Philosopher of biology Michael Ruse writes:
I was fascinated to read the stuff on Wittgenstein [via the "Year in Review"] – but what did surprise me was that no one picked up on the evolution question – I think undoubtedly the most important discovery of the past centuries was the realization that we are not the end-product of a Good God on a creative spree but of a slow process of evolution fueled by the meaningless process of natural selection
How someone thinks this is not going to have profound philosophical implications – epistemology and ethics – beats me -- what we believe is what works not divinely written on tablets of stone – same for ethics – I feel morally I ought to care for children for those of my would-be ancestors who denied this are only “would be,” whereas those who agreed we have moral obligations to kids do have descendants, namely us
Then I read in the Tractatus that “Darwin’s theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other hypothesis in natural science” (Wittgenstein 1922, 4.1122). he followed this up some years later by telling his groupies that Darwin’s theory doesn’t have the “required multiplicity” whatever the hell that means.
“I have always thought that Darwin was wrong: his theory doesn’t account for all this variety of species. It hasn’t the necessary multiplicity. Nowadays some people are fond of saying that at last evolution has produced a species that is able to understand the whole process which gave it birth. … you can’t say [that today].”Rhees, R. (ed.), Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal Recollections, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p. 174, 1981.
As always in these cases there is no evidence of serious study of the scientific literature
I am afraid that at this point, I closed the book on Wittgenstein and have never regretted it – he has led, I think, to some dreadful consequences for philosophy – as people like Kitcher are now pointing out, analytic philosophy has become so technical and inturned it is practically worthless.
Professor Ruse added in a subsequent message:
It has occurred to me that when Wittgenstein made his comment in the Tractatus, he was still thinking very much in the Continental tradition – so his understanding of evolution would not be very Darwinian – more in the Romantic vision dating back to Schelling – prominent figure at the beginning of the twentieth century, Bergson – so perhaps there is some excuse for wariness
But, by the time he made his later condescending comments, there had been a whole neo-Darwinian revolution – people like R A Fisher putting Darwinism (not just evolution) on a firm theoretical basis, and then people like Theodosius Dobzhansky backing it all up with massive empirical evidence – fruitfly systematic seasonal variations for instance – so, even if we are a bit gentle with the earlier comments – without in any sense allowing that the science was good – the arrogance of the later comments is inexcusable.
Thoughts from readers on Wittgenstein's attitude towards Darwin?
