Further to the previous chapters,
I suggest that Spinoza’s reworking of divine teleology also informs his views
on whether human behaviour and events in nature are also teleological or not. I
think Spinoza is claiming that both human behaviour and nature are not
teleological. This is because, as I mentioned earlier, firstly, they arise from
all that flows from God’s nature[i] and
secondly, because these phenomenon can be better described by his account of
how things in the world strive to persevere in their being[ii].
By not restricting his account to specific, teleological goals to explain human
behaviour and the natural world around us, he builds in a flexibility into his
account that Aristotle and Maimonides didn’t have. In contrast to Della Rocca's view, I think this flexibility of telos means we can read Spinoza as being consistent in
his rejection of all types of teleology, including in relation to human
behavioural psychology[iii].
I think this also means that
Spinoza is a ‘forerunner’, for want of a better word, to Darwin’s theory of
evolution. This is because his account of striving to persevere in one’s being
describes our conatus in a flexible, adaptive way which flows from our nature
and relates to our instinctive desires. Thus his account matches up with
Darwin’s theory of survival instincts, survival of the fittest and generational
evolutionary adaptation to one’s environment, for both individuals and perhaps
passed epistemically and socially down the generations. I think Spinoza’s
account of the conatus also compares interestingly with Darwin because Darwin’s
theory is not only a scientific one but has a societal aspect to it as well.
This may be because Darwin writes that he was, in part, inspired by
Malthus’ social theory and applied it to his theory of evolution, especially in
his chapter ‘Struggle for Existence’ in his ‘Origin of the Species’ (originally
published 1859)[iv].
There is good textual evidence for this because Darwin summarises his use of
Malthus’ theory thus in his preface to this book:
“This is the doctrine of Malthus,
applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of
each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is
a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it
vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and
sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving,
and thus be naturally selected.”[v]
I would also suggest that what is
often interpreted as egoism in Spinoza’s writings[vi],
may instead be an observational account of the natural world and society that
is trying to capture the problem of survival rather than egoism. Thus the
Spinozian concepts I examined earlier of striving and struggling for continued
existence may be somewhat along the lines of what Darwin describes in his
preface to his ‘Origin of the Species’:
“As natural selection acts by
competition, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the
degree of perfection of their associates; so that we need feel no surprise at
the inhabitants of any one country, although on the ordinary view supposed to
have been specially created and adapted for that country, being beaten and
supplanted by the naturalised productions from another land. Nor ought we to
marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far as we can judge,
absolutely perfect; and if some of them be abhorrent to our ideas of fitness.”[vii]
Darwin’s theory can be seen as,
inadvertently or otherwise, supporting Spinoza’s dissatisfaction with notions
of fitness with biological examples such as use and disuse. For instance, a
calf pre-birth has teeth in its gums that will not grow into functioning teeth
when it matures because such teeth have fallen into disuse over the generations[viii].
This refutes Aristotle’s notion of usefulness and his argument for a
teleological, fixed, immutable final cause that explains why things are as they
are in the world[ix].
Indeed, in his preface to his ‘Origin of the Species’, Darwin explicitly
rejects Aristotle’s explanation of the purpose of teeth, when writing “We here
see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how little Aristotle
fully comprehended the principle, is shown by his remarks on the formation of
the teeth.”[x]
Hence, Spinoza’s
psychological-biological account of human striving without a fixed,
teleological end allows for organisms to change, adapt and mutate. This, as
well as the aim of dispelling prejudiced notions, are also key features of
Darwin’s theory:
“A few naturalists, endowed with
much flexibility of mind, and who have already begun to doubt on the
immutability of species, may be influenced by this volume; ....Whoever is led
to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously
expressing his conviction; for only thus can the load of prejudice by which
this subject is overwhelmed be removed.”[xi]
“Psychology will be based on a
new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and
capacity by gradation.”[xii]
Furthermore, I suggest that
Spinoza’s account of our conatus, striving to persevere/continue in one’s
being/existence and increasing one’s mental powers could be seen as being not
only in line with Darwin’s theory of evolution but also, and to a greater
extent, being a ‘forerunner’, as it were, to modern-day scientific theories,
especially in the field of genomics. Until relatively recently, Darwin’s
theories had only been supported by patchy fossil records and other evidence
which was not very conclusive[xiii].
