Michael Egnor: Darwinism as Hegel’s philosophy applied to biology

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 22, 2020

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

He sees that as a framework for much of the change around us:

Nineteenth-century Darwinism was much more than a revolutionary scientific theory. It was hardly a scientific theory in any meaningful sense. Natural selection, as atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor has pointed out, isn’t a meaningful level of scientific explanation. It’s barely more than a tautology. Natural selection is an “empty” theory — “survivors survive” has no genuine explanatory power. As ID pioneer Phillip Johnson observed, Darwinism was really a new philosophical theory. It was the view that there is no teleology — no purpose — inherent to nature. Purpose in biology, Darwin insisted, is an illusion. Differential survival alone can explain “purpose” in nature. Darwin proposed that all of the specified complexity in living things is the product of undirected differential survival.
Darwinism is the denial of purpose in nature. Purpose, according to Darwin, is an illusion. Biology appears to have purposes — hearts pump blood, kidneys excrete urine, etc. — but the purposes are merely the outcome of natural selection — survival of the fittest. Darwinism purports to explain how a story can be written without purpose and implicitly without an author.
Darwinian natural selection is metaphysics, more than biology.
Michael Egnor, “Darwinism as Hegelian Dialectics Applied to Biology” at Evolution News and Science Today:

Of course it is. Just listen to Darwinians tell us how important the theory is to them.

Comments

34 Vividbleau
It started with Michael Brown the media pushed a narrative that was totally false.
Mass media are a joke. They prey on people's ignorance. A switched off TV is the best idea ever. And you save electricity. :)Truthfreedom_{September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

31 Mike1962
Matxists are evil and must be opposed.
They are the spawn of Satan.Truthfreedom_{September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

“And just when we need a leader with the vision to bring the country together, the present occupant of the White House seems bent on widening and deepening these rifts in society for his own electoral advantage.” I thought Obama was going to part the seas, make them recede, bring us together. Obama was the most divisive President in my life time. As to Trump all he did was expose what was already there. He exposed the corrupt media.He exposed the gutless good old boy Republican do nothings for what they were all talk no cattle. He was subject to a treasonous silent coup attempt and unlike Republicans of old he went to battle. War is not pretty. The intelligence community are out to destroy him because they can’t control him. The media hates him because he exposes just how corrupt they are. Now it’s violence by the left. When is the last time Trump supporters accosted Republican leaders at their homes, while in restaurants walking to their hotel or mowing their lawn, or out practicing baseball? Who exactly is causing all the division? To paraphrase Maxine Waters “ attack on the street, attack them in restaurants, attack them when they are at the gas station “ And Sev says with a straight face that its Trumps fault. Come on man! Vividvividbleau_{September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

“Has the rest of the “main stream media” been reporting these facts? I haven’t seen any other reporting in that regard. Why is that? Is it because they would rather push a racially charged narrative? Is that what an objective and unbiased media should be doing? Ethically the answer should be no. Apparently the American MSM has been almost completely subverted by politics. But that’s not news it’s propaganda.” It started with Michael Brown the media pushed a narrative that was totally false. Before he got shot he commits strong arm robbery. He encounters the police punches the officer and tries to get his gun. He moves away from from the vehicle and the officer gets out of the car, Brown then proceeds to run toward the officer and he was shot. What was the narrative? That this choir boy who was just making mischief encountered a cop that likes to kill blacks and did so while Michael,Brown had his hands up saying don’t shoot. George Floyd at the time of his death had a lethal level of fentanyl in his body which itself caused his breathing problems. In fact he complained about long before that sick cop put his knee on his neck for almost 9 minutes. Breana Taylor was not shot in her bed she was in the hall way. The police did not do a no knock and in fact knocked on the door. Walker answered the door and shot a cop and the police returned fire. Walker may have thought that those at the door were drug dealers so I can envision he fired because he was in fear for his life. Taylor got caught up in the cross fire. The whole thing is tragic but Breana was allowing her car to be used as a mule, she was allowing her apartment to be used as a money and drug distribution center. She was running with a real bad crowd. The whole thing was a FUBAR but there is no evidence it was a shooting just because they were black. Bottom line we are constantly being lied to as to what really happens in these types,of situations that we cannot trust the narratives that emerge and must do our own digging. When the Michael Brown situation went down I actually got a hold of the depositions of the witnesses and read hundreds of pages of eye witness testimony. The media lied about hands up don’t shoot, never happened and what makes it worse they know it never happened. As to Breana Taylor the following sheds more light on her situation. 41 pages of wire taps of phone calls between Taylor and her boyfriends. From LPD https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/63943132/breonna-taylor-summary-redacted1 Keep scrolling left to read additional pages. Vividvividbleau_{September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

Mike1962/28
So, you’re the kind of jackass that has no problem bullying innocent people for the crimes others (may) have done?
As I noted in my reply to kairosfocus, I also wrote.
If you read what I wrote in full you would have seen that I wrote,
It is not defensible, nonetheless. The offenders should be prosecuted
I do not approve of their behavior and they should answer for it in court...

