Today, I look at the grammar of fitness in 'survival of the fittest'.
I was thinking about this as I was writing on a meta topic, so I felt like sharing it, since I won't be pursuing it further.
#philosophy #language #writing #blog #fitness #grammar #Darwin #substack #podcast #obligatesiblicide #justkiddingabouttheprevioushashtag
@microglyphics Intelligence seems like a good example! Can a phone be intelligent? And an algorithm? And an ant? And a tree?
…to return to your approach to “fitness,” intelligence has enabled human supremacy, but on a geological scale, it could lead to a catastrophe comparable to the Chicxulub impact (biocide). Is humanity “fit”? For Patrick Tort, civilization can go against evolution… (but for other reasons).
@homohortus31 Hey, mate. I'm unclear on the context of the comment: « particularly thorny: sovereignty and anti-Semitism. »
Is this anchored on the 'fitness' post?
If so, human 'ingenuity' is never neutral, and sometimes the jury remains out for deliberation only to return later with a verdict.
Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) and DDT in the US comes to mind – mosquitoes and malaria – and splitting atoms.
@homohortus31 Yes. I'd label both Contestables, though anti-Semitism is a weasel word, a polemic and emotional trigger word with no stable foundation. 'Semitic' is a language category, not a race claim, and the people using this term as a shield are using it against another Semitic group. Self-loathing? Perhaps – but by whom? Besides, it blankets any other valid avenue of critique.
The response to 'Don't be genocidal' is 'You're anti-Semitic.'
Neither grounded nor creative.
@homohortus31 The problem is that within another ontological grammar, interpretations from another grammar appear illegible, and there is no neutral grammar from which to adjudicate.
Many things I feel are wrong might be sound and coherent in the originating grammar, especially for normative issues. I worry about this.
Philosophics
homo hortus