However, more recently, studies on DNA and genomic make-up are considered to
support Darwin’s theory of evolution and provide the scientific evidence for
his theory by looking at, for instance, genetic variation and how our genomic
make-up also helps to give explanations of our nature, features, tendencies and
behaviour[xiv].
Indeed, this can even inform our knowledge of emotion, including the emotion of
fear[xv],
which is an emotion that Spinoza gives a vital role to both in his Ethics and
TTP. Our DNA may also impact on our survival instincts, how we adapt and react
to our environment and so, in Spinozian terms, how we persevere in our being
and strive to survive in the world. If this is the case, then this modern-day
genomic account of human beings, I suggest, would suit Spinoza’s account of a
non-teleological way of striving since the telos of our striving is not for a
static, fixed, unchanging end goal or telos but rather a striving for whatever helps
us survive and adapt, which are factors that drive the evolution of the
species. This both fits with Darwin’s theory of evolution as well as modern day
scientific accounts of evolution.
So, how would the various
theories explored in this chapter apply to a practical example, such as the
genetic hybrid animal the pizzly bear? Which would win out as the most
plausible and successful at providing explanations of the world around us? I
shall try to imagine how each of the views may respond to an example I found
which I think works as a test case for my hypothesis.
Example: Due to global warming,
the polar bear has become maladapted to its environment. So, it has migrated
south and mixed, both socially and sexually with grizzly bears who are better
adapted to the warmer climate. They have offspring together which are known as
pizzly bears. They are genetically a hybrid of the polar and grizzly bear.
An Aristotelian-style
explanation for the pizzly bear:
The purpose of the polar bear’s
coat is for keeping it warm despite the freezing weather in its habitat
(purpose/telos of its coat). Just as the eye is for seeing, so the polar bear’s
coat is for keeping it warm in its habitat.
This is not a satisfactory
explanation: Global warming has changed the polar bears’ environment and their
behaviours, aims, purposes, what they strive for and how they attempt to
persevere in their being including what purpose their coat is for. Now it is
not as useful for the polar bear to have an arctic coat of fur given global warming.
This account doesn’t take into consideration that future generations of bears
will socialise and interbreed together so the telos of their design will change
accordingly over time. So Aristotle
struggles to explain the pizzly because he can’t keep pace with natural changes
in the world.
A Maimonidean-style
explanation for the pizzly bear:
The polar bear has a white warm
coat of fur because God in His infinite wisdom thinks this best for the
well-being of the bear so has designed the polar bear this way and wills it to
be the case.
This is not a satisfactory
explanation: This may undermine God’s infinite wisdom and omnipotence. Why did
God design the animal in such a way that it cannot adapt to its future
environments that He should have foreseen? Such apparent short-sightedness
ruins God’s perfection. Also, if God is the only cause, then He both causes the
global warming and the design of the bear yet the two will be in conflict with
one another during some eras. Does this make God contradict Himself? Another
Spinozian concern may be that it would be impossible to comprehend why God
willed this since divine will and intellect do not resemble anything human-like
(such as the Dog example in E. I. p17s[xvi]).
A Darwinian explanation for
the pizzly bear
Through natural selection, the
polar bear is now struggling to survive more than the grizzly so gradually the
polar bear may become extinct and adapt by mating with the grizzly.
This explanation can only explain
some of the phenomenon of the pizzly and not others. For instance, why did the
pizzly not evolve and mutate over many generations gradually rather than
appearing immediately as a result of interbreeding? So, Darwin’s theory of
evolution can be too incremental and so explains certain modern theories, for
example, mitochondrial Eve but can’t explain all cases, especially where
there’s a more sudden discrepancy or development, for example, skull findings.
Genetic explanation of the
pizzly bear:
The evolution of species is
propelled by genetic variation. Beneficial characteristics such as the
grizzly’s fur coat will be genetically selected and overall will out-live less
beneficial features such as the polar bear’s fur coat and will be inherited by
future generations ie the pizzly in the process of natural selection.
This is purely a scientific
account and so wouldn’t help resolve the tension between science and religion
which was an important issue in the seventeenth century and sometimes continues
to be so today. Some genetic explanations still cite random chance and brute
luck in their explanations of why people inherit some genetic traits and not
others or have relatively broad-brush explanations of how environmental factors
impact on genetic changes. I suggest it would be better to put such apparently
inexplicable or difficult to explain phenomenon down to a current lack of
knowledge rather than resorting to randomness and chance. There perhaps is some
necessity involved which is merely difficult to explain until we discover, for
instance, the relevant natural law for it and gain a better understanding of how
that law behaves.
Spinoza’s explanation of the
pizzly bear in terms of their conatus striving to persevere in their being in a
non-teleological way:
God is the cause of the polar
bear coming into existence and how it continues to exist and act
Polar bear strives to persevere
in its being
Polar bear struggles to persevere
in its being (eg due to global warming, climate change). It will only go out of
existence due to external causes (eg global warming) not internal causes (eg
losing the will to live)
Polar bear needs to adapt, strive
differently in a different way for different ends (conatus)
Polar bear needs different
survival skills/knowledge/habitat and starts to socialize with grizzly bears
who are now better adapted/persevere in their being more successfully in the
polar bears’ environment than they do
Polar bears mate with grizzly
bears and have offspring -pizzly bears- that are a genetic combination of the
two bears which means they are better adapted to this new environment and they
can persevere in their being and strive more successfully than their polar bear
parent and their generation. The polar bear also has a better chance of
survival because it has teamed up with grizzlies who strive successfully in
warmer climates.
From this, I think Spinoza’s
theory wins out as being the most all-rounded theory which encompasses all the
issues and facts that need to be factored into a cohesive theory which aims at
explaining various aspects of the world and God. So Spinoza is not just a
forerunner to Darwin but, in addition, we can use his account to understand
modern science because his theory predicts genetic explanations. I don’t think
that Spinoza felt the same concerns or conflict between science and religion
that many other thinkers have felt. Indeed, this may be partly because
Maimonides himself thought that science and religion should always go hand in
hand and so not diverge in their thought that much. In this way, I think
Spinoza may have thought it was not heretical of him to provide an account that
takes both religion and scientific thought into consideration simultaneously.
Unlike Maimonides, however, he does not need to change his science or religion
to make them coincide with each other. They merely function together
interdependently and compatibly. If I am right in thinking that Spinoza may
have believed in the possibility of constant creation, then even the theory of
evolution and laws of nature would not pose a theological threat to him. For
some it does, because they struggle with (seemingly random) evolution taking
place without God’s will whereas for Spinoza, this is resolved by seeing the
laws of nature and all that exists and happens in the world as flowing from
God. Hence, in this way, we can study pure science without Aristotelian
teleology and without clashing with the belief that God exists and is the first
cause, which is a view with which Maimonides would agree.
So, I suggest that Spinoza not
only provides an alternative account to an ancient Greek and medieval one but
also, in some ways, anticipates the structure of Darwin’s views. For, both
Spinoza and Darwin claim that:
One, there are observable laws of
nature to study
Two, humans and things in the
world strive, adapt and change
Three, this striving, adapting
and changing does not entail a fixed, static purpose they are suited to or
involve an end goal or telos.
Therefore, I advocate that
Spinoza attempts to circumvent the need for explanations in terms of final
causes by:
Firstly, providing differently
reasoned answers to questions about humans and the world
Secondly, by his type of
axiomatic argumentation
Thirdly, by substituting the
linear, futuristic, goal orientated final cause account with his interrelated
accounts of eternity, God, nature, necessity, human desire, superstition, the
intellect and the passions.
[i] Spinoza, Opera: Ethics, I:E. I.
p17; p17s.
[ii] Spinoza, I:E. IV. p26d.
[iii] Michael Della Rocca, “Spinoza’s
Metaphysical Psychology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, ed. Don
Garrett, 12th printing, paperback, Cambridge Companions to Philosophy
(Cambridge University Press, 2008).
[iv] Charles Darwin, The Origin of the
Species, e-book (literature.org, 1859), chap. Struggle for Existence,
http://literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/.
[v] Darwin, sec. preface.
[vi]
See Della Rocca, “Spinoza’s Metaphysical
Psychology.”
on egoism in Spinoza
[vii] Darwin, The Origin of the Species,
chap. 14.
[viii]
Darwin, chap. 14.
[ix] Darwin, sec. preface.
[x] Darwin, sec. preface.
[xi] Darwin, chap. 14.
[xii] Darwin, chap. 14.
[xiii]
Gorham, “Philosophy of Science” A
Beginner’s Guide.
[xiv] “The Genomics Era: The Future of Genetics
in Medicine.”
[xv] “The Genomics Era: The Future of Genetics
in Medicine.”
[xvi] Spinoza, Ethics (Transl. White,
Stirling), E. I. p17s, 20.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.