Okay then, give me your address. I’d like to try that tactic out on you. I got plenty of grievances for which I’d like to bully you into supporting for my benefit.
I take that as a personal threat and I call it to the attention of the moderators.Seversky_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed/26
Are you suggesting here that you now agree with these physical requirements?
I have never disputed those requirements. I accept what von Neuman and others have determined are the basic requirements for any self-reproducing system. What I do not accept - and neither, apparently, do many of those working in this field - is that the only possible origin for such systems is an intelligent designer.Seversky_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

Marxists are evil and must be opposed. The primary enemy of inner city blacks are the teachers' unions who oppose school choice. #SchoolChoice #DefundTeachersUnionsmike1962_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Seversky: this is what the current occupant of the White House wants. Specifics please. He can exploit incidents like these to heighten white paranoia about some mythical Marxist revolution. Given that fact that actual Marxists are behind BLM, the concern is rather justified. Although, I've never heard Trump use the term "Marxist." Any at rate, you've already outed yourself as a political bully on the side of extremist Marxist political bullies. Don't expect sympathy, bully. Curious: where do you live? What are your "news" sources? Thanksmike1962_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus/23
Seversky, you are enabling and excusing riot and SA bully-boy stormtrooper behaviour. That tells us all we need to know. It’s over, kiddo. You shot whatever shreds of credibility you have left through the heart. KF
If you read what I wrote in full you would have seen that I wrote,
It is not defensible, nonetheless. The offenders should be prosecuted.
I do not approve of their behavior and they should answer for it in court but, regardless of what I think, I fear this is only going to get worse because this is what the current occupant of the White House wants. He can exploit incidents like these to heighten white paranoia about some mythical Marxist revolution and position himself as the staunch defender of traditional American values and way of life. On past experience that could be an election-winning strategy. If he does win, I wish you well of your choice because this is a man who cares about nothing and nobody except insofar as they are likely to benefit him personally.Seversky_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Seversky: "There is no point other than, perhaps, to make those diners feel a little less secure while dining out, a sense of insecurity felt all too often by minority groups. " So, you're the kind of jackass that has no problem bullying innocent people for the crimes others (may) have done? Okay then, give me your address. I'd like to try that tactic out on you. I got plenty of grievances for which I'd like to bully you into supporting for my benefit.mike1962_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

For over six months “BLM activists claim that Louisville police broke into Taylor’s apartment without warning. They claimed cops used a so-called no knock warrant to surprise Taylor while she was sleeping and then they shot her. They described her killing as a murder. Yet, another horrifying example of systemic racist violence against African-Americans by the police.”
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/09/24/fncs-carlson-media-working-to-convince-americans-the-blm-dystopia-is-real-to-get-votes-for-biden/ But what’s the truth? Let’s look at the facts that were presented to the grand jury. ”In March, three Louisville police officers served a search warrant at the apartment of a woman called Breonna Taylor. They knocked outside, they announced they were from the police department and then they entered the apartment.” FACT: It was NOT a “no knock search warrant.” “Once [inside], a man called Kenneth Walker opened fire on them. Walker was Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend. He was also supposedly a drug dealer… FACT: Walker was not complying with a legally obtained search warrant. “Walker admits that he fired first and that he shot a police officer. In response, the cops fired back.” FACT: The police have a legal right to use deadly force when their lives or the live of the public are threatened. “By the time Kenneth Walker surrendered, Breonna Taylor, who was in another room in the apartment had been fatally wounded.” FACT: In other words, Breonna Taylor was not targeted in the shooting. Her death was unintentional. Has the rest of the “main stream media” been reporting these facts? I haven’t seen any other reporting in that regard. Why is that? Is it because they would rather push a racially charged narrative? Is that what an objective and unbiased media should be doing? Ethically the answer should be no. Apparently the American MSM has been almost completely subverted by politics. But that’s not news it’s propaganda.john_a_designer_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

