel?
I think that those two questions are necessarily mutually exclusive. I think that these writers were indeed influenced by Hegel's dialectic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these ideas weren't bound to happen without Hegel. If you recall the video that we watched on Friday in class, it showed the progression and evolution of Darwinism, and how it progressed from it's fundamentals of evolution and beetles into a whole broad topic covering the idea of eugenics and such. These ideas were occurring all over, regardless of Hegel. However, I believe that Hegel's dialect helped these ideas take their specific form in this specific manner.
Question: Would Darwin's theory of natural selection expand to a species wide range? Could a species select naturally, or work together, to enhance as one as opposed to an individual approach to evolution?
In response: Eve, while I think it is a valiant attempt to draw a conclusion between Kant and Darwin, but I do not think it is correct. I believe that is too much of a stretch to try and relate the two. Darwin's original species is not to set a foundation of how we understand the world like Kant's a priori.
My question is slightly less directly academic but something im interested in, if these three were to sit down and have a conversation together what would that look like?
To Tinos question, i think the idea of history repeating itself is very relevant to how we think about history today. I think he was kind of saying with the unmoving stuff that like no matter when in history we are we are still humans with the same basic instincts and human nature which is why we see these pattern and repetition in history because we still have the same motivations. it makes sense to me even if culture and technology changed more drastically i think that would still be true to some extent although it depends how intensely culture changed.
Responding to Tino's question: I was never a huge fan of the "history repeats itself" idea, mostly for the same reasons he outlined. Especially in the scheme of discoveries and progress, it seems almost impossible for history to repeat itself, considering we have an entirely new basis for the history we create as we move through time. However, I find myself saying something along the lines of "those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" quite often. Perhaps it's the idea that we are moving forward, but only if we learn from the past. If we chose to not learn about history, then history repeats itself.
My own question: It seems to me that the thinkers we've studied so far have changed how humans see the natural world. The theme that ties these three together, I think, is they all changed in some way how we see mankind and humanity. Thoughts on this?
Zhuoran:
What is the difference between Mind and mind?
I like that you translated the ideas in the reading to the format we've been using in class. I think the difference here is that "Mind" with a capital "M" as Hegel defined it isn't its own discipline, it's simply a concept that he created in his philosophy. That being said there is clearly a difference between these two ideas. "Mind" was viewed by some Hegelians following his death as "a collective term for all human minds" (76) but clearly he wasn't around to confirm or deny this. It definitely seems to be some form of bond between individuals in the midst of group progress, and not being aware of this bond can impede one's freedom. "mind" is more of a purely individual vessel. I don't think I have a concrete definition beyond that. That's not even a definition, it's just a distinction.
Why is Frederick Jackson Turner being held up with the likes of Marx and Darwin if none of us have heard of him? Is this simply our ignorance or is there a larger reason? It seems that his ideas had a much lesser impact and contained much greater holes.
Full disclosure I just visited a college class about Marx so I feel very informed, but I am actually just speculating. However I think to answer Naomi's questions
Quote:
How would Marx explain why history keeps showing that communist and near-communist societies break down so quickly? Why did America change from the communal culture of the western frontier to the extreme capitalism our society is built on today?
I would say I think it is important to remember that at no point in his paper does Marx say he believes that communism will overthrow the government it follows. He believes governments will naturally evolve into communism and I think he would argue that the times it has been attempted it has not been peacefully evolved into from a capitalist nation (which he seems to believe is a part of the process), but forced when the time or the place was not right.
My question is sort of an extension of Mark's, I see how Marx and Darwin both deal with evolution, but why is Turner in this collection as well? He seemed like an outlier.
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
