The Laws of Biology

It occurred to me that Ayn Rand's Objectivism has a metaphysical sanction (authorization, justification, proof) of its ethical system, and, by contrast, some other ethical systems are sanctioned by reference to one of these: Supernatural revelation (example: Judeo-Christian Natural Law theory, as held by Supreme Court Justice Amy Comey Barrett) Pragmatic reasoning (example: the philosophy of William James--the view that we must settle for "truth" being merely whatever works best in a given time and place, and that nothing more definite, permanent, or grand can be said about what is the "truth") Biological programming (DNA; evolution) (example: the philosophy of Professor Larry Arnhart, as expressed on his blog named "Darwinian Conservatism"; the philosophy of Dr. Jordan Peterson is another example of the biological sanction of an ethical system) Some people object to Ayn Rand's Objectivism because they object to all metaphysical sanctions of ethics as a matter of principle. In short, they view metaphysics as a semi-secularized form of supernaturalism. In this view, the ancient Greek philosophers took the primitive Greek religion (what we now call myths) and rationalized that religion. Socrates was executed by religious fundamentalists for promoting the rationalization of religion, and, in the view of those fundamentalists, was weakening traditional religion and thus weakening the authority and legitimacy of the Greek city-state and its culture and form of government. But, according to those who reject metaphyics, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle retained within their phillosophical systems key elements of the basic supernaturalism and mysticism of the ancient, pre-scientific world. All three of them spoke/wrote about the reality and importance of the supernatural God within their philosophical systems. During the Middle Ages, leading scholars (e.g., Thomas Aquinas, Averroes ) viewed Aristotelian metaphysics to be fully in harmony with fundamentalistic Christian and Islamic supernatural revelation. Proponents of metaphysics assert that the basic approach and tools laid out by Aristotle in his treatise which is called "Metaphysics" provide a basis for making definite statements about the fundamental nature of Being/Reality, and, furthemore, that every human being always has explicit ideas or implicit assumptions about the nature of Being/Reality, and so metaphysics is necessary and inescapable. Ayn Rand was very critical of Kant because Kant cast serious doubt on the ability of humans to reach definite knowledge in the realm of metaphysics. Marxism seems to be based on what can be termed a historical sanction. Karl Marx believed that he had discovered the true Laws of History, and he thought he could project those laws forward in order to predict and/or prescribe what will happen and/or ought to happen in human society. Is this comment an accurate statement of things?

One source states this: Conditional love Some authors make a distinction between unconditional love and conditional love. In conditional love, love is "earned" on the basis of conscious or unconscious conditions being met by the lover, whereas in unconditional love, love is "given freely" to the loved one "no matter what". Loving is primary. Conditional love requires some kind of finite exchange, whereas unconditional love is seen as infinite and measureless. Unconditional love should not be confused with unconditional dedication: unconditional dedication or "duty" refers to an act of the will irrespective of feelings (e.g. a person may consider that they have a duty to stay with someone); unconditional love is an act of the feelings irrespective of will. Unconditional love separates the individual from their behavior. However, the individual may exhibit behaviors that are unacceptable in a particular situation. Humanistic psychology Humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers spoke of an unconditional positive regard and dedication towards one single support. Rogers stated that the individual needed an environment that provided them with genuineness, authenticity, openness, self-disclosure, acceptance, empathy, and approval. Also, Abraham Maslow supported the unconditional love perspective by saying that in order to grow, an individual had to have a positive perspective of themselves. In Man's Search For Meaning, logotherapist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl draws parallels between the human capacity to love unconditionally and living a meaningful life. Frankl writes: "Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his personality. No one can become fully aware of the essence of another human being unless he loves him. [...] Furthermore, by his love, the loving person enables the beloved person to actualize ... potentialities." For Frankl, unconditional love is a means by which we enable and reach human potential. Christianity In Christianity, the term "unconditional love" can be used to indicate God's love for a person irrespective of that person's love for God. This comes from the concept of God sending His only Son, Jesus Christ down from heaven to earth to die on a cross in order to take the punishment for all of humanity's sins. If someone chooses to believe in this, commonly called "The Gospel", then Jesus' price on the cross pays for their sins so they can freely enter into heaven, and not hell. The term is not explicitly used in the Bible, and advocates for God's conditional or unconditional love, using different passages or interpretations to support their point of view, are both encountered due to confusion about God's nature. The cross is a clear indicator of God's unconditional love in that there is no way to earn one's way to heaven, one must simply believe. In all other religions cited below, there is a conditional striving to achieve a sense of unconditional love, based on one's own efforts and understanding. In Christianity, it all depends on Jesus, not the person's effort nor understanding. A passage in scriptures cites this "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—" Ephesians 2:8,9, NIV. God's discipline can be viewed as conditional based on people's choices, and this is where some may become confused. His salvation is a free gift, but His discipline, which is shaping of good character, can look more conditional. Ultimately, knowing God and free passage to heaven have already been supplied by a God of unconditional love. One can simply choose to believe in order to receive such love. The civil rights leader and Pastor, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was quoted as saying "I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality".

