Please understand that this section will barely scratch the proverbial surface of philosophy -- and in just a few places. What I hope is that the functionalist accounts I provide here will explain my general approach well enough that the reader will be able to apply it elsewhere in specific areas of interest.

This is a huge topic, and an important one. Sorry, but I haven't had time to develop my take on it yet for this website. But I'd like for readers at least to start thinking about the possibilities here. For now, consider the structuralist nature of our natural human emphasis on the quality of our experience of life, then contrast that with another priority -- a functionalist one that has cropped up again and again in our history: working to better the lot of future generations.

Consider also that decisions and actions can be taken only by individuals (for groups don't, independently, have a faculty for thought or action).

Finally, consider how wonderfully successful the "free market" of evolution has been in producing a huge panoply of successful species -- and how free markets in human economics have proved again and again to generate wealth and prosperity where they have been allowed to operate.

Why not a free market where politics is concerned? Let people try (on a voluntary basis, with no coerced participation by those who might disagree) every potential solution to a given problem they can imagine, and let the ones that work proliferate because their success is recognized and appreciated.

The approach to politics that is most analogous to evolution is one in which no one (without provocation) is compelled to perform any actions involuntarily. Instead, laws simply prohibit harming or defrauding others. This political philosophy is known as libertarianism.

Until I have the chance to come back and add some detail here, you'll find some beginnings in my ancient "Evolutionary Foundations for Philosophy", and some specific political philosophy in "Minarchy vs. Anarchy" that might keep you entertained, agitated, or otherwise stimulated for the nonce.

There's a well-established branch of epistemology (the study of what constitutes knowledge and how we know what we know) called 'evolutionary epistemology'. By and large, though, this discipline has been devoted to the study of how epistemological methods have been changing in an evolutionary way; to a lesser degree, there is concern about what evolutionary theory can tell us about the nature of epistemology (which I think is the important contribution the field can make).

Now, it may turn out that I'm woefully mistaken, but the notion that human methods dealing with knowledge evolve is hardly a news flash. What we really need to understand is metaphilosophical in nature: before we start doing epistemology, we need to figure out what evolution can tell us about the ways our evolved brains tend to interact with the world. In what ways do we form beliefs, and is there something in the relation between beliefs and the parts of the world they are supposed to be about that justifies us calling any given belief "knowledge"?

Well, valence immediately suggests that we look for a situation. To keep it fairly simple, try this: A group of humans pursuing an explanation for some kind of event, interacting with memories of various tokens (instances) of that kind of event, and with various theories concerning how that kind of event comes about. Does such a situation include a valence for the humans to come to know what typically causes the type of event in question? Well, yes. Because the actual explanation will agree with the actual evidence, it remains stable as more evidence is introduced.

[More to follow later as time for writing allows....]

Functionalism even has important implications for -- believe it or not -- aesthetics! But I think I can predict with justified confidence that this field will be among the last to accept this. Think about it: Do aestheticists enter their discipline because they believe that the quality of sensory experience is trivial, and that the careful imposition of form on such experiences is meaningless? Hardly! Take it from me (a sometime musician, composer, and artist with a degree in Music Theory): those who are interested in aesthetics find great significance, meaning, and fulfillment in the arts. Try telling them that there's no reason (other than simple bias) to believe that the arts have any value in themselves, and these most peaceable souls may be tempted to violence!

Now, I'm not a complete Philistine. I do think the arts have value -- even great value. I have spent much of my life as a musician (with a degree in Music Theory and many years as a professional or semi-professional performer), and as an amateur artist and poet. But I've been forced by the clear implications of evolutionary theory (and an examination of clearly groundless claims to the contrary) to acknowledge that aesthetic experience is valuable only instrumentally -- as a way to promote other (almost exclusively biological) values.

Can you see why I take this view? I explained above why we can treat Life and living as objective, intrinsic values. I also explained a bit why the subjective values we have as human beings have no demonstrable claim to value in themselves, but have a very sensible claim to instrumental value (at least as a class) in helping our kind to survive and propagate ourselves. As mentioned once before above, my argument against subjective value being intrinsic is in my M.A. thesis.

Sorry, but at this point I have run out of time to continue this article. For now, until I have the time to resume it, you'll have to examine some of my other writings (see below) to learn about the rest of my rather unorthodox perspective.

This page is still under construction, so I apologize for the incomplete synopsis of my views.

For the moment, let me recommend three of my online papers for the reader in a hurry.

• First, "Survival of the Whichest" offers a rather shallow look at why I think evolutionary theory has important answers for social questions.
• Second, "Metaphysical Functionalism" provides a deeper understanding of why evolutionary theory can't be ignored by philosophers (without serious consequences).
• Third, "Metaethical Functionalism" provides the most complete exposition of my views in a single paper. If it intrigues, try the Master's thesis next.

Thanks for visiting the Evolution and Philosophy website, and I hope you find it provocative and stimulating. And don't forget to leave your comments for me (and others) on the Message Board!