On Prudence and Transcendence
Below is an exchange I had with Professor Larry Arnhart regarding his latest post at his blog Darwinian Conservative.
Check out the article here. Below are the comments:
"Me: I find this one of the most thought provoking blogs out there because it cuts to the core of so many philosophical issues.
Whether there is a fundamental teleology of man, or teleology of history as reflected in man, is the question upon which all significant existential questions rest. Does man have a transcendent purpose, or, as you clearly articulate an immanent teleology?
At the end of the day, I tend to agree with Nietzsche that without a cosmic order, morality is essentially meaningless. Even if you are correct regarding the Humean aspects of Darwin's thought and how man may "paint our world with the colors of our moral emotions," this raises the question of why?
Man wants to know why. Evolution gives no ultimate answers, offering only a multitide of "small answers" that respond to what can only be seen as trivial in relation to the grand scope of the universe at large.
Unlike many who believe is cosmic teleology, I agree that Darwinian insights abound when attempting to understand the variation and adaptability of different animals and even of man as he has confronted different climates, geographical barriers, etc.
However, ultimate meaning cannot be found in the immanent. If that is all there is, then the existentialists who expound upon the meaningless and even the absurdity of existence are actually correct and over time, that view will seep in to destroy our foundations of order. In many ways it already has.
You are to be commended for your efforts at grounding ethics and morality in a secular fashion, however, I do not think that man, overall, will accept this as the sine qua non of his existence.
Arnhart: Mr. Lawson,
Thanks for this thoughtful statement.
Including "religious understanding" on the list of twenty natural desires is my attempt to recognize the naturalness of human transcendent longings.
I realize, however, that folks like Holloway would say this doesn't go far enough in acknoledging the need for transcendent principles."
Check out the article here. Below are the comments:
"Me: I find this one of the most thought provoking blogs out there because it cuts to the core of so many philosophical issues.
Whether there is a fundamental teleology of man, or teleology of history as reflected in man, is the question upon which all significant existential questions rest. Does man have a transcendent purpose, or, as you clearly articulate an immanent teleology?
At the end of the day, I tend to agree with Nietzsche that without a cosmic order, morality is essentially meaningless. Even if you are correct regarding the Humean aspects of Darwin's thought and how man may "paint our world with the colors of our moral emotions," this raises the question of why?
Man wants to know why. Evolution gives no ultimate answers, offering only a multitide of "small answers" that respond to what can only be seen as trivial in relation to the grand scope of the universe at large.
Unlike many who believe is cosmic teleology, I agree that Darwinian insights abound when attempting to understand the variation and adaptability of different animals and even of man as he has confronted different climates, geographical barriers, etc.
However, ultimate meaning cannot be found in the immanent. If that is all there is, then the existentialists who expound upon the meaningless and even the absurdity of existence are actually correct and over time, that view will seep in to destroy our foundations of order. In many ways it already has.
You are to be commended for your efforts at grounding ethics and morality in a secular fashion, however, I do not think that man, overall, will accept this as the sine qua non of his existence.
Arnhart: Mr. Lawson,
Thanks for this thoughtful statement.
Including "religious understanding" on the list of twenty natural desires is my attempt to recognize the naturalness of human transcendent longings.
I realize, however, that folks like Holloway would say this doesn't go far enough in acknoledging the need for transcendent principles."
Comments