I know someone, who I'll call Helen, who hates her grandfather because he (her grandfather) gives only criticism and scorn to Helen's father, but showers Helen's father's brother (Helen's uncle) with praise, honors, affection, and responsibilities within the family business. Helen claims that her grandfather, who is the "patriarch" and founder of the lucrative family business, should have "unconditional love" for all of his children. She sees her grandfather as engaging in a serious violation of the principle of "unconditional love" by showing such favoritism to her uncle (as compared to her father). Helen claims that her father is just as competent and responsible in business as is her uncle. However, Helen's grandfather sees Helen's uncle as much more competent and responsible in business as compared to her father. I think Helen's basic ethical view is that even if her uncle was more competent than her father, her grandfather should nevertheless have "unconditional love" for all of his children and so give the roughly same level of praise, love, acceptance, encouragement, and opportunities to all of his children. Although a high degree of the ethics of "unconditional love" can be found in the Christian religion, Helen is not religious. Helen obtained her ideas about the necessity and righteousness of "unconditional love" from her university studies of psychologists Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. I am conflicted about all this. I can empathize with how Helen feels when she sees her grandfather giving her father nothing but criticism and scorn, but giving her father's brother nothing but praise, encouragement, and affection. And yet, "unconditional love" seems to be a highly impractical and unworkable ethical system.

Did Sigmund Freud misuse the ancient Greek legend of Narcissus as a false basis to establish, in 1914, the diagnosis of “Narcissism” as a supposed psychological disorder, and did Freud do this because Freud was an Altruist devoted to the ethical philosophy of Altruism, and as such Freud wanted to denigrate and pathologize the cultivation and exercise of Self Esteem? Or, does the concept of "Narcissism" have, in some cases, a degree of legitimacy, usefulness, helpfulness, and applicabiity? One source I found states this: Freud theorized that narcissism is normal, healthy, and present from birth in all humans (primary narcissism). It evolves in time to include affection for others. Secondary narcissism, a neurosis, occurs when individuals reverse course and turn their affection back onto themselves. That same source goes on to say this: Normal and healthy levels of narcissism Narcissism is an essential component of mature self-esteem and basic self-worth. In essence, narcissistic behaviors are a system of intrapersonal and interpersonal strategies devoted to protecting one's self-esteem. It has been suggested that healthy narcissism is correlated with good psychological health. Self-esteem works as a mediator between narcissism and psychological health. Therefore, because of their elevated self-esteem, deriving from self-perceptions of competence and likability, high narcissists are relatively free of worry and gloom. Destructive levels of narcissism Narcissism, in and of itself, is a normal personality trait, however, high levels of narcissistic behavior can be damaging and self-defeating. Destructive narcissism is the constant exhibition of a few of the intense characteristics usually associated with pathological Narcissistic personality disorder such as a "pervasive pattern of grandiosity", which is characterized by feelings of entitlement and superiority, arrogant or haughty behaviors, and a generalized lack of empathy and concern for others. On a spectrum, destructive narcissism is more extreme than healthy narcissism but not as extreme as the pathological condition. Pathological levels of narcissism Extremely high levels of narcissistic behavior are considered pathological. The pathological condition of narcissism is, as Freud suggested, a magnified, extreme manifestation of healthy narcissism. Freud's idea of narcissism described a pathology which manifests itself in the inability to love others, a lack of empathy, emptiness, boredom, and an unremitting need to search for power, while making the person unavailable to others

Yes. Though "altruism" is not a term or concept used by Karl Marx or the classical Marxist-Leninists, it may be the case that Ayn Rand was very astute and wise in perceiving that Comte's conception of "altruism" was operative and dominant with the traditions of Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Christianity, Humanism, Fascism, and Progressive Liberalism. Today's Marxists might object that Ayn Rand is attacking a "straw man," since they (today's Marxists) don't use the terminology or concept of Comte's "altruism." But the beauty of philosophical, psychological, and scientic analysis is that it can accumulate data, logically develop workable hypotheses to optimally explain that data, and thereby penetrate below the level of what other parties express verbally or think consciously.

This thread has, for me at least, brought to light and to focus one profound difference between the philosophical system of Ayn Rand and the philosophical system of Aristotle. As can readily be seen on the wonderful Ayn Rand Lexicon website, Ayn Rand expressed much admiration for Aristotle's system. But she also stated her view that Aristotle made some mistakes in philosophy. I find that one way to increase my understanding of what is a philosophical system really is and what it really does is to strongly focus on the system's points of strong conflict with other philosophical systems that have are considered valuable and respectable by many people (or at least by noteworthy people). In this vein, Ayn Rand's selection of August Comte's 1830 coined term "altruism" seems very important. One hardly ever sees anyone writing about Comte or hears anyone talking about Comte. The world is full of comments on Marx. But hardly anyone every mentions Comte. Yet, as I look into Comte's thought, and into the history of the influence of this thought, I see that Comte is a signficant figure. I think the thought of Comte may indeed shed much light on Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