. Seversky at #10
How would you characterize the “Darwinian mindset”?
Did I not make that clear in my post? The Darwinian mindset is ideologically incapable of acknowledging valid contradictory evidence. It is feature #1 as far as I can see. Here is a recent example; prove me wrong if you like. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sep 5th, 2020 Seversky: I haven’t dismissed anything in the history of science or the literature or the data. UB: So in order to start an open-ended description-based replicator (one that is physically capable of what we generally refer to as Darwinian or biological evolution) you have to be able to specify multiple objects (among alternatives) using a common transcribable medium. This requires an irreducible organization made up of rate-independent memory tokens (symbols) and a set of non-integrable constraints, operating together in a semantically-closed system. The products of this system must successfully specify and produce a very particular dissipative process. The objects in this dissipative process must use the laws of nature to cause the medium to be processed, the products to be produced, and the memory to be copied and be placed inside a separate replicant along with a complete set of constraints. And for that pathway to be successful (i.e. semantically closed) requires a simultaneous coordination between the individual segments of the medium that describe the constraints and the individual segments of the medium that describe the various constituents of the dissipative process (i.e. changing the arrangement of one segment, changes the product of all the other segments). These requirements aren’t merely a mouthful, they are an accurate (and heavily abbreviated) summary of what physics and biology have taught us through logic, prediction, and confirmation via experimental result. When you are confronted with these well-documented facts of history and observation, and are given the opportunity to research and discover them for yourself, you immediately jump to say (in your safe, detached, and dull retrospective voice) some variation of the defensive rhetoric: “Well, no one knows how life began”. In other words, you run for the tall grass. You pretend we don’t already know what is physically required of the gene system. You hide from the facts. Seversky: The fact is that no one does know how life began. That is not hiding from the facts, that is facing them. UB: The elements of this description [above] are carefully recorded in the physics and biology literature, and are based on prediction, logic, measurement, and experimental confirmation. None of the material observations involved here is even controversial. Additionally, the logic is both appropriately sparse and impeccable. You’ll also notice that this is about measurement and description, not about denying or supporting any proposed solution to the origin of the system. Are you suggesting here that you now agree with these physical requirements?Upright BiPed_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

Seversky When are you going to condemn Darwin's disgusting white supremacism? Let me remind you hypocrite creature that your amoral (and patently false) atheist/ evo worldview is the one that enables and glorifies "might is right"/ "survival of the fittest". Darwin's racism:
Over the course of the book (The Descent of Man) Darwin describes Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and even Eskimos as “savages.” It becomes clear that he considers every population that is not white and European to be savage. The word savage is disdainful, and Darwin constantly elevates white Europeans above the savages. Darwin explains that the “highest races and the lowest savages” differ in “moral disposition … and in intellect” (36). The idea that white people are more intelligent and moral persists throughout. At one point, Darwin says that savages have “low morality,” “insufficient powers of reasoning,” and “weak power of self-command” (97). The Dark Side of Darwinism
Truthfreedom_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

23 Kairosfocus
Seversky, you are enabling and excusing riot and SA bully-boy stormtrooper behaviour.
Seversky is a good little marxist. Truthfreedom_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Seversky, you are enabling and excusing riot and SA bully-boy stormtrooper behaviour. That tells us all we need to know. It's over, kiddo. You shot whatever shreds of credibility you have left through the heart. KF PS: Some balancing remarks that need to be heard.kairosfocus_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

seversky:
At least those diners were not gunned down in a hail of police bullets in their own home like Breonna Taylor.
The police returned fire. They did not just open up on the apartment for no reason. Next time those diners should go out to eat packing their own heat.ET_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

John_a_designer/20
What is the point of this “peaceful” protest?
There is no point other than, perhaps, to make those diners feel a little less secure while dining out, a sense of insecurity felt all too often by minority groups. At least those diners were not gunned down in a hail of police bullets in their own home like Breonna Taylor. It is not defensible, nonetheless. The offenders should be prosecuted.
You don’t stop racism by creating more racism. But that is what BLM is clearly trying to do.
Are you serious? BLM doesn't have to do anything to create racism in this country. Minority groups have endured it at the hands of the white majority for centuries but that situation will not obtain forever. And just when we need a leader with the vision to bring the country together, the present occupant of the White House seems bent on widening and deepening these rifts in society for his own electoral advantage. If you want another four or eight years or even longer of this then vote for Trump but if he does get his wish I fear there could be a violent reckoning that would tear the country apart.Seversky_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

