You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #27: I beg to differ [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Tims Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-04 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. I beg to differ
The premises of Social Darwinism is NOT in Darwin's work. You say that Darwin was used to justify all sorts abhorrent policies and beliefs, yet Darwin can justify nothing. We cannot blame Darwin or his theories for their misuse or misapplication.

I'm not sure what you mean by rejoicing "at any alternative paradigm that suggests otherwise". By this do you mean that without Darwin, society would have been different, that all these ills you mention would have disappeared without Darwin's support? Or are you suggesting that because Darwin's theories fail to solve our social problems that his paradigm was wrong, even though he had no intention of applying it to the social realm? In the first case, other justifications would have been made as they had always been made in the centuries before Darwin. WWI, racism, and all the other ill you mention would still have occured, their perpetrators would simply have found other means of justification. As to the later, no alternative paradigm is needed. Darwin's theories cannot be thrown out simply because we don't like their implications (or perceived implications).

Anyone who believes that Darwin justifies a social condition must contend with the fact that at any one time virtually all possible social systems are in effect somewhere on the planet and are working just fine despite the Darwinian "proof" in some other place that they should have failed. Would the capitalist look at the success of the Bolshivik revolution as "survival of the fittest" in action. Yet from the bastardized view of Social Darwinism, this is indeed what was happening. Do the Chinese now represent the "fittest" system. They seem to be doing quite well and there are more of them than there are of anyone else.

The simple point is Darwin was used as an excuse. No blame can be placed on the theory itself because, had it not existed, other excuses would be found. Darwin's strength lies in its biological truth, it cannot be condemned because of its misapplication outside of biology.

One could just as easily claim that since quantum mechanics proves that the act of measurement alters the resulting measured values that we should not vote because the act of voting itself invalidates the results and therefore quantum mechanics justifies dictatorships. Should we now condemn quantum mechanics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC