The impact of evolutionary theory on philosophy

[ilikeverin]

Evolution explains not only where we come from, but why we are; why we socialise, why we love, how we form our understanding human morality. It's why it continues to be feared by people who are superstitious.

It can tell us something about the ultimate causation for those actions ("why are humans capable of love?"; "across time, what do humans tend to want to do?"), but it's rather uninformative about proximate causation ("why does Andrew love this specific man?"; "what is my specific purpose on this earth?").

[ilikeverin]

The answer is 'not much, really', I guess. To the extent that it had an influence, it was only because it was really easy to stick elements of it into discourses that were already extremely fashionable.

Oddly enough for a thread which touches on evolution and society, I find myself pretty much agreeing with Al here.  One can argue whether any particular question is or is not a scientific question.  For example, I'd see "what is human nature?" as a scientific question, while many others on this forum would not.  When it comes to using science (or not using science, or opposing the use of science) to answer philosophical questions, however, it's essentially a tool that can be used whichever way the debater wishes.  Witness, for example, the fact that my political views fall much closer to the people on this thread who have in the past hated on evolutionary psychology than those who haven't

[ilikeverin]

I'd be perfectly willing to hate on evolutionary psychology in the present for your entertainment if need be.

Oh, rest assured, I think just about every argument about the subject has been rehashed endlessly at some point or another here.  I'm taking a history of sexuality class right now (taught by a dyed-in-the-wool complete social constructivist who is wonderful as a person), which has really helped me realize how utterly intractable the divide between social constructivists and behavioral scientists is.