What is the point of this “peaceful” protest? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVaJSoZeMQg
Protesters inflamed by the decision not to charge cops for Breonna Taylor’s death took their anger out on a couple dining in Florida -- gatecrashing their table and threatening to knock the man the “f--k out.”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/breonna-taylor-protester-florida-diner-confrontation-viral How is this couple minding their own business, out trying to enjoy a quiet dinner, responsible for Breonna Taylor’s death? Oh I know they’re guilty because they are white. When I was growing up some people used the term “reverse racism,” though I am not sure exactly what they meant by that. Is that what we have here? Well, no. They’re being harassed because of the color of their skin. That’s not reverse racism; it’s plain run-of-the-mill racism. You don’t stop racism by creating more racism. But that is what BLM is clearly trying to do. Is this what we as a society mean by justice?john_a_designer_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

17 Chuckdarwin
In other words, an oxymoron…..
Not at all. There could not be a worldview more alien to knowledge and reason than "materialism". It's quite remarkable that such a 300+ years old scam, riddled with fallacies and poor thinking has lasted this long. Read it and weep (I have noticed how darwinians conveniently gloss over the challenge) and pretend not to notice the article. Maybe it's due to that "retinal blind spot" they are so fond of. (Truthfreedom, don't be evil minded, materialists are honest people). :) Naturalism's Epistemological Blunder Truthfreedom_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Earth to Chuck- the oxymoron is "evolutionary biologist".ET_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

From Egnor’s article: “I have a friend who is an internationally respected biologist and Evangelical Christian .....” In other words, an oxymoron..... I guess I should add, an anonymous oxymoron, so we will never know...chuckdarwin_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

seversky:
Darwin did not deny the existence of philosophy neither does his theory.
What theory? His concepts in his book "On the Origins of Species..." were and still are totally untestable and as such outside of science. And the pathetic part is the evos of today still can't test their ideas.ET_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

Seversky took what I wrote completely out of context. Here is the part he ignored:
Both Hegel and Marx saw that at times violence (even war) would be needed to achieve societal change. From a Darwinian perspective this is nothing more that the “survival of the fittest” or in the case of war the survival of the strongest or smartest. You can readily see why the progressive (“woke”) PC left thinks nothing of employing bullying tactics to bring about their ideas of social justice– and be forewarned they are willing to go further. We are already seeing that in the U.S. with the “mostly peaceful protests.” You can perhaps also see how they can hold to positions that are, on one hand, culturally and morally relativistic yet implemented years or even months later as a new moral absolutes– new human rights. That’s not because they ARE absolutes, it is rather because they BECOME absolutes. The idea of becoming is purely Hegelian. But who decides the new absolutes are absolutes? The people who believe they are absolutes. And, don’t think this is the result some kind of equal and fair democratic debate that leads some kind of broad based consensus. If you believe what you believe is the truth, you don’t need a majority to impose your agenda on everyone else, all you need are some key people in some key positions of power– like judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.
The very idea of justice, which MUST be applied equally, fairly and universally to all members of society is a morally objective and teleological one. How can such an idea be derived from a morally relativistic and subjectivist view point? Frankly it’s irrational to believe that it can. If there is no real standard of justice how do we resolve the differences between people? How do you create any kind of broad consensus (which is necessary in any kind of democratic society) if there is no real standard to help us determine whose ideas are good (fair and just) and whose are bad (self-serving or subversive)? The only recourse is coercion or violence: you imposing your views on me or vice-versa. Wouldn’t persuasion-- making an argument using logic and reason-- be better than coercion and violence? But how can we say that would be better if better is nothing more than someone’s subjective belief or opinion. But if moral obligations are really just relative and subjective that is all that is logically possible.john_a_designer_{September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

12 Seversky
not just members of your own ‘tribe’.
That's were your amoral atheist/ evo worldview leads: to "tribal justice" or "might is right". So please, again, spare us your fake "moral outrage" and your garbage, fallacious, debunked ad nauseam, "is-ought gap".Truthfreedom_{September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

12 Seversky
All of which studiously ignores the economic and social inequities and the intractable racism that have created stresses within US society
Before BLM started its violent (marxist agenda) activities, what where you doing to help alleviate such injustices, Seversky the hypocrite? Please, do share with us what were you doing to stop "racial injustice", the one that according to your amoral atheist/ evo worldview is a fine example of "survival of the fittest". You Seversky were doing: 1. ___________ (Lemme fill the gap for you: you were doing nothing). So spare us your fake "moral outrage", please. Seversky the hypocrite.
If you want to address the root causes of these stresses, forget political ideologies and conspiracy theories and find ways to ensure that all citizens are treated decently and fairly, not just members of your own ‘tribe’.
Of course. It's just that your amoral atheistic/ evo worldview has a prominent white supremacist as his founder (daddy Darwin I mean).
Although best known for On the Origin of Species, Darwin does not address human evolution and race until his 1871 book, The Descent of Man, in which Darwin applies his theories of natural selection to humans and introduces the idea of sexual selection. Here his white supremacism is revealed. Over the course of the book, Darwin describes Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and even Eskimos as “savages.” It becomes clear that he considers every population that is not white and European to be savage. The word savage is disdainful, and Darwin constantly elevates white Europeans above the savages. Darwin explains that the “highest races and the lowest savages” differ in “moral disposition … and in intellect” (36). The idea that white people are more intelligent and moral persists throughout. At one point, Darwin says that savages have “low morality,” “insufficient powers of reasoning,” and “weak power of self-command” (97). Darwin’s specific consideration of intellectual capacities is especially alarming. The Dark Side of Darwinism
You have always criticized such racist words here at UD, with your mighty keyboard, showing how despicable your ideology is. Oh, wait.... Truthfreedom_{September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

