KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA63 (Leslie / Rees)

Commentary 28

WORKING METAPHYSICS OF EVOLUTION AS MUTATION-PLUS-SELECTION
( AND DARWIN'S EFFECT ON NIETZSCHE )
by Herbert FJ Müller
16 January 2004, posted 25 January 2004

The topic of evolution has recently been discussed a good deal in this Forum. It is evident that the evolution of mind (of subjective experience), more than the biological evolution of life, encounters conceptual difficulties. (Concerning the evolution of mind, see for instance Tomasello, Premack.) I will here briefly discuss two questions in two commonly used frameworks of discussion, monotheism and naturalism :

(i) which are the chief conceptual problems in dealing with the evolution of mind ? and

(ii) can the 0-D method (working ontology) deal with them, as it deals with other puzzles ?

(a) In monotheism, the existence of the mind (subjective experience, the soul) poses no problem, it is derived from God. But because God is perfect, the human mind cannot develop from earlier less perfect stages, such as the subjective experience of animals. Acceptance of evolution of the human mind makes the idea of a mind-independent perfect God impossible. The result is that if mono-theistic doctrines are to be kept intact, the question of evolution of the mind (the soul, subjective experience) is suppressed, in the case of Christian belief in favor of the first book of the Bible. - According to working ontology, on the other hand, humans conceive and posit the deity (or universal mind, etc) as an ideal and encompassing working structure, which is one of the ways of being in touch with the whole of experience. It may or may not then be extrapolated to as-if-mind-independent existing and creative status. The human mind can still be seen in comparison with such an idealized image, but the image is neither absolute, nor is it a mind-independent standard.

(b) For naturalism, a conceptual puzzle interferes with understanding to a similar degree, but it is of a different type. The objective evolutionary aspect per se presents no problem. But because the mind cannot be mind-independent, subjective experience cannot be part or product of a mind-independent nature or reality, which is implied in naturalism. As a result the mind (subjective experience) inevitably disappears in naturalistic studies, it is declared to be non-existent. The alternative, that subjective experience is primary, before nature, renders the idea of a primary mind-independent nature untenable. The question is avoided and replaced by descriptions of the mind in terms of various objectifiable functions like behavior, psycho-physics, neuro-physiology, neural networks, quantum mechanics, language and language-products, etc. This omits subjective experience altogether. - But all of these are constructs in the view of working ontology. Nature as a whole is indeed explicitly seen as a working structure conceived and posited by humans, within ongoing mind-and-nature experience. It is then extrapolated to as-if-mind-independent (as-if-objective) status, where useful and feasible, but that cannot be done for all questions. The mind is at the origin of the nature-concept, not its result.

Restoring the neglected first step of 0-D structuring thus opens the access to the conceptual puzzle in both instances, despite the differences between these two situations. Both views are untenable in an unconditional (absolute or naïve) way, but they can be used in an as-if fashion, in which case 0-D works as a fall-back position for each.

---------------------------------

Philosophy should try to find a common basis for the two points of view. This is a large topic, requiring an extensive review of the literature, which I cannot undertake here. But I will briefly discuss Nietzsche's opinion with respect to evolution.

The work of Darwin had a strong influence on Nietzsche, but he used the idea of evolution to advocate a teleological, elitist view (Walther). What connection can there be between genetic-mutation-plus-selection and quasi-religious preaching like that of Nietzsche's Zarathustra ? This question concerns the connection between the two views discussed above, monotheism and naturalism. The following answer was given by W Kaufmann, who has translated much of Nietzsche's work into English.

Nietzsche saw himself as an anti-Christian atheist, and his overman is "a this-worldly antithesis to God. Instead of conceiving perfection as given [by God], man should conceive it as a task" … "if we renounce supernatural religions and accept a scientific approach to man, we lose the right to attribute to man as such a unique supranatural dignity. Such dignity is not gegeben but aufgegeben [as Kant would have said], not a fact but a goal that few approach. There is no meaning in life except the meaning man gives his life, and the aims of most men have no surpassing dignity … We must be hard against ourselves and overcome ourselves; we must be creators instead of remaining mere creatures. Therefore, Nietzsche wishes to those whom he wishes well "suffering, being foresaken … profound self-contempt, the torture of mistrust of oneself, and the misery of him who is overcome" (Will to Power, 910)" (Kaufmann).

Nietzsche's views have been evaluated in different ways, but it is clear that among other things he wanted to structure original experience instead of passive acceptance of thought pre-formed by others, and he saw never-ending self-doubt as essential for this. This aspect of his thought, structure creation within original experience, is compatible with ongoing reality-construction from 0-D. Accepting evolution for our mind-and-nature experience automatically ascribes to us the task (Aufgabe) of structuring our world, including ourselves. It is a consequence of the biological under-determination of human thinking and behavior, together with the enormous increase of possibilities opened by communication and other aspects of language, compared to animals. We are not told how to do that, but there are two main possibilities, either to follow an available scheme or to produce new structures ourselves (or some combination of the two). To accept structures blindly, on the authority attributed to others - as a means to gain certainty from outside of oneself - can be dangerous, we need to examine their viability and roots.

Karl Jaspers did not feel at ease with the topic of evolution (cf. Saner, Kempf, and Wood's recent comments in this Forum). He omitted a chapter on naturalism in his large book on Nietzsche, giving as reason that it resulted in a devastating picture of Nietzsche. But the omission probably says more about Jaspers than Nietzsche. It is an unfortunate reaction, in my opinion, because evolution, and naturalism in general, was an important issue for Nietzsche (as it is for everyone in increasing measure). We need now, more than ever, a wholistic picture of the world including science as well as ourselves. This cannot be done by closing our eyes, refusing to look at evolution, or pretending that it does not exist. In that case the naturalists could take over and prove to us that we don't exist.

--------------------------------

REFERENCES AND NOTES

Jaspers Karl, Nietzsche. 1935, 4. Unveränd. Aufl. 1981, Berlin : deGruyter, 485pp. Vorwort zur 2. und 3. Aufl. 1946. "… Ein Kapitel war vorgesehen, in dem durch Sammlung von Zitaten das Irren Nietzsches in naturalistischen und extremistischen Wendungen belegt wurde. Das ergab ein vernichtendes Bild. Aus Achtung vor Nietzsche habe ich es weggelassen. … "

Kaufmann Walther, Nietzsche, Friedrich. In Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York : MacMillan, 1967.

Kempf Volker, Ein unuebertroffener Analytiker. Zum 100. Todestag von Friedrich Nietzsche.

" … Daß der Mensch nach Kopernikus und Darwin kein Ebenbild Gottes mehr sein kann, das zu verkraften fiel selbst Martin Heidegger schwer … Karl Jaspers ging es ähnlich, auch er verstand es, in seinen Schriften über den Menschen einen grossen Bogen um Charles Darwin zu machen. …"

Müller Herbert FJ, Effect of working ontology on some conceptual puzzles.

Nietzsche Friedrich, Also sprach Zarathustra. Stuttgart : Alfred Kröner Verlag, 1930.

Premack David, Is Language the Key to Human Intelligence ? Science 303, 16 January 2004, 318-320.

Saner Hans, ed., Karl Jaspers, Die Grossen Philosophen, Nachlass 2. München, Piper, 1981, 1236pp. p.969: "Das Kapitel "Philosophen in der Forschung" wollte J. ursprünglich aufteilen in Naturforscher und Historiker. Unter den Naturwissenschaftlern sollten Kepler, Galilei, Darwin, vonBaer und Einstein dargestellt werden. Von all dem ist lediglich eine Mappe über Einstein vorhanden. … "

Tomasello Michael, The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard Univ. Press, 1999.

Walther Helmut, Nietzsche as Educator.

--------------------------------

Herbert FJ Müller