Immortalist wrote:
For a long period of time even such agnostics and humanists as the
philosopher Bertrand Russell shied away from exploring the implications
of evolution for the future of the human species, let alone addressing
how it had led to the contemporary members of the species. No doubt
this hesitancy was due to a perceived need to distance agnosticism from
its connection with the evolutionary teachings of Herbert
Spencer-teachings which had been used to justify the abolition of
social programs aiding the poor, the insane, the handicapped and others
deemed to be losers in the "struggle for existence."

That has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. That's social
Darwinism, which has absolutely *nothing* to do with the theory of
evolution.

Josh Miles wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
For a long period of time even such agnostics and humanists as the
philosopher Bertrand Russell shied away from exploring the implications
of evolution for the future of the human species, let alone addressing
how it had led to the contemporary members of the species. No doubt
this hesitancy was due to a perceived need to distance agnosticism from
its connection with the evolutionary teachings of Herbert
Spencer-teachings which had been used to justify the abolition of
social programs aiding the poor, the insane, the handicapped and others
deemed to be losers in the "struggle for existence."
That has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. That's social
Darwinism, which has absolutely *nothing* to do with the theory of
evolution.

A perceived need to distance agnosticism from its connection with the
evolutionary teachings of Herbert Spencer-teachings, which had been
used to justify the abolition of social programs aiding the poor, the
insane, the handicapped and others deemed to be losers in the "struggle
for existence," probably caused agnostics and humanists shy away from
exploring the implications of evolution for the future of the human
species, but the American philosopher John Dewey (1859-1952) was one of
the few humanists who felt that Darwin's teachings had radical
implications for understanding human nature.

Josh Miles wrote:


Which, of course, still doesn't change the fact that evolution has
nothing to do with the social Darwinism you're talking about.

But Social Darwinism has something to do with evolution, since without
Darwin's theory it would be hard to have Darwinism of any kind.

But Social Darwinism has something to do with evolution, since without
Darwin's theory it would be hard to have Darwinism of any kind.

For a long period of time even such agnostics and humanists as the
philosopher Bertrand Russell shied away from exploring the implications
of evolution for the future of the human species, let alone addressing
how it had led to the contemporary members of the species. No doubt
this hesitancy was due to a perceived need to distance agnosticism from
its connection with the evolutionary teachings of Herbert
Spencer-teachings which had been used to justify the abolition of
social programs aiding the poor, the insane, the handicapped and others
deemed to be losers in the "struggle for existence."

The American philosopher John Dewey (1859-1952) was one of the few
humanists who felt that Darwin's teachings had radical implications for
understanding human nature.

http://www.huumanists.org/rh/madigan.html

In some important sense, Dewey was an organic holist from the
beginning. The influence of Darwin eventually led Dewey to embrace an
experimental naturalism wherein human nature is percieved as a part of
nature. Dewey's antidualism went very deep.

Darwinian thinking greatly influenced Dewey's philosophy. It was
where he first acquired the notion that a human being or community is
like a highly complex natural organism that must function within its
environment. Successful functioning requires the organism to adapt
itself either passively to an existing environment to meet its needs
and desires, or actively to transform the environment. Indeed, Dewey
thought, "The entire process of education may properly be regarded as a
process of securing the conditions that make for the most complete and
effective adaptation of individuals to their physical and moral
environment."

http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/john_dewey.htm

http://radicalacademy.com/phildewey.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/dewey.htm

Immortalist wrote:
For a long period of time even such agnostics and humanists as the
philosopher Bertrand Russell shied away from exploring the implications
of evolution for the future of the human species, let alone addressing
how it had led to the contemporary members of the species. No doubt
this hesitancy was due to a perceived need to distance agnosticism from
its connection with the evolutionary teachings of Herbert
Spencer-teachings which had been used to justify the abolition of
social programs aiding the poor, the insane, the handicapped and others
deemed to be losers in the "struggle for existence."

The American philosopher John Dewey (1859-1952) was one of the few
humanists who felt that Darwin's teachings had radical implications for
understanding human nature.

http://www.huumanists.org/rh/madigan.html

In some important sense, Dewey was an organic holist from the
beginning. The influence of Darwin eventually led Dewey to embrace an
experimental naturalism wherein human nature is percieved as a part of
nature. Dewey's antidualism went very deep.

Darwinian thinking greatly influenced Dewey's philosophy. It was
where he first acquired the notion that a human being or community is
like a highly complex natural organism that must function within its
environment. Successful functioning requires the organism to adapt
itself either passively to an existing environment to meet its needs
and desires, or actively to transform the environment. Indeed, Dewey
thought, "The entire process of education may properly be regarded as a
process of securing the conditions that make for the most complete and
effective adaptation of individuals to their physical and moral
environment."

http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/john_dewey.htm

http://radicalacademy.com/phildewey.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/dewey.htm

Don't forget the other fathers of Pragmatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

The Americans who formalised it:
Charle's Saunders-Peirce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Saunders_Pierce
George Herbert Mead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Herbert_Mead
William James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James

And the British who laid all the groundwork:
David Hume: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume
Charles Darwin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Long live evolutionary humanism.

For a long period of time even such agnostics and humanists as the
philosopher Bertrand Russell shied away from exploring the implications
of evolution for the future of the human species, let alone addressing
how it had led to the contemporary members of the species. No doubt
this hesitancy was due to a perceived need to distance agnosticism from
its connection with the evolutionary teachings of Herbert
Spencer-teachings which had been used to justify the abolition of
social programs aiding the poor, the insane, the handicapped and others
deemed to be losers in the "struggle for existence."

The American philosopher John Dewey (1859-1952) was one of the few
humanists who felt that Darwin's teachings had radical implications for
understanding human nature.

http://www.huumanists.org/rh/madigan.html

In some important sense, Dewey was an organic holist from the
beginning. The influence of Darwin eventually led Dewey to embrace an
experimental naturalism wherein human nature is percieved as a part of
nature. Dewey's antidualism went very deep.

Darwinian thinking greatly influenced Dewey's philosophy. It was
where he first acquired the notion that a human being or community is
like a highly complex natural organism that must function within its
environment. Successful functioning requires the organism to adapt
itself either passively to an existing environment to meet its needs
and desires, or actively to transform the environment. Indeed, Dewey
thought, "The entire process of education may properly be regarded as a
process of securing the conditions that make for the most complete and
effective adaptation of individuals to their physical and moral
environment."

http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/john_dewey.htm

http://radicalacademy.com/phildewey.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/dewey.htm


And elsewhere,

neal sandman wrote:

And elsewhere,

Dewey explicitly rejected "Social Darwinism" with its self-serving and
antidemocratic rhetoric about the survival of the fittest. The question
is always, fit for what?

It is not the fittest (necessarily) that survive. It is those who are
fit enough. Evolution is not perfection.

Bob Kolker


That maybe. However, the thrust of my post was to complement the