So, I read the Selfish Gene for an undergraduate class I took this Winter in the philosophy of biology with my fave philosopher of all time, Gillian. It isn't your standard philosophical fare because it was written for a wider audience. Also, Dawkins is a fantastic writer. I was completely impressed by the argument Dawkins makes in the book.
There are two downfalls to my mind (both minor). First, he makes numerous implicit simplifying assumptions about the nature of the gene and how it operates in evolution. See, e.g.:
David Sloan Wilson, "Levels of Selection: An Alternative to Individualism in Biology and the Human Sciences", Social Networks 11 (1989): 257-272. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North Holland.
Second, he makes unreflective overtures (at least in this anniversary edition) to a particular kind of moral conclusion that he thinks must be drawn as a result of the arguments he makes in the book (Something like compassionate secularism). I think that this attempt is baseless, and, also, detrimental to the respectability of his broader point. I've written a paper on this. Perhaps I'll abridge it and post it here.
In general, I think that Dawkins should stick to the philosophy of biology and leave the other sub-fields of philosophy alone. Eeee.
My quick review:
This book accounts, innovatively, for the existence of biological altruism in an evolution-driven universe. Dawkins deals with the toughest cases by introducing the concept of the meme. To me, this step was really brilliant.I would like to mention that this book is not about atheism, and cannot, in itself, be construed as support for an atheistic worldview. Dawkins' work to this effect is, I think, wholly self-contained.I wish that primarily atheistic books would not be linked as 'related' to this one. This is a book on the philosophy of the natural science we call biology. Naturalism, and specifically, atheism is a substantive assumption that is not necessarily engaged by simply discussing biology as a discipline.
No comments:
Post a Comment