Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Hello Everyone,

For the week of August 19th - August 25th, we are reading Chapter Nine of The Metaphysical Club.

Our motto at The History Book Club is that it is never too late to begin a book. We are with you the entire way.

The ninth week's reading assignment is:

Week Nine - August 19th - August 25th
Part Three - Chapter Nine
The Metaphysical Club (201 - 234)

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off on June 26th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon and Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle. Make sure to pre-order now if you haven't already. Please also patronage your local book stores.

This weekly thread will be opened up on August 19th or earlier

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Bentley will be leading this discussion. Assisting Moderator Kathy will be the back up.

Welcome,

~Bentley


TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Louis Menand


REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Glossary - SPOILER THREAD

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Bibliography - SPOILER THREAD

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please. And please do not place long list of books on the discussion threads. Please add to the bibliography thread where we love to peruse all entries. Make sure you properly cite your additions to make it easier for all.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Table of Contents and Syllabus:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

by Louis Menand

Welcome folks to the discussion of The Metaphysical Club.

Message One - on each non spoiler thread - will help you find all of the information that you need for each week's reading.

For Week Nine - for example, we are reading and discussing the following:

Week Nine - August 19th - August 25th
Part Three - Chapter Nine
The Metaphysical Club (201 - 234)

Please only discuss Chapter Nine through page 234 on this thread. However from now on you can also discuss any of the pages that came before this week's reading - including anything in the Preface or Introduction or anything in Chapter One through Chapter Eight. However the main focus of this week's discussion is Chapter Nine.

This is a non spoiler thread.

But we will have in this folder a whole bunch of spoiler threads dedicated to all of the pragmatists or other philosophers or philosophic movements which I will set up as we read along and on any of the additional spoiler threads - expansive discussions about each of the pragmatists/philosophers/philosophic movements can also take place on any of these respective threads. Spoiler threads are also clearly marked.

If you have any links, or ancillary information about anything dealing with the book itself feel free to add this to our Glossary thread.

If you have lists of books or any related books about the people discussed, or about the events or places discussed or any other ancillary information - please feel free to add all of this to the thread called - Bibliography.

If you would like to plan ahead and wonder what the syllabus is for the reading, please refer to the Table of Contents.

If you would like to write your review of the book and present your final thoughts because maybe you like to read ahead - the spoiler thread where you can do all of that is called Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts. You can also have expansive discussions there.

For all of the above - the links are always provided in message one.

Always go to message one of any thread to find out all of the important information you need.

Bentley will be moderating this book and Kathy will be the backup.

Make sure that you are familiar with the HBC's rules and guidelines and what is allowed on goodreads and HBC in terms of user content. Also, there is no self promotion, spam or marketing allowed.

Here are the rules and guidelines of the HBC:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...

Please on the non spoiler threads: a) Stick to material in the present week's reading.

Also, in terms of all of the threads for discussion here and on the HBC - please be civil.

We want our discussion to be interesting and fun.

Make sure to cite a book using the proper format.

You don't need to cite the Menand book, but if you bring another book into the conversation; please cite it accordingly as required.

Now we can begin week nine......

Chapter Summaries and Overview

Chapter Nine: The Metaphysical Club

Part 2, Chapter 9 - The Metaphysical Club, Section One

Charles Peirce wrote about the Metaphysical Club approximately thirty-five years
after it was to have taken place. Oliver Wendell Holmes, William James and Peirce,
along with several of their friends, started the club.

James and Peirce had become friends while both were attending the Lawrence
Scientific School. James never truly understood all of what Peirce or his father would
discuss, but he did understand some things.

Holmes and James became best friends after the war. Holmes was a talker like his
father and swept the women off their feet. James was always a little behind in thinking and women.

The Metaphysical Club was destined to be short lived, especially when Holmes and
other members started getting married.

The reader is presented with the background of how these intellectuals first got together.

We can see that William James was at the center and was sort of the catalyst
that brought these men together.

Part 2, Chapter 9 - The Metaphysical Club, Section Two

One of the main players in the Metaphysical Club was Chauncey Wright. He was
considered a type of "local Socrates." He remained unmarried his entire life. His only published works were book reviews, but he was known for the way he could retain information.

Wright had a full time job with the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac. He
completed the work in three months and talked to people the remaining nine months.

Wright considered himself a positivist. He believed positivism was the difference
between facts, that were part of science, and values, that were part of metaphysics.

He did not believe that metaphysical thought should be attached to science in any way. It was different from science. However, he did not believe in religion either. He viewed religion as a hindrance to the freedom of thought.

Wright did not believe in evolution completely, because to him there were no such
things as higher orders and lower orders to a species. There were just differences
within the species, but the differences did not make one better than the other.

So in this chapter we are introduced to another person that will influence the creation of pragmatism. Wright is a well-regarded man in Cambridge, and many people look up to him. The reader is told that he can assimilate information better than anyone else can, and this is given in the example of his job. This man will help James, Holmes and Peirce to find their way in philosophy.

Part 2, Chapter 9 - The Metaphysical Club, Section Three

Wright was part of the group that called themselves the "Septem." They lasted only
three years and broke apart due to members getting married.

By 1963, Wright was in a deep depression and drinking heavily.

Ephraim Gurney and Charles Eliot Norton tried to help Wright beat the depression. Gurney got the "Septem" started again, and Norton asked Wright for a contribution to the North American Review.

However, in 1868, Norton went to Europe, Gurney married, and Wright started drinking again.

He never completely got over this second bout of drinking and depression. He gave up his job at the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac. Two of his friends, Eldridge Cutler and Charles Salter, tried to bring him out of the depression and started a new club. However, both Cutler and Salter died in 1870 and the club died with them.

The clubs of the time allowed the convergence of men and minds. They functioned
similar to how the universities of today function. All club members, not matter what
club, knew members of the other clubs. The Metaphysical Club included, and
everyone knew, Chauncey Wright.

During this time, Holmes updated the Commentaries on American Law, was given the job of editor for the American Law Review, and married. He agreed with many of
Wright's ideals of positivism. He also believed that philosophy and logic have little
influence in the decisions made by humans. He called his philosophy
"bettabilitarianism."

In this section we watch as "pragmatism" is born.

James and Peirce have begun the process and now seem to be ready to share it with the world. The reader may be wondering about how Peirce fits in with this, since we are told that his book on logic does not ever get finished. What the reader does know is that "pragmatism" has been born.

Part 2, Chapter 9 - The Metaphysical Club, Section Four

Charles Eliot was one of the main reasons Peirce went to Washington D.C. to work in the Coast Survey office there. Peirce had been the assistant to the Director of the
Harvard Observatory when the Director died. Eliot would not even consider Peirce for the position of Director. In fact, Eliot banned Peirce from Harvard, which was still in effect 25 years later, when Peirce was scheduled to give a series of lectures. They had to be relocated to private homes.

Part 2, Chapter 9 - The Metaphysical Club, Section Five

The reader is shown that everything is changing around the time of the Metaphysical Club. Higher education is changing and the new President of Harvard is throwing his weight around, just because he can. The actions of Eliot are a foreshadowing of what is to come for James and Peirce. James seems to be elevated and Peirce shot down. With the death of St. John Green and Wright, it is uncertain how the pragmatic philosophy will change and survive.

Most folks want to know right off the bat - what is the title about? Here is a good posting explaining that.

The Metaphysical Club

by John Shook

The Metaphysical Club was an informal discussion group of scholarly friends, close from their associations with Harvard University, that started in 1871 and continued until spring 1879.

This Club had two primary phases, distinguished from each other by the most active participants and the topics pursued.

The first phase of the Metaphysical Club lasted from 1871 until mid-1875, while the second phase existed from early 1876 until spring 1879. The dominant theme of first phase was pragmatism, while idealism dominated the second phase.

Pragmatism - First Phase:

The "pragmatist" first phase of the Metaphysical Club was organized by Charles Peirce (Harvard graduate and occasional lecturer), Chauncey Wright (Harvard graduate and occasional lecturer), and William James (Harvard graduate and instructor of physiology and psychology).

These three philosophers were then formulating recognizably pragmatist views. Other active members of the "Pragmatist" Metaphysical Club were two more Harvard graduates and local lawyers, Nicholas St. John Green and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who were also advocating pragmatic views of human conduct and law.

Idealist - Second Phase:

The "idealist" second phase of the Metaphysical Club was organized and led by idealists who showed no interest in pragmatism: Thomas Davidson (independent scholar), George Holmes Howison (professor of philosophy at nearby Massachusetts Institute of Technology), and James Elliot Cabot (Harvard graduate and Emerson scholar). There was some continuity between the two phases.