John_a_designer/5
The agenda of the contemporary secular progressive I think can be understood by three terms they like to use rhetorically: Progressive (Hegel,) Oppressive (Marx) and Repressive (Freud.) [I’ll comment on Freud in more detail in a later post.] […]
All of which studiously ignores the economic and social inequities and the intractable racism that have created stresses within US society and have led to the BLM movement and provided a fertile ground of dissatisfaction for narcissists and extremists to exploit. If you want to address the root causes of these stresses, forget political ideologies and conspiracy theories and find ways to ensure that all citizens are treated decently and fairly, not just members of your own 'tribe'.Seversky_{September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

BobRyan/3
Darwin does not allow for philosophy to exist.
Darwin did not deny the existence of philosophy neither does his theory.
How can deep thoughts exist without the mind?
Has anyone said they could, other than some believers, that is?Seversky_{September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed/2
Don’t sweat it too much Seversky. The problem with the Darwinian mindset is not that philosophers say that “natural selection” is a tautology. A much larger problem is that it stifles all the incredible advancements in knowledge that follows it, and demonstrates its flaws.
How would you characterize the "Darwinian mindset"? If "incredible advancements in knowledge" followed it, how were they "stifled" by this "Darwinian mindset"?Seversky_{September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

4 AaronS1978
Hahahahahahaha @ Sev thats you counter argument is convoluted word play that amounts to the EXACT same thing! Here if we go back and redefine “SuRvIlAl Of ThE fItEsT” the argument won’t apply as much! Bam! Holy smokes. Your argument ignores the point and intern can also be ignored.
Seversky copies garbage philosophy from TO. :) Kindergarten reasoning.Truthfreedom_{September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

There is no doubt that the typical modern-secular progressive accepts some form of Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism without question. However, this creates a dilemma for them and their social justice agenda which like all such agenda’s must have the appearance of being purposeful or teleological. Darwinism, however, eschews any kind of teleological thinking, which means that what the secularist is left with just a mindless herd-like or tribal group think. On the other hand, the typical secularist grew up in a culture which inherited a world view that was shaped by Greek, Roman and Judeo-Christian (western) ideas of progress which are highly teleological. Intentionally or unintentionally they have to coopt or try to adapt a choice few of those ideas to justify their own progressive agenda. Probably no world view has a more linear view of history than Jewish-Christian (J-C) theism. Hegel accepted the J-C linear view of history (he was an observant Lutheran) but cast it in more pantheistic terms, where there were no timeless transcendent truths only evolving ever changing kind of “truths.” Hegel saw the flow of history as a constantly changing yet naturally improving one. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes it this way:
History, according to Hegel's metaphysical account, is driven by ideological development. Ideological—and therefore historical—change occurs when a new idea is nurtured in the environment of the old one, and eventually overtakes it. Thus development necessarily involves periods of conflict when the old and new ideas clash.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/ Most contemporary progressives probably don’t see themselves as Hegelian, however, via cultural Marxism and various other forms of progressive socialism, it appears to me that Hegel’s ideas have had a profound influence on modern thought. For example, the idea of being “on the right side of history” is distinctly Hegelian, as is the utopian conceit that modern ideas are superior traditional or ancient ones, so those get rejected automatically as racist, sexist, superstitious etc. However again, I doubt that contemporary secular progressives are purists in any kind of theoretical sense. There is no doubt a lot of ad hoc thinking that incorporates the ideas of other thinkers including “thinkers” like Nietzche and Freud. Of course, from what I have seen there is a lot of inconsistency and incoherence, if not downright irrationality, with present day secular- progressive thinking. We see that here with irrational pretension and posturing of trolls, drive-by’s and sock puppets who are incapable of putting together logically sound arguments.john_a_designer_{September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply