I appreciate this thoughtful analysis (I just got a copy of an anthology about Darwin titled “A Most Interesting Problem,” edited by someone I respect, so have been interested in reading more about him). I find the whole woke/anti-woke discourse to be not something that’s very engage-able. It seems to be based on a concept of an amorphous “left” that is never defined, and always seems to be about winning arguments rather than opening ideas. A finite or zero-sum game, but then that’s also informed by my personal life experience. “The woke have come for Darwin” doesn’t seem to say anything except some version of “ha ha, gotcha,” and I’m not sure what the purpose is.
I read an interesting essay a while back about an unintended consequence that Darwin’s idea of humans’ not being in control of nature being that it feeds into climate denialism. How big ideas get misued is always interesting, like Adam Smith’s invisible hand being used as an argument for totally unfettered markets, which he didn’t agree with.
Cool discussion in the comments. Thanks for bringing this up.
What’s been on my mind, and relates because I’m thinking and feeling about it — not justified in any way other than that — is the idea of somatic practices. Specifically somatic abolitionism, as presented by Resmaa Menakem.
I’m presently learning more about this idea, but in general somatic practices can be the shortcut from endless, “I think the reason bad thing X happened is Y” / “No, the reason bad thing happened is Z!” arguments (circle jerk, ouroboros — each a wonderful punk band or album, that’s what you meant, right Eric?) whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
Things like somatic abolitionism, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission or similar focus in is the idea of recognition of pain and suffering. Feeling. Being human.
That’s generally what I’m seeing in the world as late. There is such a strong drive to intellectualize and rationalize what’s happening rather than deal with it. Menakem uses the term “metabolize” which seems to fit. Whatever it is that moves people a smidge past cognitive empathy to felt empathy, compassion.
As you show in the article, I can imagine Darwin wasn’t fond of the harshness of nature because he was an empathetic soul. If that’s getting missed in favor of framing the actions he made in his time as mistakes in today’s context, that’s too bad.
I just finished listening to your interview with Agustin Fuentes and came away feeling like there's some real hope for dialogue and nuance in these conversations and issues. Fuentes is right, a podcast (or other long-form interviews) allows each side to question, clarify, and cede certain positions. Ultimately I think it can lead us to some really positive approaches to how we learn about and teach about these "great men of history" and their ideas, and I thought Fuentes did a great job explaining that it's better to learn more about these individuals, to see the flaws, so that we have a more complete picture. I also really appreciated his point of what a thorough scientist Darwin was with his process, nd how that can sometimes get lost in the attention paid to his results. Anyway, long way of saying excellent work Bob!
Another wonderful defense of cognitive empathy from Bob, which I believe is as important to avoiding the "A" word as any other efforts. Intellectual honesty is worth fighting for in an era when "spin" and media manipulation are reaching a new zenith. If we lose Enlightenment values, we will enter a whole new Dark Ages where technology will enable witch hunts that will make the Inquisition and Salem Trials look like a dress rehearsal.
I find that simple factual observational commentary gets conflated with justification. It's very frustrating. Thanks for the article
I appreciate this thoughtful analysis (I just got a copy of an anthology about Darwin titled “A Most Interesting Problem,” edited by someone I respect, so have been interested in reading more about him). I find the whole woke/anti-woke discourse to be not something that’s very engage-able. It seems to be based on a concept of an amorphous “left” that is never defined, and always seems to be about winning arguments rather than opening ideas. A finite or zero-sum game, but then that’s also informed by my personal life experience. “The woke have come for Darwin” doesn’t seem to say anything except some version of “ha ha, gotcha,” and I’m not sure what the purpose is.
I read an interesting essay a while back about an unintended consequence that Darwin’s idea of humans’ not being in control of nature being that it feeds into climate denialism. How big ideas get misued is always interesting, like Adam Smith’s invisible hand being used as an argument for totally unfettered markets, which he didn’t agree with.
Excellent rebuttal, Bob. I’m with you on this one, 100%. Hang in there.
well-said.
Cool discussion in the comments. Thanks for bringing this up.
What’s been on my mind, and relates because I’m thinking and feeling about it — not justified in any way other than that — is the idea of somatic practices. Specifically somatic abolitionism, as presented by Resmaa Menakem.
https://www.resmaa.com/movement
I’m presently learning more about this idea, but in general somatic practices can be the shortcut from endless, “I think the reason bad thing X happened is Y” / “No, the reason bad thing happened is Z!” arguments (circle jerk, ouroboros — each a wonderful punk band or album, that’s what you meant, right Eric?) whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
Things like somatic abolitionism, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission or similar focus in is the idea of recognition of pain and suffering. Feeling. Being human.
That’s generally what I’m seeing in the world as late. There is such a strong drive to intellectualize and rationalize what’s happening rather than deal with it. Menakem uses the term “metabolize” which seems to fit. Whatever it is that moves people a smidge past cognitive empathy to felt empathy, compassion.
As you show in the article, I can imagine Darwin wasn’t fond of the harshness of nature because he was an empathetic soul. If that’s getting missed in favor of framing the actions he made in his time as mistakes in today’s context, that’s too bad.
I just finished listening to your interview with Agustin Fuentes and came away feeling like there's some real hope for dialogue and nuance in these conversations and issues. Fuentes is right, a podcast (or other long-form interviews) allows each side to question, clarify, and cede certain positions. Ultimately I think it can lead us to some really positive approaches to how we learn about and teach about these "great men of history" and their ideas, and I thought Fuentes did a great job explaining that it's better to learn more about these individuals, to see the flaws, so that we have a more complete picture. I also really appreciated his point of what a thorough scientist Darwin was with his process, nd how that can sometimes get lost in the attention paid to his results. Anyway, long way of saying excellent work Bob!
Another wonderful defense of cognitive empathy from Bob, which I believe is as important to avoiding the "A" word as any other efforts. Intellectual honesty is worth fighting for in an era when "spin" and media manipulation are reaching a new zenith. If we lose Enlightenment values, we will enter a whole new Dark Ages where technology will enable witch hunts that will make the Inquisition and Salem Trials look like a dress rehearsal.