Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
We continue to find out what the meaning of life is. As far as I am familiar with the current understanding of evolutionary theory, the problem here revolves around survival and natural selection. That is, “pleasure” is also evolutionarily necessary for the preservation of the species (as, by the way, everything else). Pleasure should encourage the body to take certain actions, and displeasure (fear, disgust, etc.), respectively, to avoid certain actions.
To be completely correct, from the point of view of pure biology, the goal is still survival, and evolution is a tool for optimal adaptation to natural conditions, so, based on the current understanding of the theory of evolution, it is probably impossible to say that the meaning of life is in evolution itself (in any case, it will sound about the same as if we said that
It is a different matter if we look at evolution from the point of view of such forms of idealistic philosophy as Hegel's teaching. Then, of course, the process of evolution can be understood not just as the adaptation of biological species to natural conditions, but as a valuable, purposeful process in itself, which can really be considered as giving life meaning.
In other words, biology alone is not enough to turn the theory of evolution into an answer to the question of the meaning of life. However, the theory of evolution can certainly be used as a component for constructing philosophical systems that answer the question of the meaning of life.
Andrey Platov, Stanislav Panin and the author of the question Maxim Drobyshev, evolution basically says nothing about the meaning of life from any point of view. Neither philosophical nor biological. Evolution is simply a description of the RANDOM process of formation of different life forms.
How do you combine randomness and meaning? The meaning is, the very word “suggests”, “with some thought” with an idea about what is happening, and not a random process.
Yes, it's true. But another thing is that a developed neocortex allows a person to behave very variably, realizing innate motivations. What creates the illusion of its reasonableness. In fact, a person does not even have free will. All decisions are made by our brain in 10ms before they are somehow realized by us.
This is a theory. Creationists have different explanations for the same phenomena. The truth is both there and there. But the task is quite different – to understand. Nature created man to know himself. This species created by her is the most effective tool for her survival, and in a sense, the theoretical contradictions are very conditional. Another conversation as it really is.
If the question is asked implying the materialist (or physicalist) paradigm of modern science, then it is asked incorrectly.
Science does not use the concept of “meaning” as “for what”, because “for what” implies “purpose” and teleology. Science recognizes only effective causality – direct material impact. Teleology-the ultimate explanation-explains what is happening in terms of the state of affairs in the future, for example, building a house now so that there is a place to live in the future. That is, the state of affairs in the future is the reason for what is happening now. This violates the fundamental principle of effective causality – there is always a cause first, and then an effect. Before Darwin, there were many theories of evolution, but the genius of Darwin is precisely that he formulated it by removing teleology.
For the same reason, the expression “for”does not apply to evolution. It just happens, and science creates more or less accurate models describing how.
Teleological and axiological questions can only be posed by the subject, but an objective answer to them does not exist by definition.
The classical physicalist position presented does not answer many questions and is not fully (or not at all) applicable in many disciplines – even in biology, but mainly in the social sciences. However, there is not yet a single paradigm that satisfies all sciences, so science remains a fragmented project, where the dominant and “official” position is physicalism.
The meaning of life is in the transmission of DNA. Evolution has absolutely no other goals. Sometimes this takes on bizarre forms in the case of homo sapiens.