One possiblity: "Narcissism" is a concept and term invented and used by people who promote the ethics of Altruism-as-a-Virtue and so are determined to denigrate those who promote the ethics of Self-Esteem-as-a-Virtue. Another possiblity: "Narcissism" is a concept and term that is legitimately used to describe a man or woman who displays a very high level of Self Esteem BUT ALSO also displays these behaviors: Has great contempt and disgust for nearly everyone else (due to their alleged inferiority) Does not respect the rights of others, whenever respecting those right gets in the way of him or her getting or maintaining the status, power, or wealth that he or she desires. Unwilling or unable to empathize with the feelings, wishes, and needs of other people Becomes wildly enraged with others, and obsessed with revenge, when others do not respect and defer to his or her greatness (e.g., Hitler, Stalin) Intensely envious of others, and the belief that others are equally envious of them Pompous and arrogant demeanor Grandiosity, with expectations of superior treatment from other people Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc. Self-perception of being unique, superior, and associated with high-status people and institutions Needing continual admiration from others Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain

So Aristotle's ethical philosophy was and is wrong, bad, evil, and deadly?

Yes, thank you. I have started reading some of the article of Mr. George H. Smith, and they answer many of my questions. Thanks again.

That is unquestionably true. It can be readily observed. Very nearly every human being engages in philosophizing, particularly when they are suffering, afraid, or frustrated. But what is disputable, I think, is whether philosophy is the decisive factor, or any factor at all, in the fate or outcomes of nations or individuals. And, along the same lines, there are psychologists (e.g., Dr. Jordan Peterson) who argue that humans need religion, God (or gods), and religious faith in some supernatural life or realm. These psychologists argue that humans evolved naturally and biologically to operate according to religious conceptions. They do not argue that God, gods, or the supernatural realm actually exist. They argue that in the history of evoluion of life on earth, the hominids that developed and practiced religion prevailed over and drove to extinction the hominids that did not develop and practice religion (or who developed a less functional religion). Notice during the Cold War, the U.S. Government added "In God We Trust" to our money, and then we ended up winning the Cold War. These psychologists would say that this isn't because some deity helped the Christian West, but because religion is more functional than atheism or agnosticism.

Aristotle taught that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun and all the stars and planets orbited the earth. That legacy of Aristotle was carried forward for about a thousand years. Galileo was almost executed for disputing it. Aristotle also taught that the philosophical system held by the ruling class in each nation determined the fate of the nation. (Aristotle had no interest or concern regarding belief systems of the non-aristocrats, since he taught that most men were "natural slaves" and their role was simply to be tools and instruments to serve the aristocrats, who were the only people who really mattered. This ancient Greek social system was recently depicted in the "Hunger Games" movies.) While Aristotle's earth-centric view of the cosmos has been left behind for several hundred years now, due to data and theories that are part of modern science, Aristotle's antique philosophy-centric theory of the history of human civilization remains dominant and popular. According to Aristotle's philosophy-centric theory of the history of human civilization, the reason for all the great evils of the Communist regimes was (and still is, in the case of Cuba and a few other places) bad philosophy, and the reason for all the great evils of Nazi Germany was bad philosophy, and even the explanation of Putin's recent invasion of Ukraine is chalked up to bad philosophy of Russia's ruling clique (and/or, some might say, the bad philosophy of the leaders of NATO). According to Aristotle's philosophy-centric theory of the history of human civilization, the USA has had such a remarkable history of general prosperity and liberty because the U.S. Founding Fathers developed, fostered, and implemented a superior political and ethical philosophy, drawing from Aristotle, Locke, Adam Smith, etc.. And so, many people today, who feel that the traditional prosperity and liberty is jeopardized by unAmerican philosophies gaining a foothold in the USA, are interested in developing, fostering, spreading, and implementing the philosophy that will make America great again. Archimedes, an ancient Greek philosopher who was born a little after Aristotle, said, “Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.” Many today assume that philosophy is the lever by which to move culture, economics, politics, war and peace, and everything. And they act on this assumption, and become activists in the cause of philosophy or in the cause of a particular philosophical system that they have been convinced is the final and salvific philosophy of humankind. The problem, as seen by some, is that Aristotle and all the ancient Greeks had a terribly foreshortened view of the history of human civilization. They imagined human history to be only a few thousand years old. But since around the time of Darwin, and with ever more clarity since then, we now are able to know that the history of human civilization begins between 3 and 4 billion years ago on the earth. That's because we humans are in one continuous lineage going back to the very earliest life forms on earth, which may have been similar to today's bacteria. Bacteria are our ancestor. We have the same basic DNA as bacteria and all biological beings. Yet, philosophy only goes back around 8 or 10 thousand years. For most of the history of life on earth, life has not been guided or controlled by philosophy. Well, by what then was life guided or controlled for all those billions of years? Beginning in 1859, Charles Darwin explained that life (all life, including human life) was always and only under the control of the Laws of Biology. These laws are encoded into our DNA and the DNA of every biological being. The Laws of Biology, as discovered and explained by Darwin and by many other scientists since Darwin, is the objective basis for everything pertaining to life (including politics, religion, philosophy, culture, arts, poetics, etc.) But just as in Galileo's day the ruling class was not ready to accept the debunking of Aristotle's earth-centric view of the cosmos, so most of society today is not yet ready to accept the debunking, by Darwin, Einstein, and other scientists, of Aristotle's philosophy-centric view of human history. But some people have already set aside the antique, obsolete, pre-scientific theories of the past, and maybe more will do so in the future. But wait! What will become of humankind if humankind no longer believes in the ancient myths? I recall the strenuous objections that the character John (from the "Savage Lands") expresses to the World Controller, Mustapha Mond, in Huxley's novel "Brave New World." John finds the de-mythologized, science-based new civlization of that novel to be unbearable. In the end, John kills himself. Perhaps our rulers will have to follow the example of Dr. Zauis in the 1968 film “Planet of the Apes,” and keep certain scientific and historical information away from the masses, and even away from most of the rulers, in order to preserve human civilization. But is it too later for that? Is the cat already out of the bag?