Although Peirce had departed in April 1875 for a year in Europe, and Wright died in September 1875, most of the original members from the first phase were available for a renewed second phase.

By January 1876 the "Idealist" Metaphysical Club (for James still was referring to a metaphysical club in a letter of 10 February 1876) was meeting regularly for discussions first on Hume, then proceeding through Kant and Hegel in succeeding years.

Besides Davidson, Howison, and Cabot, the most active members appear to be William James, Charles Carroll Everett (Harvard graduate and Dean of its Divinity School), George Herbert Palmer (Harvard graduate and professor of philosophy), and Francis Ellingwood Abbott (Harvard graduate and independent scholar).

Other occasional participants include Francis Bowen (Harvard graduate and professor of philosophy), Nicholas St. John Green, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and G. Stanley Hall (Harvard graduate and psychologist).

The Metaphysical Club was a nine-year episode within a much broader pattern of informal philosophical discussion that occurred in the Boston area from the 1850s to the 1880s.

Chauncey Wright, renowned in town for his social demeanor and remarkable intelligence, had been a central participant in various philosophy clubs and study groups dating as early as his own college years at Harvard in the early 1850s.

Wright, Peirce, James, and Green were the most active members of the Metaphysical Club from its inception in 1871.

By mid-1875 the original Metaphysical Club was no longer functioning; James was the strongest connection between the first and second phases, helping Thomas Davidson to collect the members of the "Idealist" Metaphysical Club.

Link to the Hegel Club:

James also was a link to the next philosophical club, the "Hegel Club", which began in fall 1880 in connection with George Herbert Palmer's seminar on Hegel. By winter 1881 the Hegel Club had expanded to include several from the Metaphysical Club, including James, Cabot, Everett, Howison, Palmer, Abbott, Hall, and the newcomer William Torrey Harris who had taken up residence in Concord.

This Hegel Club was in many ways a continuation of the St. Louis Hegelian Society from the late 1850s and 1860s, as Harris, Howison, Davidson, and their Hegelian students had moved east.

The Concord Summer School of Philosophy (1879-1888), under the leadership of Amos Bronson Alcott and energized by the Hegelians, soon brought other young American scholars into the orbit of the Cambridge clubs, such as John Dewey.

The "Pragmatist" Metaphysical Club met on irregular occasions, probably fortnightly during the Club's most active period of fall 1871 to winter 1872, and they usually met in the home of Charles Pierce or William James in Cambridge.

This Club met for four years until mid-1875, when their diverse career demands, extended travels to Europe, and early deaths began to disperse them. The heart of the club was the close bonds between five very unusual thinkers on the American intellectual scene.

Chauncey Wright and Charles Sanders Peirce shared the same scientific interests and outlook, having adopted a positivistic and evolutionary stance, and their common love for philosophical discussion sparked the club's beginnings. Wright's old friend and lawyer Nicholas St. John Green was glad to be included, as was Peirce's good friend William James who had also gone down the road towards empiricism and evolutionism. William James brought along his best friend, the lawyer Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who like Green was mounting a resistance to the legal formalism dominating that era. Green brought fellow lawyer Joseph Bangs Warner, and the group also invited two philosophers who had graduated with them from Harvard, Francis Ellingwood Abbott and John Fiske, who were both interested in evolution and metaphysics.

Other occasional members were Henry Ware Putnam, Francis Greenwood Peabody, and William Pepperell Montague.

Activities of the "Pragmatist" Metaphysical Club were recorded only by Peirce, William James, and William's brother Henry James, who all describe intense and productive debates on many philosophical problems.

Both Peirce and James recalled that the name of the club was the "Metaphysical" Club. Peirce suggests that the name indicated their determination to discuss deep scientific and metaphysical issues despite that era's prevailing positivism and agnosticism. A successful "Metaphysical Club" in London was also not unknown to them. Peirce later stated that the club witnessed the birth of the philosophy of pragmatism in 1871, which he elaborated (without using the term 'pragmatism' itself) in published articles in the late 1870s. His own role as the "father of pragmatism" should not obscure, in Peirce's view, the importance of Nicholas Green. Green should be recognized as pragmatism's "grandfather" because, in Peirce's words, Green had "often urged the importance of applying Alexander Bain's definition of belief as 'that upon which a man is prepared to act,' from which 'pragmatism is scarce more than a corollary'." Chauncey Wright also deserves considerable credit, for as both Peirce and James recall, it was Wright who demanded a phenomenalist and fallibilist empiricism as a vital alternative to rationalistic speculation.

