tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post432813830048644053..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Responses to Dan Smail and Richard Richards on "Biopolitical Science"Larry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-4998285312928293522008-09-02T19:33:00.000+01:002008-09-02T19:33:00.000+01:00Although I have only read "Darwinian Natural Right...Although I have only read "Darwinian Natural Right" and am not qualified to question Arnhart's brilliant analysis, I do wonder whether we have to be committed to our common sense folk-psychological language in interpreting the results of science. It seems like language is a negotiable concept, both in terms of its usage as well as grammatical categories. We no longer interpret "virtue" as a physical property in the same way that we constantly refine our language through scientific results. That seems to be why we look back at the pre-Enlightenment period as the Dark Ages. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, I wonder if Arnhart is stopping too short in his idea of a natural history of biopolitical science. <BR/><BR/>The next step seems to be E.O. Wilson's concept of gene-culture coevolution: instead of natural history, we have biohistoricism. Historicism, not as a merely cultural proscription but historicism as something deeply biological. <BR/><BR/>Thus, to abstract about philosophy, we might say that philosophy is, indeed, 3-pronged: natural history, economics, and neuroscience. <BR/><BR/>DZE, dzepste@emory.eduDanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15477779998988145768noreply@blogger.com