Imagine that a freshman student majoring in Physics at a university approached one of his professors and asked, "Sir, what is the objective basis for Physics?"

"Altruism" is a term that was coined or popularized by the philosopher and scientist August Comte in 1830. Before 1830, "altruism" did not exist, at least not as a word, and perhaps not even as a concept. "Altruism" has never been a word or concept that has been widely used in Marxism, Communism, or Christianity. Yet, "altruism" is the word and the concept that Ayn Rand chose for use in the philosopical system to describe the key vice or the key philosophical error. To me, it is noteworthy that August Comte strongly asserted, in his philosophy called Positivism, that each human being is ethically obligated to live 100% according to altruism. He did not believe it was correct for a person to try to find a healthy balance between altruism and seflishness. Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism asserts the mirror image of Comte's philosophy: She says that each human being is ethically obligated to live 100% according to selfishness. She did not believe it was correct for a person to try to find a healthy balance between altruism and seflishness. By contrast, Marx and Lenin never taught that people must be 100% altruistic and live always and only for others. Aristotle taught people to find the "golden mean" between miserliness and prodigality. The ancient Greek temple of Apollo at Delphi had the inscription "Moderation in all things." (or "Nothing in excess") Classical Christianity also taught that most Christians living in the world need to find a workable, practical balance between unselfishness and self-serving acts. (Monks and nuns were held to a much higher and stricter standard of unselfishness called "The Evangeical Counsels"). So, it seems that, in the history of Western philosophy and religion, ONLY August Comte and Ayn Rand proposed, as an ethical ideal, either pure, unadulterated Altruism or pure, unadulterated Selfishness. One scholar has written that Comte's philosophy of Positivism, though mainly forgotten now, "was even more influential in Victorian England than the theories of Charles Darwin or Karl Marx." And so I wonder if, in some sense, Auguste Comte the real philosophical nemesis or antagonist of Ayn Rand? Was she mainly writing against the philosophy of August Comte? (And thus Marxism, Leninism, Communism, Christianity, New Deal-ism, etc., were not the real or essential villians in her system.)

In my above statement, I now think that I should NOT have written "traits or habits that are not consciously chosen." For the purposes of this present philosophical inquiry, I think it is NOT relevant whether any person's "Narcissism" is consciously and deliberately chosen, or whether it is something not consciously chosen by the person. In general, the question as to whether personality types (and/or personality disorders) are chosen or acquired by genetics or by environment just isn't the issue that interests me at this time and I don't think there's any need to address it in this inquiry. Rather, the issue of interest to me at the current time is whether the concept or phenomenon of "Narcissism" is something that is objectively real. Does "Narcissism" exist? Do "Narcissists" exist? Is "Narcissism" a legimitate and meaningful category? Most people would agree that the debate over whether Pluto is a planet or not is meaningless and unimportant. Pluto is what is it. Pluto is real. Pluto can be observed and has been observed. Much has been discovered about Pluto. The precise bounds of the concept of "planet" are not important as regards Pluto, I would say, and I think most people would agree. But not meaningless are the differences between elements as described in categories such as "Noble Gases" and "Heavy Metals." "Heavy Metals" (e.g., mercury and lead) and "Noble Gases" (e.g., helium, argon) are generally recognized as legimate and meaningful categories. These categories help scientists and engineers make predictions about how elements will act or react under various conditions. Is "Narcissism" a legimitate and meaningful category? Does it help us make predictions about how certain people will act or react under various conditions? Does it help us understand oher people? Does it help us understand ourselves?