The several lawyers in this club took great interest in evolution, empiricism, and Bain's pragmatic definition of belief.

They were also acquainted with James Stephen's A General View of the Criminal Law in England, which also pragmatically declared that people believe because they must act. At the time of the Metaphysical Club, Green and Holmes were primarily concerned with special problems in determining criminal states of mind and general problems of defining the nature of law in a culturally evolutionary way.

Both Green and Holmes made important advances in the theory of negligence which relied on a pragmatic approach to belief and established a "reasonable person" standard. Holmes went on to explore pragmatic definitions of law that look forward to future judicial consequences rather than to past legislative decisions.
(Source: )

Discussion Ideas and Themes of the Book

While reading the book - try to take some notes about the ideas presented along the following lines:

1. Science
2. Religion
3. Philosophy
4. Psychology
5. Sociology
6. Evolution
7. Pragmatism

There are very good reasons why this book is not only called The Metaphysical Club but also after the colon: A Story of Ideas in America and the purpose of our discussion of this book is "to discuss those ideas".

Don't just read my posts - but jump right in - the more you post and the more you contribute - the more you will get out of the conversation and the read.

Discussion Ideas:

Remember we are discussing major ideas and events right off the bat:

Ideas:
Metaphysics
Pragmatism
The Metaphysical Club
Natural History
Legal Formalism
Positivism
Logic
Philosophy
Bettabilitarianism
Sociology

Events:
The American Civil War

People:
Louis Agassiz
William James
Charles Peirce
Chauncey Wright
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Ephraim Gurney
Charles Eliot Norton
Eldridge Cutler
Charles Salter
Nicholas St. John Green
Kant
Charles William Eliot
Auguste Comte
Socrates
John Ropes

Groups
Septem
American Law Review
The Saturday Club

Government:
The Constitution
Bill of Rights

Writings
Commentaries on American Law

Places
Harvard
Lawrence Scientific School

Chapter Abstracts - Chapter Nine

Chapter abstracts are short descriptions of events that occur in each chapter.

They highlight major plot events and detail the important relationships and characteristics of characters and objects.

The Chapter Abstracts that I will add can be used to review what you have read, and to prepare you for what you will read.

These highlights can be a reading guide or you can use them in your discussion to discuss any of these points. I add them so these bullet points can serve as a "refresher" or a stimulus for further discussion.

Here are a few:

New Abstracts:

* Charles Pierce founded the Metaphysical Club in 1872 in Cambridge.

* The Metaphysical Club was designed to be short lived.

* The club included Pierce, Holmes, James and other friends.

* Chauncey Wright was considered the local Socrates.

* Wright considered himself a positivist.

* Wright was also a part of the group called Septem.

* The clubs of the time allowed for convergence of men and their minds.

* In the same year it started, the Metaphysical Club disbanded.

* By 1869, higher education was no longer focusing on theology.

* Charles William Eliot became the president of Harvard.

* Everything begins to change around the time of the Metaphysical Club.

Discussion Questions for Chapter Nine - think about some of these questions while you are reading: (some of these questions combine ideas from previous chapters)

New Questions:

a) What happened with the job that Wright had with the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac? Why do you think this happened?

b) What was in the essay that James read by a French philosopher which helped him to gain insight into two things? Identify and discuss the key ideas.

c) Education is a strong character in this manuscript as well, helping to bring together the members of the Metaphysical Club.

--- Why do you think education was so important to society during those times?
--- Do you think education is more or less important today? Why?
--- Why do you think so many great thinkers ended up at Harvard

d) To a certain extent, many of the families of the thinkers had certain advantages over other families in the area.

--- Do you think it's fair for some families to have advantages in relation to education? Why or why not?
--- If the educational playing field could be completely level, do you think there could be great thinkers from a variety of social strata? Why or why not?
--- Why do you think so many of the thinkers in this story had the success they did?

e) Holmes began to realize after fighting in the war that the circumstances in which someone is placed often affects their behavior more than other influences.

