Archimedes was referred to show [roman etc] arrogance results. As Darwin too, supported egoism-continuous aggression (that DESTROYED turbid faraos, Myceneans, Pelleans, Romans, Mayans, crusaders, Aztecs, Incas etc) as 'natural' 'selection', instead of mutual-aid, he confused more people. Aren't cool-headed+luckiest GROUPS the usual survivers?
Aristotle for natural selection: "When the teeth grow in just this (suitable) way, then the animal survives. When they do not, then the animal dies. More directly, and more explicitly, the way the teeth grow is not for the sake of the animal, and its survival or its death is just a coincidence (Phys. 198 b 29-32).
Lots of people had ideas for evolution before Darwin. Anyone who's done a day's honest research knows this, including Darwin's great modern admirers. What Darwin (and Wallace) provided were a mechanism. Did Aristotle discover natural selection?
So, friend, we should say: Anthropology founder (slandered) Aristotle spoke about EVOLUTION (see info; he died sad when Democracy sapped in -322), Romans etc killed Archimedeses, and those who hush-up history are not honest. Darwin offered a lot, but did not promote respect for his inspirators. Humankind still waits reconciliatory autarky, that egoists hate. Everyone is judged by all his works. Darwin was an anti-democrat monarchist, and self-destroying feardom is not the best human adaptation.
It's not clear that Darwin was in fact inspired by Archimedes. There were others to whom he was much more beholden. Whether Darwin was anti-democratic has nothing to do with natural selection.
"Whether Darwin was anti-democratic has nothing to do with natural selection."
I WOULD RECONSIDER THIS QUOTE, FROM THE MESSAGE ABOVE.
NOT AS IT PERTAINS TO DARWIN, RATHER DARWINISM, AS CULTURE (IN OUR SPECIES) HAS HAD A MAJOR IMPACT, ON THE SURVIVAL OF CULTURES IN OUR PAST, AND WILL UNDOUBTEDLY CONTINUE TO IMPACT OR SPECIES IN THE FUTURE.
Archimedes was referred to show [roman etc] arrogance results. As Darwin too, supported egoism-continuous aggression (that DESTROYED turbid faraos, Myceneans, Pelleans, Romans, Mayans, crusaders, Aztecs, Incas etc) as 'natural' 'selection', instead of mutual-aid, he confused more people. Aren't cool-headed+luckiest GROUPS the usual survivers?
peacearchanthropuses 2 years ago
Aristotle for natural selection: "When the teeth grow in just this (suitable) way, then the animal survives. When they do not, then the animal dies. More directly, and more explicitly, the way the teeth grow is not for the sake of the animal, and its survival or its death is just a coincidence (Phys. 198 b 29-32).
peacearchanthropuses 2 years ago
Lots of people had ideas for evolution before Darwin. Anyone who's done a day's honest research knows this, including Darwin's great modern admirers. What Darwin (and Wallace) provided were a mechanism. Did Aristotle discover natural selection?
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
So, friend, we should say: Anthropology founder (slandered) Aristotle spoke about EVOLUTION (see info; he died sad when Democracy sapped in -322), Romans etc killed Archimedeses, and those who hush-up history are not honest. Darwin offered a lot, but did not promote respect for his inspirators. Humankind still waits reconciliatory autarky, that egoists hate. Everyone is judged by all his works. Darwin was an anti-democrat monarchist, and self-destroying feardom is not the best human adaptation.
peacearchanthropuses 2 years ago
It's not clear that Darwin was in fact inspired by Archimedes. There were others to whom he was much more beholden. Whether Darwin was anti-democratic has nothing to do with natural selection.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
"Whether Darwin was anti-democratic has nothing to do with natural selection."
I WOULD RECONSIDER THIS QUOTE, FROM THE MESSAGE ABOVE.
NOT AS IT PERTAINS TO DARWIN, RATHER DARWINISM, AS CULTURE (IN OUR SPECIES) HAS HAD A MAJOR IMPACT, ON THE SURVIVAL OF CULTURES IN OUR PAST, AND WILL UNDOUBTEDLY CONTINUE TO IMPACT OR SPECIES IN THE FUTURE.
MakisPyrgiotis 2 years ago