----- Original Message -----
From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
.
> > Unlike Plato and Aristotle (Hegel, etc.) we do not believe that there is
a
> > little divine element in us that needs to be nurtured. Darwin killed
that
> > idea forever. So, transhumanists substitute technology (most notably
genetic
> > engineering and AI) for (3). What separates us from Plato et al is a
minor
> > quibble about the means to become what we ought to be.
>
> Darwin did no such thing. There is nothing in evolution that
> forces such a conclusion. If you believe there is, then please
> show it. If we are totally determined by evolution both in our
> current state and our potential then all our transhumanist
> dreams would be ridiculous. If we are not so determined then
> there most certainly does exist a spark of the divine, a spark
> of the ability to transcend, within all of us.
>
Plato held that humans are composite creatures: bodies plus souls. A lucky
few (specifically, philosophical types) have an added bonus: divine soul
stuff. Many think that accepting Darwinianism makes unlikely the soul
hypothesis, a fortiori, the bonus of divine soul stuff is unlikely. This
divine soul stuff is what I meant by 'element' above. Is this what you mean
by 'spark'? I myself do not believe that the desire and the ability to
transcend ourselves requires an appeal to a soul hypothesis, indeed, I think
it is quite compatible with a Darwinian etiology. Of course, others may
disagree with me. (Nietzsche, for example, believes that desires, and more
specifically, acting on desires like attempting to transcend oneself are not
explained by Darwinianism. According to Herr N., the will to live ought to
be replaced with a deeper explanation: the will to power. So here we have a
secular but alternate explanation). Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:03 MDT