--- Do you think criminals are affected more by their environment or by their genetics? Why?
--- Do you believe that circumstances should be considered when deciding the guilt of a criminal? Why or why not?
--- Why do you think circumstances can cause someone to do something they may not want to do?

f ) For many of the men in this book, the idea of including Christianity in their believe systems was important.

--- Why do you think these great thinkers also tended to be men of great faith?
--- Do you think it's necessary to link great thoughts with religion and with spirituality? Why or why not?
--- Are the thinker's ideas strengthened or weakened by the inclusion of religion. Why?

g) In some cases of these great thinkers of the book, the relationship between the father and son influenced the discoveries and the ideas.

--- Why do you think the father figure has so much influence over the son?
--- Why do you think these great thinkers were at odds with their fathers in many cases?
--- What might have happened had the fathers and sons gotten along better? Why?

h) William Henry, Sr. always felt that he was at a disadvantage because he had no true and formal education.

--- Why do you think William Henry, Sr. distrusted institutions so much?
--- How do you think society values an education these days? Or don't they?
--- Do you think Henry, Sr. would have had a better life had he had an education? Why or why not?

i) Agassiz decided to teach others about science through the use of observation and of hands on experience.

--- Why do you think observation is such a helpful teaching tool in relation to science?
--- Why do you think hands on experience is such a helpful teaching method in relation to science?
--- Do you prefer hands on learning? Why or why not?

j) The disagreement with the idea of creationism and evolution began early on in educational discourse.

--- Why do you think people clung so tightly to the story of creation?
--- In what ways might creationism and evolutionary theory work together?
--- Do you side with evolutionary thinkers or creationism thinkers? Why?

k) While Charles Sanders Pierce may have been a great mind, he was not without flaws and faults.

--- Why do you think Pierce became so bored at Harvard, even though he could have done better in school?
--- Why do you think Pierce turned to opium and womanizing?
--- Do you think it's common for great thinkers to also have great discrepancies in their way of living? Why or why not?

l) Many of the great thinkers in this book worked on ideas about probability and the laws of errors.

--- Why do you think probability was such a hot topic in those days?
--- Why do you think society wanted to learn more about probability? How would these findings influence their
lives?
--- Do you think probability is an important topic of study? Why or why not?

m) Charles Pierce decided that he wanted to found the Metaphysical Club in order to get the help he needed with a law he was trying to complete.

--- Do you think it's better to get input from others on work you do or to do work on your own? Why?
--- Do you think it's fair to ask others to contribute to your theory and the story of your theory? Why or why not?
--- Do you think the idea of the Metaphysical Club was a good one? Why or why not?

n) Pierce decided he wanted to create a theory and a law of randomness which would contradict Darwin and Laplace's theories.

--- Why do you think randomness is an important idea to study?
--- Do you think the human behavior can be predicted with statistics? Why or why not?
--- Do you believe the world has order or is everything completely random? Why?

o) Morris was trying to decide how to reconcile science and faith in his own mind - a popular topic of discussion and study.

--- Why do you think faith and science have a difficult time 'getting along' in terms of their ideas?
--- Do you think that faith and science have common ground? Why or why not?
--- Can science and faith ever be reconciled? Why or why not?

p) Pragmatism states that people are agents of their own destinies; Pragmatists are against systems but not individualistic actions.

Part 1: Do you believe that people are agents of their own destinies? Why or why not?
Part 2: Do you consider yourself a pragmatist? Why or why not?
Part 3: How does the study of pragmatism get God back into the human equation? Or doesn't it?

Some quotes from Chapter Nine that might be the basis for discussion. Feel free to do a copy and paste and then post your commentary about each or any of them below. Be civil and respectful and discuss your ideas. Also read what your fellow readers are saying and comment on their posts if you agree or disagree and cite sources that help substantiate your point of view.

a) "I believe we can bet on the behavior of the universe in its contract with us. We bet we can know what it will be. That leaves a loophole for freewill - in the miraculous sense - the creation of a new atom of force, although I don't in the least believe it."

--Part 3, Chapter 9, Section 3, pg 217

b) "Hence, belief is not merely impression which the mind receives passively from the
contemplation of facts external to it, but an active habit involving an exertion of will."

--Part 3, Chapter 9, Section 3, Section 3, pg 226

c) It was in the earliest seventies that a knot of us young men in Old Cambridge, calling ourselves, half-ironically, half-defiantly, "The Metaphysical Club", for agnosticism was
then riding its high horse, and was frowning superbly upon all metaphysics, used to meet, sometimes in my study, sometimes in that of William James, ' Charles Peirce wrote
in 1907, in a manuscript he never published. The other members of the club, he recalled, were Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Nicholas St. John Green (a skillful lawyer and a learned one").
Joseph Banks Warner (also a lawyer), John Fiske, Francis Ellingwood Abbot and Chauncey Wright.

-- Chauncey Wright, the Cambridge Socrates, around 1870

d) "Eventually, though, he discovered the formula. The way to treat him, he wrote in 1875 to his brother Henry, who had run into Peirce in Paris and was dining with him occasionally.

is after the fabled "nettle" receipt; grasp firmly, contradict, push hard, make fun of him, and he is as pleasant as anyone; but be overawed by his sententious manner and his paradoxical and obscure statements, wait upon them as it were, for light to dawn, and you will never get a feeling of ease with him any more than I did for years, until I changed my course & treated him more or less chaffingly. I confess I like him very much in spite of peculiarities, for he is a man of genius and there's always something in that to compel one's sympathy.

It was a strategy William stuck to for the rest of his life. He treated Peirce the way Emerson treated other people's books, he skimmed him, in effect, for insight and stimulation, and abandoned the effort at complete comprehension. Much of Peirce's work involving mathematics and logic, was, in any car, over James's heads. This style of intellectual friendship came to exasperate Peirce, who could never understand James's habit of bouncing off other people's ideas. But it suited James perfectly.

-- Part 3, Chapter 9, Section 1

e) "He was the kind of loner loneliness made miserable"

-- Part 3, Chapter 9, Section 2

f) Socrates was Wright's role model, but unlike Socrates, Wright had a doctrine. He was a positivist and positivism was the view he defended in conversation against all comers.

-- Part 3, Chapter 9, Section 2

Chapter Nine and the Week Nine non spoiler thread for The Metaphysical Club is open.

Please feel free to dive into the discussion on any of the ideas, people, events, groups, places, writings discussed in this chapter or anywhere before this chapter in the book. Take a look at the questions as a springboard for discussion or any of the quotes.

If you would like to discuss something completely different than what we have outlined above - by all means cite the quote from the chapter and jump in.

We look forward to reading your posts.

Who is going to be the first poster of the week?

We are kicking of this week with a quote at the beginning of Chapter 9 -

"It was in the earliest seventies that a knot of us young men in Old Cambridge, calling ourselves, half-ironically, half-defiantly, "The Metaphysical Club", for agnosticism was then riding its high horse, and was frowning superbly upon all metaphysics, used to meet, sometimes in my study, sometimes in that of William James, ' Charles Peirce wrote in 1907, in a manuscript he never published. The other members of the club, he recalled, were Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Nicholas St. John Green (a skillful lawyer and a learned one"), Joseph Banks Warner (also a lawyer), John Fiske, Francis Ellingwood Abbot and Chauncey Wright.

-- Chauncey Wright, the Cambridge Socrates, around 1870

How did you feel that finally in Chapter 9, the author actually talks about The Metaphysical Club? What were your impressions of this group of men and the reason that they named the group what they did? Had you imagined that there was a religious connotation to the name of the club - why or why not and what are your impressions of the chapter thus far?

Here is another quote which I thought we should discuss - I wondered to myself what these statements written to James's brother said about William James, his brother and Charles Sanders Peirce. Also, the reference by the author to Emerson and how I guess he never read anybody else's books - (just skimmed them) - said about their friend Ralph Waldo Emerson. Very peculiar set of relationships. Would you agree or not?

Here is the quote:

"Eventually, though, he discovered the formula. The way to treat him, he wrote in 1875 to his brother Henry, who had run into Peirce in Paris and was dining with him occasionally.

is after the fabled "nettle" receipt; grasp firmly, contradict, push hard, make fun of him, and he is as pleasant as anyone; but be overawed by his sententious manner and his paradoxical and obscure statements, wait upon them as it were, for light to dawn, and you will never get a feeling of ease with him any more than I did for years, until I changed my course & treated him more or less chaffingly. I confess I like him very much in spite of peculiarities, for he is a man of genius and there's always something in that to compel one's sympathy.

