Aristotle and Darwin tell you how to live

Few things have frustrated me more than the modern philosophical view that there is a gulf between facts and values. While hypotheses can be tested against the empirical world and rejected if not supported, there is no similar way to test claims about right and wrong. Morality only exists in our imaginations, we're told. I don't know about you, but that is completely unsatisfactory.

Only one man has offered a way out of this mess: Aristotle. According to him, your design dictates your morality. A knife is a good knife if it does well what it is intended to do -- cut stuff.

Aristotle used this approach to develop an ethics for man, which was further refined by Thomas Aquinas centuries later. But neither man, of course, knew the works of another genius, Charles Darwin, who figured out natural selection centuries later.

What is man's design, according to Darwin? Simple -- to propagate. To turn the world into copies of yourself.

It just so happens that this is roughly what Aristotle and Aquinas argued.

Three geniuses from three very different eras agree more or less about what you are.  So what is right for you?  To go forth and propagate.

The intelligentsia is SO screwed up

Two numbers say it all about how screwed up the intelligentsia is. I typed in two names at Google Scholar: C Darwin and M Foucault. Here are the total number of citations:

Total Google Scholar Citations

Charles Darwin  118,346
Michel Foucault  602,427

Need I say more?

Darwin, God, and politics: I see that the HBD-ers and social conservatives are currently duking it out. Since I consider myself to be both, I suppose I should punch myself in the face.

It seems to me that what is essential for a viable political movement is that it tells a persuasive, coherent story to a large segment of the population. I say coherent, but I didn't say something that was so internally tight, it must have been developed by Aristotle. Conservatism, I don't think, has ever claimed such internal consistency. It's more like a stance.

We can't all be Burkes. Someone needs to do the market research: I volunteer. This time around, let's look at the two Men who people seem to be siding with: God or Darwin. A movement needs to either: 1) favor a thing; 2) oppose it; or 3) shut up about it. The data indicate that in America, on the question of Darwin and God, it's probably best to shut up about both of them, but if we need someone to rally around, just make sure he's not Nietzsche.

In 2000, 1,023 Americans (GSS) were asked: 1) their confidence in the existence of God; and 2) how true is the statement that humans evolved from animals. Here are the top ten most common combinations of answers:


Percent of all respondents

1. Knows God exists--Evolution definitely not true 33.0
2. Knows God exists--Evolution probably true 14.7
3. Knows God exists--Evolution probably not true 11.5
4. Believes but doubts--Evolution probably true 7.7
5. Knows God exists--Evolution definitely true 5.8
6. Believes but doubts--Evolution probably not true 4.1
7. Some higher power--Evolution probably true 3.7
8. Believes but doubts--Evolution definitely true 2.9
9. Some higher power--Evolution definitely true 2.5
10. No way to know--Evolution definitely true 2.0
10. Doesn't believe in God--Evolution definitely true 2.0


Any American who likes to push atheism or likes to criticize believers must enjoy having no political voice whatsoever.

People are divided, on the other hand, when it comes to evolution. It's not popular with most people--my students think the whole thing stinks, as much as I push it--and it's especially unpopular among folks on the Right. On the other hand, it's intellectually satisfying to smart people.

So what's the solution? It looks to me like the only realistic way to go is for conservative elites to inform their worldview by sneaking peaks at HBD stuff when no one is looking, but they will have to fashion their ideas in a way that appeals to the common man. Does that sound like lying? Of course it does because that's what politics is, or haven't you noticed?

Cultural literacy and being a naked ape: I've got to second Paul Gottfried's point. His experience with college students has convinced him that they don't know a damn thing about Darwin. But people are wrong to argue that they're ignorant because they have spent all their time learning about Jesus. Truth is, they don't know a damn thing about Him either. Cultural literacy seems to be well-rounded. And so is cultural ignorance. (Examples: Neither Gottfried or Razib, another writer at Taki's, are Christian, but they know more about Christianity than 99% of Christians).

The most important proposal Ron ever made: Human Evolution should be a required general education course in every college in the land. I've attended or worked at six different institutions in my life. None of them required this course or something like it. You answer, what about Introduction to Biology. I respond that: 1) many students don't take that course (they take some other lower-division course in science); and 2) focusing on other organisms allows students to pretend it's not about them.

Let me take it a step further and in a direction one might not expect from a conservative: Require Human Evolution in high school. Socrates said an unexamined life is not worth living. You have little self-knowledge if you don't know that you're a naked ape. Repeat it in front of the mirror ten times a day. I am a naked ape! And a damn proud one!