In the field of professional, licensed psychology/psychiatry, narcissism is a stable personality type or stable cluster of behavioral or mental traits or habits that are not consciously chosen. My question is: As used by these mental health professionals, does the term "narcissism" describe an authentic human phenonemom that a rational personal can observe and recognize as a valid type or category? For example, when observing clouds in the sky, a meterologist will put clouds into various categories or types, such as Cumulus, Cirrus, and Stratus. Identifying cloud types helps the meterologist make accurate predictions about weather patterns and events. So, I think no one disputes that the system of categories, classes, or types of clouds is a legitimate, scienetific, and useful system of taxonomy. Can the same be said about human personality types in general and in particular about the type called "Narcissist"? NOTE: At this point, I'd like to side-step the issue as to whether being or acting as a Narcissist is ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, productive or constructive, happy or unhappy, or good or evil or neutral or "beyond good and evil." As I see it, a logically preliminary and distinct issue is whether "narcissism" is a legimate concept or category. Only after one takes a position on that issue does it make any sense to possibly make a moral/ethical/political judgment about the phenomenon. Also, at this point, I'd also like to side-step the issue of what is the correct or best defintion of "narcissism." There are some debates and disputes, even with the mental health profession, about how "narcissism" should be defined. But I think there is such a strong common core in how "narcissism" is defined that I think there is no need, for the purposes of this present inquiry, to get into that. Whether one looks into a respectable dictionary or into the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (the "Bible" of most mental health professionals), the basic concept of "narcissism" is basically the same, I believe.

Very good questions. Before I say anymore, I see that I should obtain a genuine and thorough education in the subjects traditionally called, within the Western Philosophical tradition, Metaphysics and Epistemology . I need to stop proposing questions and dispensing my initial impressions as answers. I am acting like a philosophica impressionist, like a philosophical Monet or a philosophical Renoir, with everything painted in a fuzzy, hazy manner. What's the good of that? Nothing. I do like the impressionist paintings, but I don't see them as providing any objective knowledge about reality or objective guidance for living. They are just pretty pictures, in my estimation. So, off I go to my studies! I respect and admire the philosophy of Objectivism. I appreciate the high level of philosophical competence among Objectivists. Thank you.

Well said. Before I say anymore, I see that I should obtain a genuine and thorough education in the subjects traditionally called, within the Western Philosophical tradition, Metaphysics and Epistemology . I need to stop proposing my initial impressions. I am acting like a philosophica impressionist, like a philosophical Monet or a philosophical Renoir, with everything painted in a fuzzy, hazy manner. What's the good of that? Nothing. So, off I go to my studies! Thank you.

Yes. This a very important and valid point, one that I think calls forth serious consideration, investigation, and examination. I noticed there is an article titled "Metaphysical Naturalism" in Wikipedia. The same topic seems to be covered in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in an article titled "Naturalism." For what's it's worth, here's my preliminary idea of why people speak of their being theological (supernatural; divine; mystical) metaphysical theories and there also being secular (natural; non-theological) metaphysical theories. I hypothesize that all metaphysical theories were originally theological. Notice that Aristotle never used the word "metaphysics" to refer to his metaphysics. Rather, he used the word "theology." Eventually, there arose opponents to religion. They no longer wanted their nations to be run by priests and theologians or by kings who were under the influence or control of priests and theologicans. So, they countered religious metaphysics with naturalistic metaphysics. And, it worked! At one time every nation in Western Civilization had and enforced laws against blasphemy. But now none do! So, the proponents of naturalistic metaphysics achieved their political goal. (Religion did not come to an end. But religion's control over politics, economics, and culture was greatly diminished.) But, in my view, they ignored or hid, for valid, defensible, pragmatic political purposes, the fact that there is a contradiction and incoherence in the concept of naturalistic metaphysics. It's the same contradiction that is more apparent in the phrase "Naturalistic Supernaturalism." In other words, I propose that all metaphysics is supernatural in nature. It is far, far beyond the scope of brief comments like this to prove such a hypothesis. I think this hypothesis has been written about at length by a number of professional philosophers, but forgive me if I don't footnote this comment. Yes, whether or not metaphysics is inherently and intrinsically supernatural/theological is the issue. I think it is an issue worth investigating. I well realize that there are HUGE numbers of living professional philosophers who do NOT express in their writings the view that metaphysics is inherently and intrinsically supernatural/theological. The vast majority are in this camp, I imagine. And historically speaking, the same is true, I imagine. Still, Aristotle opens his treatise on the subject he called "Theology" (the treatise that is commonly and confusingly called "Metaphysics") with the line: "All men by nature desire to know." Fox Mulder had that poster in office which said "I want to believe." By contrast, others say "I want to know."

There are many profound, true, insightful, and helpful points made in this comment above. Thank you. But perhaps I can be forgiven if I pivot to another angle: Why does metaphysics matter? I hypothesize, based on biological science, that some people care so much about abstruse topics like metaphysics, and the Western Philosophical Tradition in general, because, in the final analysis, "all philosophy is political philosophy." In other words, all philosophy, I'm proposing, is ultimately about who gets to be the boss in society. I.e., who gets to rule over whom. Who has to clean the toilets in the office building, and who gets to sit in the spacious corner office overlooking the park below having a servant bring in lattes and croissants. Am I proposing a Socialist perspective? All Socialism is science-denialism, in my view. As I see it, I am proposing a scientific Biological perspective, based on the writings of Charles Darwin. I Googled this phrase in quotation marks: "all philosophy is political philosophy" and I got some interesting results. The philosopher Leo Strauss was in several of the search results on the first page. Also on the first page was this statement: “Sandel [goes to] the heart of the epistemological confusions inherent in modern philosophical liberalism…. The real consequence of Sandel’s argument is…to reassert [the] fundamental lesson…that at the heart of all philosophy is political philosophy." Sandel, whose views are being summarized in that quote, is a professor at Harvard University, Michael J. Sandel. Of course, none of that proves anything. In these brief comments, I'm doing all that can be done in this context: indicate, suggest, propose, etc. People (me included) have such passionate interest in things like metaphysics because metaphysics is ultimately a tool or weapon used by Homo Sapiens in what Darwin called the "struggle for life." Everything in this perspective is about the struggle to survive and reproduce. This is a scientific theory with a great deal of evidence in its favor. The point is: Science explains philosophy. Phllosophy does not explain science. Philosophy is still a necessary aspect of human psychological and sociological functioning, just as it was in the days of Aristotle, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Washington, Jefferson. Lincoln, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Trump. That's because Homo Sapiens haven't changed much or at all in terms of the evolution of the human brain in the last several thousand years. But there was one big change in the development of human intellectual culture: The modern scientific method was developed, beginning about the time of Galileo. And that method led to Darwin's epoch changing discoveries about the nature of all biological beings. And so, biology (actually, its sub-disciplines, psychology and sociology) explains philosophy. Philosophy does not explain biology. None of this perspective is original to me. None of it. I have gotten all of this from professional philosophers and scientists, whose names would be a burden to track down and cite. But all this information is out there. For example, Ernest Becker and Terror Management Theory seem to have a lot of explanatory power. But why do I bother to post information about this perspective on websites like this? Ah, good question! I could congratulate and valorize myself by saying something like "I love the truth and want the truth to be known." But would that be the truth (reality)? Of course not! That's the sort of thing Evangelical Christians say or Jehovah's Witnesses say when they are trying to convert me and you over to their belief system. Sometimes I tell myself that maybe, maybe, the realities described in the old Roman sayings, "Homo homini lupus" (man is wolf to man) and "Libido Dominandi" (the Will to Dominate) could be less prevalent in the present-day world if more people understood the solid science that explains human thought and behavior. Yeah, I guess that's my reason. I want to survive. I want human civilization and culture (all the art! all the music! Beethoven! Michelangelo! Shakespeare! Peanut butter! "Citizen Kane") to survive. I want children to still play in kindergartens! So, I imagine my personal survival and the survival of the whole human "world" can be better secured if more people understood the solid science that explains human thought and behavior. But, most of the time I know that's a pipe dream, a fantasy, a delusion. Why so? Because few people have any interest in understanding the solid science that explains human thought and behavior. And even worse, such understanding does not substantially change human though or behavior. We are too animalistic. The ancients (Socrates, Aristotle) had their own delusion, which was that "Reason" (rationality) could be used by humans to totally control their own behavior and the behavior of societies. Well, in a roundabout way, I have here suggested a scientific perspective about what "metaphysics" and "philosophy" really are. A part of me hopes that such scientific knowledge can save the world. But a bigger part of me knows better. Alas! The logic of all of this is why Sigmund Freud expressed such pessimism in his book "Civilization and Its Discontents." The logic of all this is well expressed in the movie written by Rod Serling (of "Twilight Zone" fame) and by Michael Wilson (an accomplished screenwriter who was blacklisted for Communist activities). The movie? The 1968 "Planet of the Apes." The ape character in that movie who is named Dr. Zaius is given lines of dialogue that provide what I regard as realistic and accurate commentary and perspective on science, religion, history, and philosophy. Dr. Zaius is really the hero of the story, albeit a tragic hero. Who is the villain/antagonist? I don't want to give away the big secret of the movie! In my heart of hearts I know that, in these days of relative peace, law and order, and liberty in the USA, people should ignore all these terrible and scary issues, and should just be productive in honest work, make money, enjoy spending money, enjoy relationships with family and friends, live, grow old, and die (ideally with as little pain as possible). Worrying about the end of civilization, and worrying about the role of religion and philosophy in causing or preventing the end of the world, won't accomplish a thing! I know that's the approach I should take! With apologies to Zola, I say, "Je m'accuse!"

I found this comment to be very interesting and thought-provoking in many ways. It will certain influence my ongoing research. Thanks. This discussion forum is valuable because the people who participate here tend to be very well educated in one or more systems or schools of philosophy.

