addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [philosophy-178] Evolution is not dead!

From: Kat
Sent on: Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:57 AM
I think it's interesting that everyone always seems to conceive of  
evolution as progressing towards a better and 'higher' state - I  
don't think it has to - it just progresses to whatever will help it  
survive - this doesn't have anything to do with morality or being  
better, just being more suited to surviving in a particular  
environment. And I would say the same is true physically, socially  
and politically.

We use the term 'evolved' to mean a higher state spiritually,  
morally, etc but this has a different meaning than when its used in  
conjunction with evolution/natural selecion.


Kat



On 30 Jun 2007, at 19:30, Salim wrote:

> Dave,
>
> I have seens books on amazon about social evolution etc and I think  
> this is a great area for discussion.
>
> If people evolve physically, socially, politically etc, who are at  
> the present time on this earth the most evolved?
>
> How do you measure/define what more evolved is in terms of non  
> physical evolution?
>
> 1. who is the most socially evolved and why? what defined the  
> parameters for it's measurement?
> 2. who is the most politically evolved and why? what defined the  
> parameters for it's measurement?
> 3. who is more evolved in terms of self-awareness and why? what are  
> the measurements for self awareness?
>
> Who are the people who are defining these definitions which is how  
> to judge humanity at large? do they study us like animals evolved  
> from animals or as human beings who are far above any animal  
> nature? Do they study us as animals struggling to survive or as  
> human beings trying to attain human perfection?
>
> Are the definitions and parameters defined by these individuals not  
> just internal perceptions of 'what it is to be a real human being?'
>
> If the baselines set for what it is to be a human being is wrong,  
> can the study of the human being and its conclusions ever be correct?
>
> e.g. Is a man who rides a donkey who shares what little he has ,  
> more socially evolved, than a man in a private jet who squanders  
> wealth regardless of others?
>
> e.g. Is a political leader who fights to remove injustice more  
> politically evolved than a political leader who terrorises innocent  
> people to protect his self interests?
>
> Is social and political evolution measured by the moral standard of  
> the one who studies you and me? can the correct start and end point  
> of social and political evolution only be made by the one with  
> perfect moral principles? someone with no self interests, no  
> arrogance, no racism, no superiority complex, no preconceptions  
> etc.. etc..? i.e. the one who has annialated the self?
>
> Will atoms who study atoms ever understand what it is to be human?  
> can atoms ever attain human perfection?
>
> Just my thoughts...
>
>
>
>
>> From: Dave <[address removed]>
>> Reply-To: [address removed]
>> To: [address removed]
>> Subject: [philosophy-178] Evolution is not dead!
>> Date: Fri, 29 Jun[masked]:56:38 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>> It's late in the morning and I'm a little confused.
>>
>> I'd like to keep the evolution debate going a little, if no-one  
>> minds.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I assume that we can evolve physically, emotionally, socially,
>> politically, spiritually, 'whateverually' - could I still be  
>> considered an
>> evolutionist?
>>
>> Or is the classic understanding primarily associated with the  
>> physical?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hence if the environment made it more likely for the black moths  
>> to succeed,
>> compared to the white moths. Do we assume that evolution was  
>> separate from
>> 'intelligence' - ie the white moths didn't choose to go and find  
>> white
>> flowers but continued to pitch on the trees. If so, then can the  
>> same be
>> said of people?
>>
>>
>>
>> ie  Is there a fundamental difference for the evolution of  
>> creatures which
>> are self aware and those which are not.?
>>
>>
>>
>> Please explain.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Dave (obviously still in the process of evolving)
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________­____________________­____________________­_____
> Tell MSN about your most memorable emails!  http:// 
> www.emailbritain.co.­uk/
>
>
>
>
> --
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to  
> everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
> This message was sent by Salim ([address removed]) from The  
> London Philosophy Meetup Group.
> To learn more about Salim, visit his/her member profile: http:// 
> philosophy.meetup.co­m/178/members/[maske­d]/
> To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here:  
> http://www.meetup...­
>
> Meetup.com Customer Service: [address removed]
> 632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA
>

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy