Does Kropotkin's theory of mutual aid get BTFO by Dawkins?

Does Kropotkin's theory of mutual aid get BTFO by Dawkins?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1956/kropotkin.htm.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Setmariam_Nasar
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No, Dawkins is an overrated new atheist shithead who only really gets it right when it comes to religion

The Gene based view of evolution is no longer that mainstream due to advances in areas such as epigenetics. Besides, Dawkins was more of a populariser of the ideas of WD Hamilton and George Price rather than an original thinker. Selfish gene theory is heavy stuff. Hamilton ended up embracing weird quasi fascist ideas while Price set out to disprove the theory by becoming a born again christian and giving all his earthly possessions to the poor. pic related is a fascinating book on the subject.

He doesn't even get that right. He just erects some retarded strawmen and completely misunderstands half the stuff he tries to argue against. There's nothing valuable in his critique at all; it just happens to resonate with a crowd of edgy atheists who are frustrated by American fundamentalism.

...

Not even.

Thank you. It is also worth noting that even if Kropotkin was flat out wrong, it wouldn't make that much of a difference. Mutual aid and social Darwinism are both appeals to the naturalistic fallacy. This is not meant as a criticism of Kropotkin. Within the given context, this appeal on the part of Kropotkin is entirely appropriate.

this is a disproven theory, it holds no merit and is untestable. cell membranes, epigenetics, symbiotic evolutionary strategies, cooperation, advanced social interactions, the existence of superfluous highly developed nonsensical behavior patterns etc etc all disprove selfish gene theory. people are self interested, it seems they know that passing on their genes is what their purpose is, of course they are completely free to ignore that purpose and many times can lead fulfilling, happy lives without doing so. The genes don't have a mind of their own, they can't stop the organism from enjoying itself or ignoring its purpose. Which means there is no constant metaphysical force, a purpose, to compel anyone to do anything. So genes couldn't possibly be driving behavior. They lead to cells and nervous systems that then act on their own accord with respect to their environments and the tools available to then from their genetic makeup. Which is a much more complex relationship that doesn't rely on implicit teleology for genes or organisms or implicit eliminativist marerialism. Dawkins, Krause, Harris all do this bait and switch bullshit where they presuppose all kinds of totally contradictory, self refuting spooked shit and then roll with it for the sake of sounding like they have a grasp on reality. In the eys of someone like Wittgenstein or Socrates they're some of the dumbest, least philosophical intellects you could possibly listen to.

Human or even animal behavior is somewhat more complicated matter.
In fact there is whole different science for that.
And as far as I know it's universally agreed that altruism in human behavior is natural and is very reason for civilization.

Many discoveries of archeology proved that mammoth hunters took care about elders and injured, which made no sense economically. For example one prehistoric man lived for years after lost his leg and was carried around by tribe.
I guess he was surrounded by genetically selfish people and lived on government handouts.
Also contrary to popular beliefs made popular by porky propaganda our hairy ancestors didn't eat each other (or at least it wasn't any more common than today).

Kropotkin had flaws in his theory thanks to its humanist arguments, but the same can be said of Dawkins.

What are you talking about? The two theories have nothing to do with each other. The selfish gene idea is the idea that genes themselves are "selfish" in their quest for propagation. The idea does not promote a Randian view of nature where every individual creature is self-maximizing. The idea of the selfish gene and of mutual aid are not in conflict.

Dawkins is a sophist that hates academic competition, I wouldn't take his historical writings very seriously.

Aristotle mentions that indians ate their dead

It's not "the selfishness gene" you idiots.

With all due respect to Aristotle, he was hardly in a position to have any sort of reliable information regarding Indian history and culture.

This is what happen when they only read the cover and not the book itself.

β€œWe are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.”

If I was the leader of a communist party I would make reading this book mandatory.

Here's a hint: It doesn't address religion.


He's an evolutionary biologist by profession. Like, he's a literal professor of physical sciences.


Don't. It's not great. The entire content of this book would take about five pages total in a wikipedia article, if properly condensed. Gene selection is a painfully trivial concept all readers should be able to grasp readily, provided they've had some prior introduction to natural selection in general. It's the lowest rung of popsci trash.
That being said, any communist should know about and understand various material conditions, and understanding the core concepts here is crucial for that. Natural selection is literally just applied dialectics and so on.

user commented that Dawkins only got religion right, and I pointed out that his musings on religion are little more than misinformed autistic screeching. The Selfish Gene wasn't relevant to the tangent we were having.

The Selfish Gene is the OP, nigger.

this subject will now make you think of nothing but mr. krabs. You are welcome.

No.

someone get zizek to talk about this topic

The point is, if you are selfish and smart, you team up with other people

Yes! Just sneak it in to a q&a. I need to hear him say it.

No, George Price did that.

...

Did you even read the sentence you quoted? Or do you lack the vocabulary to understand it? Here, let me help:
This may come as a shock to you, but sometimes when people talk, subjects arise which are distinct from the starting point of the conversation. In this case, the chain went something like this:
Surely you can comprehend how this conversation developed away from the point raised in the OP? Are you legitimately autistic that I have to walk you through basic human interaction like this?