It was a strategy William stuck to for the rest of his life. He treated Peirce the way Emerson treated other people's books, he skimmed him, in effect, for insight and stimulation, and abandoned the effort at complete comprehension. Much of Peirce's work involving mathematics and logic, was, in any car, over James's heads. This style of intellectual friendship came to exasperate Peirce, who could never understand James's habit of bouncing off other people's ideas. But it suited James perfectly.

Note: In the discussion we do not have to cite any of the members of The Metaphysical Club or their immediate family because this is the subject of the book. Nor do we need to cite the book we are discussing or the author. But other people mentioned in the book who are authors - we do need to cite - in this case Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

For me, the question "Do you side with evolutionary thinkers or creationism thinkers?" is like asking, "Do you side with the geocentric or heliocentric theory of the solar system?" There is really no debate in science about evolution itself, only on the details of how it happened.

That does seem to be part of the discussion for this time period. Religion/Theology had such a hold on much of the culture and life of the people during this time. Science was beginning to pull away from the church/religion more and more.

(Page 230) "...that science, not theology , was the educational core of the future, ..."

This shift was difficult for many I think because of how much theology and religion was an integral part of the community.

We also see in this chapter our main characters all coming together. The different "clubs" seem to be their social interaction, and necessary for some of them to be able to communicate with other like-minded and intellectual equivalent (or almost) people.

I am not so sure that our main characters shaped the thinking the of the ordinary people of the nation so much as they discussed and recorded that thinking.

Jimmy wrote: "For me, the question "Do you side with evolutionary thinkers or creationism thinkers?" is like asking, "Do you side with the geocentric or heliocentric theory of the solar system?" There is really ..."

And it was interesting how our different characters agreed/disagreed/partially agreed with Darwin.

Jimmy - I think Kathy makes a good point. I am glad that you are joining in - we really appreciate your involvement.

Also, as much as I would agree that some things seem obvious - there are differences of opinion.

And even though we may agree on the science - many still do not _ I know that may be difficult to believe - but there are people who have different ways of looking at this even today.

I can almost hear you saying "how" and that there is no debate raging. And from my viewpoint I might agree with you. But the debate rages on for some folks.

And Kathy is right - it is part of the discussion for this time period (the time period being discussed in the book) - and right now in the United States there is still debate in certain states and in certain school districts.

Here is a wikipedia article that spells it out (controversy):





And:


And:




Or:

And I don't mean to say that Religion was/is bad. I personally do believe in God. But we need to remember that the Second Great Awaking was a part of this time period. This was discussed in earlier chapters - so people seem to really be searching for answers to many different types of questions and not just accepting the traditional philosophy that was taught to their ancestors.

I think this is an important point, even the ordinary laborer was beginning to ask new questions.

Very true Kathy and I guess what is nice about the US is that folks can believe what they want. Whether others believe it is true or not is irrelevant I guess.

I am very spiritual myself (and believe in God) but I think there is a push and pull between science and religious belief at some level. But that is another discussion.

As one of the articles pointed out, Bentley, "evolution is an undisputed fact in the scientific community." I understand that there are people out there who do not believe in it, but there is absolutely no controversy whatsoever in the legitimate scientific community. Evolution is an accepted fact and the foundation of virtually all science. I am dismayed by the massive amount of scientific ignorance that exists in this country and around the world. I look at Menand's book as sort of a story of the beginning of the modern world.

No disagreement from me (smile) but what we try to do when discussing a book with these kinds of theories, etc, is to show how the theory was accepted or not during the time period discussed in the book and then see if we can contextualize and see if there is any connection with how it is viewed today or is it absolutely discounted. And are there some folks still hanging on to this belief system.

To a lot of folks' surprise I am sure - within our country it is still being debated. Menand talks a lot about "modernity" and I agree with you again as to when it began.

You also understand however that many folks do not want to dispute the stories of the Bible, etc. or how the world was created. And many accept evolution side by side with their religious beliefs, etc. While others believe totally in Creationism or Evolution and do not blend the two. That is why I posted in message 21 that there is some tension between science and religious belief and folks do what they want to balance the two - or not.

A lot of folks have very different belief systems and it is pretty evident even in this country.

Here's what concerns me. This is a statement from another discussion:

"But everyone is entitled to their opinions and there are no wrong or right answers."

