Evolutionary Foundations for Philosophy

CONCLUSION

This essay, due to limitations on both length and time, barely outlines the most necessary aspects of the development, foundations and implications of my project in evolutionary philosophy. Expansion and refinement of the subjects treated herewith, and pursuit of other evolutionary implications for cosmology, aesthetics, ortholinguistics -- the list seems endless -- will easily be the work of a lifetime.

I hope that my extended concept of valence proves useful to scientists and philosophers alike, and particularly to students entering the unfamiliar world of non-teleological science.

Mostly, I hope that the cardinal evolutionary principles of security, variety and excellence, and their derivative superlatives, adaptability and versatility, come to guide the course of mankind toward a limitless future.

I have, throughout the process of investigation and development of my ideas, questioned their validity and value with all the objectivity and skepticism I could muster. Having concluded that its promise for mankind exceeds that of any comparable set of ideas in recent history, I offer it up with pride, and with hope that my readers will concur -- and benefit.

Kent B. Van Cleave
March, 1989

Postscript: Any philosophy depends on the support of its adherents and the criticism of its detractors. I would greatly appreciate hearing about any errors herein; and, as an academically unaffiliated, nascent philosopher, I will be depending on all those who find merit in my work to support its development and encourage its penetration into our culture. My lack of professional philosophical credentials will force my philosophy to survive on acclaim alone. --KVC

A Retrospective Postscript March 1998
It has been more than a decade since I began this project, and nine years since I published this monograph. Though at the time I had never so much as taken a course in philosophy, I now have an M.A. in the field -- thanks to the challenges I discovered here. Looking back at this paper, I'm amazed at several things. First, I sure crammed a lot of stuff into a small amount of space! That was excusable given the publication restraints I had imposed on myself, but from the perspective of a maturing philosopher, one might wish for more detailed, careful argument rather than the quick exposition of insights offered here. I have made up for this somewhat by revisiting the key themes here in my Master's thesis, which is online here. There are also some embarrassing glimpses of my ignorance then about contemporary philosophy. The picture I painted of philosophers willfully ignoring evolutionary theory was inaccurate. Many philosophers of biology are quite expert in the theory of evolution. That said, I have found none who have noticed the things I did as an ignorant amateur. Primarily, I'm gratified that the central insights and analysis of this paper (though I have since been able to refine them further) remain without convincing challenge after all these years I've been looking for one. And I still think their implications are revolutionary. For readers who have found the notions here intriguing -- perhaps even persuasive -- I recommend investing the time to examine my Master's thesis here. Though it is primarily a critique of a competing view of how evolutionary theory might illuminate human morality, it also advances this developing view in a more sophisticated, detailed, and disciplined way than does the article you have just read. Most importantly, it explains how there is a kind of material organization in the universe (types of which are the 3-billion-plus-year-old process of begetting begetters, Life, and the homeodynamic process of individual organismic survival, living) that deserve to be recognized as objective, intrinsic values. It explains exactly what this value consists in: reflexive functionality (and I'm not going to offer a synopsis here; you really need to get the full explanation). It offers what I think is a rather devastating case against treating subjective value as "intrinsic" -- a challenge to a prevailing paradigm of value that will raise a lot of hackles. Though I have polished my definition and analysis of valence, it lay largely outside the scope of my thesis. I expect to add an article on the subject to this website fairly soon. The appeal I made in the postscript appended to the article above is one I want to reiterate, with slight modification. Though my Master's degree gives me some degree of credibility now, it is scarcely enough to sustain such a wildly unorthodox challenge to prevailing paradigms. I still need constructive criticism from readers of any imprecisions, errors, gaps in argument, etc. -- for I want to short-circuit any temptation for recalcitrant philosophers to dismiss the substance of my views because of minor structural or stylistic flaws. I also depend on readers who find this material interesting to share it with others. Encourage people to visit this website and browse through its offerings. If you have a home page of your own, add a link to the Evolution and Philosophy page. If you are a student of philosophy or biology, introduce these notions in class discussions, or pursue them in your writing assignments. If you are a philosopher or biologist, knock these ideas around with your colleagues -- and let me know how they weather the beating! When the first fragile organisms emerged on Earth, Nature might have snuffed them out in a single cataclysm. Instead, its relentless exertion of selection pressures allowed Life's strengths to develop and its flaws to be discarded, one by one. I just hope the intellectual community will apply its selective powers to my work toward a similar end.
Back to the Articles page

A Retrospective Postscript

March 1998

It has been more than a decade since I began this project, and nine years since I published this monograph. Though at the time I had never so much as taken a course in philosophy, I now have an M.A. in the field -- thanks to the challenges I discovered here.

Looking back at this paper, I'm amazed at several things. First, I sure crammed a lot of stuff into a small amount of space! That was excusable given the publication restraints I had imposed on myself, but from the perspective of a maturing philosopher, one might wish for more detailed, careful argument rather than the quick exposition of insights offered here. I have made up for this somewhat by revisiting the key themes here in my Master's thesis, which is online here.

There are also some embarrassing glimpses of my ignorance then about contemporary philosophy. The picture I painted of philosophers willfully ignoring evolutionary theory was inaccurate. Many philosophers of biology are quite expert in the theory of evolution. That said, I have found none who have noticed the things I did as an ignorant amateur.

Primarily, I'm gratified that the central insights and analysis of this paper (though I have since been able to refine them further) remain without convincing challenge after all these years I've been looking for one. And I still think their implications are revolutionary.

For readers who have found the notions here intriguing -- perhaps even persuasive -- I recommend investing the time to examine my Master's thesis here. Though it is primarily a critique of a competing view of how evolutionary theory might illuminate human morality, it also advances this developing view in a more sophisticated, detailed, and disciplined way than does the article you have just read.

