Darwin

www.tomwillhill.com

Charles had always shared the common wish to see “evidence of design and beneficence” in the natural world. He had rejected the claim of natural theology that every species had been separately contrived by an all powerful Creator, but commented to Gray and Hooker that he could not “view the wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man” “as the result of blind chance” or “brute force.” Yet still, he could not see the evidence of design and beneficence “as plainly as others do.” “There seems to me too much misery in the world.” He gave examples from nature like the huge numbers of icheneumons, wasp-like insects which feed on this living bodies of caterpillars, but his word “misery” clearly applied to human suffering and grief. ~ Page 267

……. The times were changing and Charles was encouraged to follow up the book with two more works on aspects of human nature, ‘The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals’ and “a Biographical Sketch of an Infant’. As things worked out, few of his themes were taken further in his lifetime, but they have been since. The subjects are still as bedeviled by controversy and prejudice as thy were in Darwin’s day, but that is hardly surprising when it is the buried history of our own nature that we are arguing about. ~ Page 283

Comments

Dinesh ^club

Darwin’s story, as one might expect, a gradualist -- gradualist in two respects. Humans, thanks largely to the possession of a cognitive-affective-conative economy that was passed on from their ancestors, have mortal (of at least “ economy that was passed on from their ancestors, have moral (or at least “proto-moral) dispositions from the start. Furthermore, these dispositions are adjustable during one’s lifetime. Social insects, not being conscious, organize social life without feeling or thought. Most mammals seem to, and certainly all primates do, organize their social lives with and through feelings: selfish feelings and fellow-feelings. But if this is right, the Humean-Darwinian story has what might be perceived as a serious downside: It ties morality too closely to the emotions. ~ Page 46

4 years ago. Edited 4 weeks ago.

Dinesh ^club

1

DARWIN’S DISGUST

Modern psychological interest in disgust starts with Darwin, who centers it in the rejection of food and the sense of taste. Consider his account

“The term “disgust”, in its simplest sense, means something offensive to the taste. It is curious how readily this feeling is excited by anything unusual in the appearance, odour, or nature of our food. In Terra del Fuego a native touched with his finger some cold preserved meat which I was eating at our bivouac, and plainly showed utter disgust at its softness; whilst I felt utter disgust at my food being touched by a naked savage, though his hands did not appear dirty. A smear of soup on a man’s beard looks disgusting, though there is of course nothing disgusting in the soup itself. I presume that this follows from the strong association in our minds between the sight of food, however circumstanced, and the idea of eating.”

Darwin is right about the etymology of disgust. It means unpleasant to the taste. Buyt one wonders whether taste would figure so crucially in Darwin’s account if the etymology had’t suggested it. . . . . . Page 1

4 weeks ago. Edited 4 weeks ago.

Sign-in to write a comment.

		Page color
		Comments Panel
		Screen Margins
▼▲
		Widescreen

← Among Dinesh's photos

See also...

Excerpts from the Books that I read - II Excerpts from the Books that I read - II

Charles Darwin Charles Darwin

Keywords

Authorizations, license

Darwin

Ξ	Frame Options
3 - +