He didn't invent memes so much as describe them. Memes existed before he did.

Leftypol is in denial of biological facts once again.

I won't deny the biological fact of your tight butthole.

...

tell me more about that book

No.

For critique of the selfish gene, see:
) Yaneer Bar-Yam
) Peter Godfrey-Smith
) Eva Jablonka
Those I know, come to conclusions yourself.

This.

nope

I can tell most people here haven't really read the Selfish Gene. It's central thesis is that altruism can arise via the attrition of natural selection, due to natural selection acting on the genetic level. Genes are "selfish," individual organisms are not.

Whether or not the gene centered view is true is really irrelevant here. The point is that Dawkins doesn't even try to disprove Kropotkin's theory of mutual aid. If anything, using different language, he describes how mutual aid might have evolved by applying game theory to population genetics.

No, but it gets BTFO by Darwin, especially when combined with Marx's material-discursive theory of human history.

This. Dawkin's central thesis is that "animals help each other for the good of the species/community" if idealism and not grounded in science at all.

Wow, fuck autocomplete. Here's what I meant to say:

Dawkins' central thesis is that "animals help each other for the good of the species/community" is idealism and not grounded in science at all.

Even if Richard Dawkins was right and not completely shooting in the dark until it hits, it still doesn't work out. The whole common discourse about humanity is to ascend beyond our base instincts such as tribalism or unnecessary violence and if being selfish is our instinct, then we should ascend above that and cooperate.

It was based on Darwin and Kropotkin knew all about Marx…

I believe the foreword to the book literally says "I wasn't saying we're all made up of miniature Ayn Rands jesus fucking christ"

This.


weak bait

No, what the fuck? Anyway, mutual aid is in one's best self-interest. Literally everything about anarcho-communism can be justified on egoist grounds.

watch "Nice Guys Finish First" OP

This small critique/review of Kropotkin's Mutual Aid by Paul Mattick, a based left communist (councilist), recently got translated from German to English and added to the marxists.org archive if anyone is interested: marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1956/kropotkin.htm.

You don't understand the book you think you're critiquing.

This isn't true, through their constant contact with the Persians, Greeks of that time had contact with and knowledge of India. Aristotle was still alive while Alexander invaded India, so there would have been plenty of firsthand knowledge.

I read The God Delusion a few months ago and I remember he said in it that he was "absolutely appalled" when he learned that businessmen and CEO's, politicians, etc. had been adapting the idea of natural selection and the selfish gene to justify selfishness and basically being a huge piece of shit and then saying "well its just our evolutionary nature hurhurr"

So no, from what i can tell in his writings its not clear if he's a socialist per say but he certainly expresses beliefs of empathy for humans in general, helping people, working together, etc. and criticizes religion for doing the opposite.

Learn the basics, fool
Selfish genes create altruistic individuals

...

Theists generally do

Only meme theologians that completely miss the point of theology even debate meme atheists. Neither of them wins because they talk past each other.
Whereas actual theologians and atheist philosophers appreciate and build upon each others' work.

you have any contemporary examples of this?

I forget if it was Hitchens or Dawkins who said this, but of course theologians debate. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and so on. The simple fact that there exists a theory or body of work on this does not in itself mean any of it is true or of any consequence.
There are lively debates between alternative medicine practitioners, too, but it's still only quacks certifying quacks.

Also most theists are not theologians so they're essentially moot to my original point.

Nah, we're discussing theologians who debate atheists. Classical examples like the ontological argument, teleological argument, transcendental argument, proof of the truthful, etc. I'm not saying I subscribe to any of them, but those are far different arguments then some variation of "assuming the existence of god, how does X religious thing work?", which is what you are implying the arguments we are discussing here are.

Now, just so we're on the same page, the good atheist philosophers are the ones who understand and engage with the kinds of arguments listed and refute them. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. all either refuse to acknowledge the existence of those arguments or badly misunderstand them, which weakens their arguments and make them seem naturally uninformed to anyone who HAS heard of the formal logic and reasoning involved in them. If you are an atheist, you should hate them even more than if you are a theist precisely because their positions are so badly argued that they inherently make your position look weaker by association, when better/smarter philosophers have already done their jobs in a non-imbecilic way.

Last great theologians are probably all dead by now. All remaining great philosophers (e.g. Badiou) are getting old. We live in a general meme culture where you prefer TV debate theatrics over the pain of studying philosophy works. That doesn't make Dawkins any better, he helped in bringing us to this point.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Setmariam_Nasar

Holla Forums is right again.

Richard Dawkins is full of shit and I wish he would die already. I swear these soft sci pop sci celebrities are fucking immortal ancient wrinkled demigods who won't die until they look like a scrotum with a puckering anus constantly spewing out bullshit that gullible teenagers who want to appear smart gobble up like nectar from the gods

πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€NasarπŸ€πŸ€πŸ€

Right, and the "meme atheists" engage with these all the time, because they find it important, and because they keep getting used all the time in various "original" forms.

actual pictures