Human Origins & Philosophy

Michael Ruse remarked that ‘unfortunately there is simply nothing in the literature by philosophers on human origins '. Explore how the data on human emergence can become an interesting way to approach a philosophical anthropology.

Since the time of Darwin it has been recognised that biological species are essential to the process of evolution. A species consists of a population rather than unconnected individuals. The population of any species is reproductively isolated from that of others because of the fertility criterion. This means that despite the cohabitation of similar species in a specific territory no interbreeding will occur. Mayr states that ‘Each species is a delicately integrated genetic system that has been selected through many generations to fit into a definite niche in its environment. ' Palaeontology, according to Darwin, accounted for the formation of any new species through a gradual transformation of the ancestral population with large numbers of individuals in the inhabited territory. Eldredge and Gould later named this process phyletic gradualism. This phyletic gradualism, however, continued the tradition of extrapolation from local populations and also used the accepted model for adaptive geographical variation, namely the gradual substitution of genes directed by natural selection, as a paradigm for the origin of species . This theory, as Mayr argues, does not take into account the advantage of the isolate. Mayr recognised that speciation occurred more rapidly and more effectively in small, isolated populations. That is populations that have migrated from the larger ancestral population and therefore are isolated from the homogenizing effect of the gene flow. In this way successful speciation occurred due to the cumulative effects of small variations over a number of generations. This process is more commonly known as evolution.

Humans are social animals; we are better suited to live socially than to live in isolation or anarchy. ‘No denial to the reality of ethics, nothing offensive to its dignity, follows from accepting our evolutionary origin. ' Human moral capacities are, in fact, exactly what can be expected when a highly social creature evolves sufficiently to develop intelligence and becomes aware of the conflicts of its own nature. Darwin 's aim was not to produce the antidote to John Locke 's conceptual paralysis or to realise the grand cosmological alternative that had eluded Hume. Although his theories did essentially achieve these results, Darwin began his research not to discover the meaning of life or its origins, but simply the origin of species. Darwin 's theory of evolution, however, contains significant gaps, statements or assumptions never carried to their logical conclusion. The most important of these is the lack of a central concept, or more specifically the lack of a convincing mechanism of heredity to explain the adoption of the parents ' traits while maintaining an underlying and unchanged identity. This problem was to be remedied initially by the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel in 1865 and was later secured by the works of Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky. ‘The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. ' However, the fundamental core of human emergence, our evolution from that of animals, remains in dispute among philosophers.

G.L. Stebbins has shown that cultural evolution is much more rapid and effective than biological evolution. Cultural traits have been known to spread through large populations in less than a decade, whereas adaptations of human genes under selective pressure would take several hundred years . He also introduced the idea of templates, both biological and cultural. In biological evolution, DNA is the genetic template for the transmitting of hereditary biological capacities. In cultural evolution, cultural templates are ubiquitous.

A safe generalization is that genetic templates transmit potentialities or capacities rather than adult behavioural traits, which is for cultural templates.

Society has developed, in respect to cultural evolution, from the primitive basis of an irrational or instinctive association of hominids to a highly organized structure governed by values. Biological evolution created the human genotypes that equip the human brain with the propensities for learning languages, altruistic behaviour and other such cultural activities, including those systems of values that mould and govern society. Without the development of these genotypes the lot of modern ‘humans ' would be very different indeed. Philosophy itself, to name just one example, could not have come into being. The development of values, more specifically those of a moral, ethical and social nature, have formed the basis of philosophy.

The problem of equating human origins and evolution with philosophy and certain prominent philosophers arises from the views held by many philosophers, that animals are essentially evil or base and that their treatment by humans can be seen as a means to an end. Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, asks what is the true function of man and concludes that the function of man is the life of reason because that life only is peculiar to man. Animals, in this way, are used to prove the value of reason and also to represent examples of irrational conduct. Spinoza believed that animals, though conscious, are entirely at the disposal of man in any and every respect. Descartes stated that animals are actually unconscious and without souls. He attributed this, in part, to their capacity for seemingly intelligent behaviour but also their lack of behavioural continuity, in that they also act stupidly or without rational thought. Humans, however hypothetical it may seem, viewed by a more intelligent being may also be found to exhibit similar behavioural or rational defects, which might then be attributed to our own lack or intelligence or rational thought. Humans, it seems, are judged by their ideal performance, animals by their actual one. Kant also states in his Lectures on Ethics that ‘Sexuality exposes man to the danger of equality with the beasts ', yet another obstacle to the acceptance of the theory of human emergence and evolution in relation to philosophy. The dangers Kant identified in sexuality could have been better expressed in terms more central to his ethics, such as the dangers of treating people as objects, treating them without respect or using people as means rather than ends in themselves. Kant continues by stating that humanity, and everything in human form, must be respected because it is rational, not because it is conscious. This does not necessarily mean we can disrespect or be cruel to animals, however, because to do so would debase our own nature. This is an example of the human superiority complex, developed, according to many due to the process of natural selection.

