Matt - I have some logical questions: 1) "instincts are no longer considered to work toward the probable perpetuation of the species, but they work only toward the probable perpetuation of their specific gene type, sometimes at the expense of the species."
I always dislike the passive tense "no longer considered to work'...because it leaves out the important AGENT. Who says that instincts no longer work toward the continuity of the species"? Proof? Or just some 'expert' (Appeal-to-Authority Fallacy). Instincts work only toward the perpetuation of their gene type? Ah, a reductionist view - and how does the gene harm the species? Examples of both privileging the gene and harming the species? And 2) "Perhaps you're right. If so, and if the scientists who say we've already embarked on the sixth mass extinction, which is caused by man and threatens man's existence, and if Sapolsky is also right, it's because man's instincts outweighed his logic." Which scientists? Do they 'know' the truth? Do any disagree with them? And isn't instinct in itself, embedded Reason? That is, the embedded (instinctual) normative habits of organization of a species, from the lizard to the human, are in themselves, expressions of Mind, of 'universal Reason'. Therefore, they are logical - eg, the capacity for language, the capacity for abductive or hypothetical reasoning vs inductive/deductive. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Faunce To: Peirce-L Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:27 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: A Second-Best Morality Tom, Somewhere the Essential Peirce he says something to the extent that an act in violation of love is illogical. You might find some support for your idea if you can find it. On the other hand, I know instinct isn't logic, but this might be relevant: I learned from listening to a lecture by Robert Sapolsky that instincts are no longer considered to work toward the probable perpetuation of the species, but they work only toward the probable perpetuation of their specific gene type, sometimes at the expense of the species. Right now I can only narrow the source down to the first two or three lectures in this series: https://youtu.be/NNnIGh9g6fA?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D Perhaps you're right. If so, and if the scientists who say we've already embarked on the sixth mass extinction, which is caused by man and threatens man's existence, and if Sapolsky is also right, it's because man's instincts outweighed his logic. https://woods.stanford.edu/news-events/news/mass-extinction-here Matt On 10/6/15 11:49 PM, Thomas wrote: Matt, Edwina, List - I am still persuaded that we (humans) evolved the cognitive ability to manipulate logic for the sole purpose of ensuring our survival. We didn't choose that - it evolved, and we are the beneficiaries. Our brains+logic were optimized in nature to ensure our survival, over millions of years. The Pragmatic way we analyze issues and weigh options comes naturally, because it defines who we are. Likewise, the social institutions created by Pragmatic logic have the primary purpose of ensuring the survival of the species. We will never reach perfection, but it survival is the normative objective that we instinctively use to judge and change our institutions. Pragmatic logic cannot aim for any other long-run result ahead of survival. It wouldn't know how. Other goals to animate our social institutions will either fail to gain (informed, logical) adherents, or those goals must actually be intermediate goals that promote survival. If I'm wrong about the way evolution works, we should be able to identify prominent features of other species that have no survival value, and are simply optional. Regards, Tom Wyrick ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
