asaris

Hey now, let's take him at his word. He writes "How is it possible that something is perfect if it does not satisfy every aspect and possible variable?" So for something to be perfect, it must have every possible property, and have it to the highest possible degree. But that's just God. So the idea must be that we are evolving into God (or that we should be; I'm not sure which Mead would want). But that's impossible, well, on many levels, but especially on two. As far as I can tell, there's no chance that evolution is going to produce gods like this, so the theories not particularly Darwinist. And no existentialist would say we can become gods -- in fact, the whole point of Sartre's book "Being and Nothingness" is that much human suffering comes from the attempt to be gods (trying to unite the in-itself with the for itself). So it's not particularly existential either. What to make of a theory of Existential Darwinism that's neither existentialist nor darwinist?

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche