In the Tractatus Wittgenstein argued that there are metaphysical truths. But these are ineffable, for metaphysical sentences try to say what can only be shown. Accordingly, they are pseudo-propositions because they are ill-formed. In the Investigations he no longer thought that metaphysical propositions are pseudo-propositions, but argued that they are either nonsense or norms of descriptions. Popper criticized Wittgenstein's ideas and argued that metaphysical truths are effable. Yet it is by now clear that he misunderstood Wittgenstein's arguments (namely that metaphysical propositions are ill-formed because they employ unbound variables) and misguidedly thought that Wittgenstein used the principle of verification for distinguishing empirical propositions from metaphysical propositions. Because Popper developed his philosophy in part as a critique of Wittgenstein's philosophy, this invites the question of whether these misunderstandings have consequences for his own philosophy. I discuss this question and argue that Popper's attempt to distinguish metaphysics and science with the aid of a criterion of testability is from Wittgenstein's perspective misguided. The main problem facing Popper's philosophy is that alleged metaphysical propositions are not theoretical propositions but rules for descriptions (in the misleading guise of empirical propositions). If Wittgenstein's ideas are correct, then metaphysical problems are not scientific but grammatical problems which can only be resolved through conceptual investigations.
According to evolutionary theorists, there are conflicts in our minds between genes and ideas. Evolutionary theorists investigate how natural selection has moulded possible outcomes of these conflicts. This essay investigates the conceptual framework that is used by evolutionary theorists when they develop explanations. This framework is advanced as an extension of ideas of William James on intrapsychic conflicts. It is argued that this framework is best characterized as crypto-Cartesian. The problems associated with this conceptual framework are analysed and it is suggested that the alternative, Aristotelian framework extended with Darwin's theory is a better starting point for studying possible conflicts in the mind. The advantages of the Aristotelian framework are discussed with regard to both human and animal behaviour. Keywordsbehavioural flexibility, dualism, instinct, intention, monism According to evolutionary theorists, human behaviour can be resolved into two sources. The first source is hereditary: through decoding of information in the human genome, structures and mechanisms develop in our bodies and brains that influence the development of behaviour. These genes have been selected during our evolutionary past, since they contributed to our reproductive success through their phenotypic effects. The second source is culture: humans acquire knowledge through internalization of ideas and use these ideas as a guiding principle for their actions. Some of these ideas are present in our culture because, like genes, they have proven their value in the long term. Yet cultural evolution evolves much faster than genetic evolution, since certain ideas may be replaced by other ideas within a single generation.Genes and ideas influence behaviour through different "means" because they have different "goals." According to evolutionary theorists, genes influence behaviour through instincts and ideas affect our behaviour if they are stored in our memory. Haig (2006) explains this as follows:
Badcock and Crespi have advanced the hypothesis that autism and schizophrenia are caused by imbalanced imprinting in the brain. They argue that an imbalance between the effects of paternally and maternally expressed genes on brain development results in either an extreme paternal (autism) or maternal brain (schizophrenia). In this paper their conceptual model is discussed and criticized since it presupposes an incoherent distinction between observable physical and hidden mental phenomena. An alternative model is discussed that may be more fruitful for investigating the possible role of imprinted genes in the development of social behaviour. The development of crying and reactive crying and behaviours necessary for collaborative action are discussed as a promising research area for understanding the effects of imprinted genes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.