Most importantly, it explains how there is a kind of material organization in the universe (types of which are the 3-billion-plus-year-old process of begetting begetters, Life, and the homeodynamic process of individual organismic survival, living) that deserve to be recognized as objective, intrinsic values. It explains exactly what this value consists in: reflexive functionality (and I'm not going to offer a synopsis here; you really need to get the full explanation). It offers what I think is a rather devastating case against treating subjective value as "intrinsic" -- a challenge to a prevailing paradigm of value that will raise a lot of hackles.

Though I have polished my definition and analysis of valence, it lay largely outside the scope of my thesis. I expect to add an article on the subject to this website fairly soon.

The appeal I made in the postscript appended to the article above is one I want to reiterate, with slight modification. Though my Master's degree gives me some degree of credibility now, it is scarcely enough to sustain such a wildly unorthodox challenge to prevailing paradigms. I still need constructive criticism from readers of any imprecisions, errors, gaps in argument, etc. -- for I want to short-circuit any temptation for recalcitrant philosophers to dismiss the substance of my views because of minor structural or stylistic flaws.

I also depend on readers who find this material interesting to share it with others. Encourage people to visit this website and browse through its offerings. If you have a home page of your own, add a link to the Evolution and Philosophy page. If you are a student of philosophy or biology, introduce these notions in class discussions, or pursue them in your writing assignments. If you are a philosopher or biologist, knock these ideas around with your colleagues -- and let me know how they weather the beating!

When the first fragile organisms emerged on Earth, Nature might have snuffed them out in a single cataclysm. Instead, its relentless exertion of selection pressures allowed Life's strengths to develop and its flaws to be discarded, one by one. I just hope the intellectual community will apply its selective powers to my work toward a similar end.

Back to the Articles page

REFERENCES

Ardrey, Robert, The Hunting Hypothesis, New York, 1976.

Barrow, John D., and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, New York, 1986.

Bergson, Henri Louis, Creative Evolution, New York, 1944.

Birx, James, Theories of Evolution, Springfield, IL, 1980.

Bowler, Peter J., Theories of Evolution, Baltimore, MD, 1986.

Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene, New York, 1976.

Dobzhanski, Theodosius, and Jose Ayala, eds. Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Problems, Berkeley, 1974.

Eldredge, Niles, Unfinished Synthesis: Biological Hierarchies and Modern Evolutionary Thought, New York, 1985.

Friedman, Milton and Rose, Free to Choose, New York, 1980.

Gazzaniga, Michael S., The Social Brain, New York, 1985.

Gleick, James, Chaos, New York, 1987.

Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, New York, 1980.

Gould, Stephen J., Hens' Teeth and Horses' Toes, New York, 1983.

Hawking, Stephen W., A Brief History of Time, New York, 1988.

Kagan, Jerome, and Julius Segal, Psychology: An Introduction, San Diego, CA, 1988.

Keirsey, David, and Marilyn Bates, Please Understand Me, Del Mar, CA, 1984.

"Killer Gene," Discover, Vol. 9, No. 12 (December, 1988), p. 15.

Korey, Kenneth, "The Rise of Modern Darwinism", The Essential Darwin, Robert Jastrow, general ed., Boston, 1984.

Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, 1962.

Kurtz, Paul, Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Humanism, Buffalo, NY, 1988.

Kurtz, Paul, ed. Sidney Hook: Philosopher of Democracy and Humanism, Amherst, NY, 1983.

Lewin, Kurt, The Conceptual Representation and the Measurement of Psychological Forces, New York, 1968.

Loftus, Elizabeth F., Eyewitness Testimony, Cambridge, MA, 1979.

Miller, Jonathan, States of Mind, New York, 1983.

Minsky, Marvin, The Society of Mind, New York, 1986.

Ornstein, Robert, Multimind, Boston, 1986.

Rand, Ayn, The Virtue of Selfishness, New York, 1964.

Rand, Ayn, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, New York, 1967.

Reese, W.L., Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1980.

Ruse, Michael, Sociobiology: Sense or Nonsense?, Dordrecht, Holland, 1985.

Ruse, Michael, and Edward O. Wilson, "Moral Philosophy as Applied Science," Philosophy, Vol. 61, No. 236 (April, 1986).

Sellars, Roy Wood, V.J. McGill and Marvin Farber, eds., Philosophy for the Future, New York, 1949.

Skinner, B.F., Beyond Freedom & Dignity, New York, 1971.

Sober, Elliott, "Evolutionary Theory as a Theory of Forces," The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus, Cambridge, 1984.

Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, The Phenomenon of Man, New York, 1959.

Tice, Terrence N. and Thomas P. Slavers, Research Guide to Philosophy, Chicago, 1983.

Van Cleave, Kent B., "Devolution?", Mensa Bulletin, No. 292 (December 1985).

Van Cleave, Kent B., "We Love Too Nearly," Mensa Bulletin, No.293 (January/February 1986).

Van Cleave, Kent B., "Power in the Supermarket of Life: Thoughts on a New Objectivism," Mensa Bulletin, No. 302 (December 1986).

Van Cleave, Kent B., "Anasazi Yazi," Mensa Bulletin, No. 308 (July/August 1987).

Van Cleave, Kent B., "Survival of the Whichest? Toward an Evolutionary Philosophy for the 21st Century," Mensa Bulletin, No. 315 (April 1988).

Van Cleave, Kent B., "Unclogging Cognitive Cogs: A Conversation with Famed Psychologist Dr. Albert Ellis, Mensa Bulletin, No. 321 (November 1988).

Vogel, Shawna, "In the Blink of an Eye," Discover, Vol. 10, No. 2 (February 1989), p. 62.

Back to Evolution and Philosophy Home Page
Back to the Articles page

980802