Natural selection is essentially opportunistic. It is concerned only with the survival and propagation of a particular generation . Natural selection generally depends on the organism 's ability to survive and reproduce in a hostile environment. The suicide of Lemmings, for example, is not an irrational act as perhaps Aristotle would argue, nor is it the act of an unconscious mind as Descartes stated. It is actually part of a complicated migration pattern resulting from their reaction to overcrowding. Misinterpretations of animal behaviour such as these have influenced the works of philosophers for centuries. Nietzsche, however, is one exception. His Genealogy of Morals, published in 1887, adopts a Darwinian position though it is doubtful he read the works of Darwin . Nietzsche stated that:

The cause of the origin of a thing and its eventual utility, its actual employment and place in a system of purposes, lie worlds apart; whatever exists, having somehow come into being, is again and again reinterpreted to new ends, taken over, transformed, and redirected by some power superior to it.

This quote is startlingly similar to that of Darwin when he stated that:

Throughout nature almost every part of each living thing has probably served, in a slightly modified condition, for diverse purposes, and has acted in the living machinery of many ancient and distinct specific forms.

By the time of Darwin the work of the great taxonomists had resulted in the creation of a detailed hierarchy of two distinct kingdoms, that of plants and animals. These were divided into phyla, which divided then into orders, these orders divided into families, which in turn became genera and finally these genera were divided into species . The taxonomists were inspired by the works of Aristotle. He stated that all things, living or not, possessed two types of properties. Essential properties are concerned with the type or kind of a thing, accidental properties are free to vary within the kind. With each kind, according to Aristotle, went an essence. These essences are definitive, timeless and unchanging. Aristotle 's theories were derived from, and aimed to improve, Plato 's theory of Ideas according to which every earthly thing is an imperfect reflection of an Ideal or Form that existed in the Platonic realm of Ideas, reigned over by God. The taxonomy of living things inherited by Darwin was almost a direct descendant via Aristotle of Plato 's essentialism. The word species itself was at one point a standard translation of Plato 's Greek word for Form or Idea, eidos. This essentialism stated that essences were unchanging and could not be born except by God in episodes of Special Creation. Darwin recognised the bias of his forebears and contemporaries and in the conclusion of his book he wrote:

Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for only thus can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed.

‘In a single stroke the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law. ' This topic is widely misunderstood as we see when Darwinism, like the works of Nietzsche, is somehow associated with nihilism, stating that to believe the theories of Darwin is to embrace the fact that nothing in life is sacred. Cartesian Dualism enforces certain limitations and results in a division into two definite spheres with no room for compromise, further complicating the ideas that Darwin strove to convey. The real philosophical question, I believe, is how can we, when we struggle to understand our own nature, develop a negative and inferior view of animals based on what we perceive as theirs? To seriously consider Darwin 's evolutionary theories requires an open mind not burdened by the prejudice with which this subject has, so far, been treated.

Bibliography:

Eccles, John C. Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self*

Gould, S.J. ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? ' in J.M. Smith (ed.) Evolution Now, A Century After Darwin.*

Mc Kinney, Lewis. Wallace and Natural Selection. London 1972.

Mayr, E. Animal Species and Evolution.*

Midgely, Mary. The Ethical Primate: Humans, Freedom and Morality. New York 1994.

Midgely, Mary. Evolution as a Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears. New York 1985.

Stebbins, G.L. Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity.*

*Publishing location and year excluded on certain titles as I mistakenly returned the book(s) early without noting information.

Bibliography: Eccles, John C. Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self* Gould, S.J. ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? ' in J.M. Smith (ed.) Evolution Now, A Century After Darwin.* Mc Kinney, Lewis. Wallace and Natural Selection. London 1972. Mayr, E. Animal Species and Evolution.* Midgely, Mary. The Ethical Primate: Humans, Freedom and Morality. New York 1994. Midgely, Mary. Evolution as a Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears. New York 1985. Stebbins, G.L. Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity.* *Publishing location and year excluded on certain titles as I mistakenly returned the book(s) early without noting information.