Quote:
Originally posted by Raulgr
Leonel, Eddie,
Thanks for the tips. I suppose that both of you know by now that I like a good discussion, and I like to argue even more (but, not just for argument's sake). I found Sisyphus at the following site:
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users...lit/msysip.htm
I had encountered it before, but I'll want to read it more carefully in this context.
I also found what, at first appearance, seems to be an interesting and in-depth critique of Bergson's "Creative Evolution". It is found at the following site:
http://www.quantonics.com/Review_of_...Evolution.html
I see that in re biological convergence (like organs in different species) Bergson says the following (Topic 14 of the critique):
". . . we must appeal to some inner directing principle in order to account for this convergence of effects. Such convergence does not appear possible in the Darwinian, and especially in the neo-Darwinian, theory of insensible accidental variations . . ."
In my view, based on the arguments of Richard Dawkins, this is merely wishful thinking and unnecessary complication on Bergson's part. In his book "The Blind Watchmaker", Dawkins has explained eloquently and completely the mechanism by which probability events (random genetic variation), acted upon by natural selection (the efficacy of those variations in terms of survival of the organism and, more importantly, of the genetic encoding of the organism), have resulted in all of the variation of that which we call "living", with all of its many features and aspects, including convergence. His work is an UNRELENTING AFFIRMATION of Darwin's theory. Nevertheless, I will ask Dawkins for his view on Bergson's musings.
Regards, Raul
|
Raul, I also do not agree with Bergson on the convergence of effects. Darwin more than anyone pointed out the influences that environment has in relationship to heredity. And his theory is a stand alone one, not really needing even the neo-Darwinian embellishments either. Thus organs, for example, can have a similitude of convergence across different species without truncating his theory in the least bit.
What amazes me about Bergson is that such a brilliant man should have such a glaring blind side to his thought that even when he became a Roman Catholic, and had studied the scholastics that he learned nothing from the work of William of Occam whose cardinal principle was that "entities ought not be multiplied unneccessarily". But Bergson went on to apply spiritual views to evolution that also are metaphysically based, and are really errors. When I consider all of this I seriously wonder that though he is a great writer and espouser of his ideas, could it be that his so highly accepted astuteness was in reality only acuteness?
Sincerely,
EddieR