Response to Deven's Post, "A Question On Social Darwinism."

I would like to tentatively say that one of your main points was this:  The fact that Social Darwinism in the political sphere perpetuates the more vicious qualities of a society, (and it could be said that it has an overall negative affect on society) does not change the fact that Darwin's theory itself has not been scientifically proven.  

If I am correct in this assertion, I would like to concur with your statement, and add that, to (loosely) quote Hume, and 'is does not make an ought.'  Just because numerous facets of Darwin's theory have been scientifically proven over centuries of research does not necessarily entail that this theory projects a normative 'ought' on other systems that exist within our world- political systems especially.

Darwin's Wife

I noticed in the chapter on Darwin, that he refused to discuss his theories with his wife, out of respect for the amount of religious faith she incorporated into her life- moreover, as Pojman recalls, Darwin hesitated to publish his Origin of Species for the same reason; the effect it may have one other religiously minded people.

This post is not focused on the metaphysical comparisons between evolution and religion, nor is it concerned with the ethics of the usage (or lack thereof) of information   What I am really getting at here, is the reason for Darwin's hesitation to publish his theory.

While it is very reasonable to suspect fear of persecution as the primary motive (and I am not aware that Darwin himself was or was not persecuted after publishing) I would pose the question; did Darwin feel that his theory detracted from the presence of morality in a given society?

Is assigning a subjective purpose to one’s life still a ‘condemnation’ of free will?

Sartre claims that we are 'condemned to free will.'  Namely, because humans have no purpose in their lives, beginning with accidental origin, and ending with, presumably, a series of freely selected actions, void of purpose, which lead to death.

I would like to think that humans are capable of assigning themselves their own purpose.  In Sartre's view, God does not exist, nor does an objective autonomous good exist.  Does this not mean that a subjective worldview of what is good cannot intrinsically allocate purpose to the life of an individual?  Or would Sartre merely say that subjective purpose would give anyone purpose for doing anything, and therefore, when every action is purposeful, no action is?

Response to Deven's post (of my post on his original post).

I agree, this is an interesting conversation to have.  I'm not sure if I worded my prior response to your first post poorly, but I'm pretty sure we agree- that religious texts should be treated as literary fiction- which was what I asserted in my last post.

I apologize if it was interpreted the other way- I was trying to say that looking at, for example, the Bible, in a historical context would be logically poor decision, because, it cannot and should not be treated as such, for obvious reasons.  I've never compared the Bible to a Dickens' novel, but I guess the level of analysis and the extent to which the aforementioned efforts would or would not be attributed to either book by a particular individual for a given purpose would definitely vary on the difficulty.

Like you said, and I agree, that since there is no hard evidence that Jesus existed, treating the Bible as literary fiction does not infringe upon the lessons one can take from a story.  Speaking from personal experience, religion is much more enjoyable and much less polarizing when one concentrates on how to live personally, rather than worry about the overarching metaphysical claims that are also associated with it, the beliefs of others, or of course, claims involving the historical accuracy of anything at all in religious texts.

Response to Deven's post: "Freud vs. Marx - Religion"

I would agree in your assessment of Freud and Marx's thoughts on religion.  I think you're looking at religious dogma from a very direct, logical standpoint.  I think, in this day and age especially, contemporary theologians in many prominent monotheistic religions, (Christianity and Islam, especially) have begun to look at ideological dogma from a different standpoint.

In other words, if you look at the Bible, or the Qur'an, as an historical account (and therefore, a logical analysis of a sequence of events) of what events lead up to and constituted that particular religion, of course you are going to be dissatisfied, and foolish even, to entertain the idea of that particular religion.  Its very obvious, in the Bible especially, that many events that happen are historically inaccurate.  And I'm not even referencing the metaphysical miracles- I'm simply talking about certain events in certain cities with certain people that we now know, probably didn't happen.  My suggestion would be this:

Treat religious texts like literary fiction- the importance is the lesson, the values, that emerge from the stories; not the historical accuracy of the stories themselves.  In this way, the individual can interpret the novel, and be their own literary critic.  Just because major monotheistic religions project universal dogma upon their followers does not mean that many people reject certain dogma, and critically analyze their own religion for themselves, as it is important to remember, from a theological standpoint, that religion is about God, and not the other way around.

Q & A Question: Would Freud say that his theory of human nature is objective, or would he say that it varies in degrees of influence, according to the particular society in question?

I would say that it does depend on degrees;  for example some cultures are much more open, or embrace human sexuality, more so than others.  It only seems natural that one such culture would not only embrace, but exemplify Freud's theories in a more complete and clear manner.

Conversely, a society in which sexuality was not open or treated the same, could see people affected less so, and exemplifying less so (Freud's theory) than others.

However:  Could a society that represses and condemns human sexuality perhaps give rise to more Freudian undertones?  I think this would also be a very legitimate claim as well.  Thoughts?

Response to Deven's Post: Fear of Marxism

I would agree- I do think that fear of the Soviet Union, or cold war opposition in general, is not the sole root of an aversion to everything Marx.  I simply think, at the core, fear of Marx is just a fear of socialism.  Capitalist ideologies are hard-wired into the systems of many United States' citizens.  Even the idea of anti-capitalist theories cause tension and aversion.

More often than not, free speech in the United States has taken a step in the wrong direction, due directly to communist political activists.  While the Supreme Court had upheld free speech of religious groups, certain obscenities, and even Klu Klux Klan activists, there are still cases when communist political speech was restricted.

I think free market capitalism is so far entrenched into the minds of Americans, and the economy as well, that it will take some time for Marxism to be even acceptable in the realm of discussion.  Perhaps our generation, with WWII, Vietnam, Korea, and the Cold War, only a distant (if at all) memory, will be the first to bring acceptability to the discussion of Marx in the political realm.

What are some common (most likely westernized) conceptions of Marxism that are, quite simply put, incorrect?

Besides some basic information I've gathered from a political science perspective in High School, this was really the first time I've ever read an (somewhat) in depth account of Marx's basic works.  Here are a few things I read that I felt have been very common misconceptions of Marx, especially in the United States today.

Uninhibited Redistribution of Property- the motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," only holds true for the ideal communist state.  Before this state is attained, a more classical version is used.  "Distribution according to need should only take place in the ideal communist society, where everyone is equally deserving, since all contribute according to their maximal ability.  Until that time, in the socialist society, the motto must be "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution."

The Acquisition of Property- Another common misconception of Marx's economic theory is that no owns property, because everyone uses it.  Private ownership of property doesn't exist.  Pojman disagrees.
"Communists have been accused of advocating the elimination of all property, including that of the proletariat; but Marx makes an exception for the 'Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property...of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form.'  That sort of possession is part of the labor theory of value.  They deserve that property.  He means only modern bourgeois private property."

What are some other misconceptions that may exist in the average American's conception of Marx?