Creation and Value from a Darwinian Perspective
Abstract:In his Life of Zeno, Diogenes Laertius records that the Stoics divided philosophy into three component parts: Logic, Ethics and Physics (DL 1925, Vol. II, sec. 40). At the same time, using the similes of an animal (composed of bones, flesh and soul), an egg (composed of shell, white and yoke) and a garden (composed of fence, crop and soil) they held that none of these parts could be separated out from one another, but were “mixed together”.
Throughout his long and distinguished career, Robin Attfield has both recognised and demonstrated this interconnectedness of philosophy—the fact that any position taken will have ramifications elsewhere. And nowhere more so than in his recent book Creation, Evolution and Meaning (hereafter Attfield 2006), in which these connections are teased out with great subtlety, particularly regarding the interplay between physical (including metaphysical) and ethical positions. The result is an imposing and ambitious structure—a fitting subject, therefore, to take as the focus of my “critical appreciation“.
Another feature of Attfield's philosophising is his willingness to engage with issues that matter fundamentally to how we live our lives, whether this be the formulation of a cosmological vision, or the question of how we find meaning in our working lives (e.g. Attfield 1984). One undertakes any critical appreciation of his work therefore with the genuine prospect of instruction and, it may be, of some vertiginous realisation that will require a shift in perspective, a prospect that marks one of the perennial enticements of philosophy. It is in this spirit that I offer the following remarks, which constitute an attempt to identify key points at which the argument of Creation, Evolution and Meaning fails to carry me along, and then to get to grips with, and understand, our points of disagreement.
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: January 1, 2010