Yes. I blundered. Thank you giving me the correct information. I had heard that before, but had forgotten it, or blocked it out, or something. I suppose we can't be completely sure about how the name "metaphysics" came about for that treatise. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online) says this: "But Aristotle himself did not use that title or even describe his field of study as ‘metaphysics’; the name was evidently coined by the first century C.E. editor who assembled the treatise we know as Aristotle’s Metaphysics out of various smaller selections of Aristotle’s works. The title ‘metaphysics’—literally, ‘after the Physics’—very likely indicated the place the topics discussed therein were intended to occupy in the philosophical curriculum. They were to be studied after the treatises dealing with nature (ta phusika)." That same article goes on to say this: Aristotle himself described his subject matter in a variety of ways: as ‘first philosophy’, or ‘the study of being qua being’, or ‘wisdom’, or ‘theology’. "Theology"? Aristotle used the word "Theology" to describe what professional philosophers now refer to as "metaphysics," and to describe his own metaphysics? Well, I guess my initial reaction is to wonder if Aristotle using the term "theology" to describe his metaphysics doesn't lend some degree of credence and validity to my earlier musings that Aristotle's metaphysics has some overlap or identity with the concept of the "supernatural." The same article gives some further explanation of what Aristotle meant by his "theology," and here's a bit of that: "In Book Ε, Aristotle adds another description to the study of the causes and principles of beings qua beings. Whereas natural science studies objects that are material and subject to change, and mathematics studies objects that although not subject to change are nevertheless not separate from (i.e., independent of) matter, there is still room for a science that studies things (if indeed there are any) that are eternal, not subject to change, and independent of matter. Such a science, he says, is theology, and this is the “first” and “highest” science." The "theo" in the Greek word "theology" is of course a reference to God. Probably not the personal, anthropomorphic God as per the ancient Hebrews and Christians, but at least a God akin to the God of the Stoics or of Spinoza, I assume. Therefore, I now think there is some validity and value in this observation: "super+natural" is very similar to "beyond+physics." So, I can't help wonder if the person in ancient times, who coined or adopted the word "metaphysics" to use as the title for Aristotle's treatise on "theology," had a deep understanding of the theological content of the treatise, and so saw muiltiple meaning in "metaphysics." Surely it is not just accidental or random that Aristotle's treatise on theology followed Aristotle's treatise on physics on the shelf where the treatises were being stored, if that was the case. Theology, or "first philosophy," or "the study of being as being," is, by its nature, above physics, above biology, above chemistry, and so on, in the hierarchy of knowledge, isn't it? I believe the world would be far better served if Aristotle's treatise which is now called "Metaphysics" was called by one of the names that Aristotle himself gave to the content of the treatise. It should be called Aristotle's treatise on Theology. I think, henceforth, that is how I will refer to it. This fits with my inclination to view Aristotle's system of philosophy as having God as an integral part of the whole system. This also supports my inclination to wonder if more modern forms of Aristotelianism are at least implicitly or unconsciously theological, even if they expressly deny being so. But then I wonder: Why does this even matter? I guess I've been worried about Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett's apparent plan to make "Natural Law" (a modern form of Aristotelianism, in my interpretation) part of the U.S. Constitution, under the thesis that the writers of the Constitution had Natural Law philosophy's principles in mind when writing it. Some people believe that Barrett and other Christian Conservatives aim to circumvent the Constitution's "No establishment of religion" clause by making use of this so-called "Natural Law" philosophy to judicially outlaw abortion, homosexual sex, same-sex marriage, divorce, Social Security, Medicare, Child Labor Laws, Minimum Wage Laws, women's right to own property, etc., by claiming that this "Natural Law" isn't religious. But what if Natural Law philosophy, despite the word "natural" in the name, really is religious, and deeply so, just like Aristotle's treatise on metaphysics is misleadingly misnamed and is really a treatise on theology? So, that's why this sometimes matter to me. But I guess I should try to be Stoic, or Epicurean, and just go with the flow and accept the Fate that unfolds on the national scale. In the hurly-burly world of high stakes power politics, no one gives a darn about the finer points of philosophy. No U.S. Senator asked Amy Comey Barrett about her commitment to Natural Law philosophy in her Senate confirmation hearings.

Well, I have begun reading the above article, and I am a little disappointed. As I read it, the author wrote that article as a work within the conceptions of the sub-field known as "The Philosophy of Biology." But, to me, when examining the impact of Darrwin's discoveries on the philosophy of ancient philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, the Stoics, the Epicureans, etc.), the modus vivendi should be just the reverse of that: The Biology of Philosophy. My rationale is this: What are we? We are biological beings. So, all phlosophizing is being done by biological beings. Not by gods, Not by angels. Not by demigods. Not by silicon chip computers. All philosophizing has been done and is being done by biological beings composed of the smallest unit of biology, the cell. Therefore, philosophizing is a biological phenomenon. It's more than than that, too. But all thought is biological. What else could it be? Well, the ancient philosophers, and today's supernaturalists, saw and see human thought as being an aspect of the human soul which in turn is a part of the divine mind of God or the Logos. But Darwin's discoveries showed that we don't need concepts like that in order to explain and undertand biological beings (including humans). As I see it, there is a explanatory hierarchy of Knowledge that goes something like this: The ancient people explained everything by means of Religion and Philosophy. Lacking the modern scientific method, and lacking modern methods of objective historical research, the ancients did the best they could to provide individuals and societies with codes of ethics, political philosophies, and answers to questions about the origins of life, origins of races, destinies of souls, etc. Now, we know that Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology explain Religion and Philosophy of the sort that the ancients developed. And, furthermore, we know know that Biology explains Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology. And finally, Physics (I'll lump Chemistry in with Physics) explains Biology. What's beyond physics? Well, the ancients thought that Metaphysics (beyond-physics) and Religion (super+natural) were beyond physics. But Napoleon asked Laplace why his theory contained no mention of God. Laplace is said to have replied, “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. (“I had no need of that hypothesis.”) But surely I must be mistaken in all this. Virtually all the professonal philosophers and theologians write and teach on as if Darwin had never existed. Still, I wonder. And so, mere amateur researcher that I am, I continue on, trying to see what other thinkers are saying and not saying. (Just to clarify: When I write of "ancient philosophy" I mean those philosophers who believed that they were producing or discovering actual, real, objective, eternal knowledge about things like ethics, metaphysicis, political philosophy, physics, biology, astronomy, physiology, etc. By contrast, most modern "schools" or varieties of philosophy generally don't claim to be producing or discovering real knowledge about anything in ethics or poltiics, but are just acting like midwives to help people process through their options and come to political agreements.)

Now, that is fascinating. Thank you. I did not know that about the author of that article. I will be sure to read that article carefully in the near future.

Thank you for references to those sources. I have perused the volumed edited by Michael Ruse, Philosophy After Darwin, and was a little disappointed. I have for some time now had the impression that, in human thought concerning the human mind, human conduct, human history, and the human future, there were two eras: Before Darwin (B.D.) and After Darwin (A.D.). I fully recognize and admit that I am not well enough read in philosophy proper to make any strong assertions about such things. Still, I can't but help feel that there is some merit in this perspective. And there are philosophers and scientists of some significance who, in various ways and to various degrees, do seem agree with this Before Darwin (B.D.) and After Darwin (A.D.) conceptualization of intellectual history. So, according to this scene, as I see it, the branch of phllosophy known as "metaphysics" has become obsolete in this A.D. (After Darwin) period of history. Some people cheered when Darwin liberated humankind from a literal belief in the Bible's Book of Genesis. But according my conception of things, what was not so widely noticed or celebrated, was Darwin's discoveries also made it impossible to take seriously the ancient idea of metaphysics as conceived of by people like Aristotle. As I see it, any philosophizing that is done in the general form within which Aristotle does regarding his "metaphysics" is, from the point of view of thought in the A.D. (After Darwin) period, entering into the realm of the supernatural, or Hege's "geist," or Spinoza's "God," or spirituality, or divine realm. "Super+natural" is very similar to "beyond+physics." I'm not sure, but I think Wittgenstein also came to this same general point of view about metaphysics. I don't know whether it is correct to say that Karl Marx's philosophy has, strictly spreaking, a formal metaphysics or not. In any case, as I see it, Marx's fatal error was in in not understanding Darwin's Origin of Species. He read it. He gushed about it. He wanted to dedicate his own book to Darwin. But he misunderstood Origin of Species. He badly misread it. He saw in it only those elements that lended support to his theory of history. Marx was educated mainly in Hegal and British empiricist philosophers like Locke, Adam Smith, and so on. Marx seems to have been unable to think like about philosophy from a geniuinely scientific point of view. And so, in my conception, Marx was an antique thinker who was stuck in the B.D. (Before Darwin) way of thinking. Sadly, Marx's B.D. (Before Darwin) way of thinking became "weaponinzed" in the the USSR by modern technology such as railroads, machine manufacturing, atomic bombs, radio, telephones, and so on, and millions were enslaved and murdered in the hope of liberation from Capitalism and from what Darwin called the Laws of Biology. While I see metaphysics (beyond+physics) being rendered null and void in the A.D. (After Darwin) period, the other branches of philosophy are also profoundly changed, even if not eliminated. Ethics, for example, becomes something very different in the A.D. (After Darwin) period. Any conceptual system of ethics can only be evaluated, judged, and understood in terms of its survival value, for individuals and groups, in the biological "struggle for life" that Darwin wrote about as one of the Laws of Biology that all DNA-based animals (humans included) are always following. But surely I must be wrong about all this. The vast majority of professional philosophers of all schools and varieties write on about metaphysics and ethics and more as if Darwin had never existed. One exception might be Alex Rosenberg, who promotes "scientism" and "nice nihilism." But practically all his colleagues say he is wrong, and claim to show his errors, so I guess he must be wrong. Well, I hope some soul has enjoyed reading the above, or at least didn't hate it. I light of memo mori, tempus fugit, and all that, I hate being part of Troll Nation. I don't want to treat others on the Internet as punching bags to take out my life frustrations. I always enjoy being a part of a gentle, courteous, convivial, respectful, and enlightening dialogue, such as we see in Plato's Socratic dialogues, such as his The Republic.

Thank you. I appreciate the information. Thomism not a form of Aristotelianism? I thought it was. But I am an amateur student of philosophy, so, I certainly can be wrong. I am inspired to investigate further. Thank you.