I find that statement to be false. There are right or wrong answers. And opinions do not mean everyone is entitled to their own facts. Evolution by natural selection is a perfect example of this.

Let me ask you a question - and you do not have to answer this - but do you believe in God and do you have a strong faith - and if you do how do you reconcile the two? Many people do. And again I am just posing a hypothetical question.

And further since we give everyone the right to believe and worship as they see fit - then if they want to leave fruit in a bowl in front of a statue - and think that this fruit is for some deity a type of offering - even though we believe that this is foolish - they are allowed to believe what they want to believe in this country.

I think what disturbs me is that local school boards are still debating whether this is going to be taught in school. There we do have a separation of church from state and it seems to me that this is sort of crossing a line somewhere whether you believe it or not.

I have stated when folks post that everyone "is entitled to their opinions and believe that strongly" as long as folks are being civil and respectful to each other. We may have folks in this very group who believe in Creationism and I am not going to tell them they are wrong to believe that way nor would I tell someone in China that clapping in front of one of their statues is not going to get the gods attention. I leave these things alone. I also have stated and we have stated this often here - that we do not prejudge a person or their post and we do not consider their posts to be graded. Today we know that what folks at Harvard believed about African Americans was hogwash.

But faith and religion are very powerful and many folks tend to believe what makes them secure. I do not need to burst their balloon.

I respect your views and agree with you but everybody is entitled to their own opinions even if they are wrong. You are right that everybody should be looking at the facts but in the case of many folks - faith does not have a check list and I guess they want to believe that God created heaven and earth and when you die you get to go to heaven.

I think you see the distinction as clear as day but you do not understand how others do not. I could ask the same question but I am not sure that we would get any satisfying answers.

In section 2 we are introduced to Chauncey Wright - the local Socrates.

I loved this quote that Menand used to describe Wright:

He was the kind of loner loneliness made miserable.

What are your first impressions of Wright and what do you think are his strengths and weaknesses. How do you feel about him in general and what did you think Menand meant when describing Wright this way?

Also, Menand wrote:

Socrates was Wright's role model, but unlike Socrates, Wright had a doctrine. He was a positivist and positivism was the view he defended in conversation against all comers.

What do you think Menand meant by this and what were the differences between Socrates and Wright - explain what positivism means to you and what did it mean to Wright?

Socrates

In response to your question in post 25, I am an atheist.

Thank you for your response - no response was necessary to my hypothetical question - but I suspected that might be the case.

Could you explain your comment in post 4, Bentley, where you say that Wright did not believe fully in evolution.

On page 210, Wright shows his understanding of how evolution does not mean progress. He was "one of the few 19th century Darwinians who thought like Darwin." It is not teleological.

It was a little more than a hypothetical question that served no purpose.

Jimmy, these are abstracts taken from the book itself - from my reading - beliefs in these theories during this period in our history which were true or false were evolving. And this discussion is not really about the moderator's beliefs but about how other group members interpreted what they read. Depending upon one's filters, folks read the same words and comprehend them differently. What was your interpretation of the chapter.

After reading the first few chapters of this book and reading about the theories at that time (for example Agassiz's) - one cannot help but feel that many of them did not mean progress - especially not culturally.

As far as not being teleological - which I guess you are interpreting as final causes exist in nature - I guess you are saying that Wright exhibited some Darwinian characteristics and did not believe the above.

After reading some of your posts - I remembered and looked up a passage from American Gods by Gaiman:

“I can believe things that are true and things that aren't true and I can believe things where nobody knows if they're true or not.

I can believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the Beatles and Marilyn Monroe and Elvis and Mister Ed. Listen - I believe that people are perfectable, that knowledge is infinite, that the world is run by secret banking cartels and is visited by aliens on a regular basis, nice ones that look like wrinkled lemurs and bad ones who mutilate cattle and want our water and our women.

I believe that the future sucks and I believe that the future rocks and I believe that one day White Buffalo Woman is going to come back and kick everyone's ass. I believe that all men are just overgrown boys with deep problems communicating and that the decline in good sex in America is coincident with the decline in drive-in movie theaters from state to state.

I believe that all politicians are unprincipled crooks and I still believe that they are better than the alternative. I believe that California is going to sink into the sea when the big one comes, while Florida is going to dissolve into madness and alligators and toxic waste.

I believe that antibacterial soap is destroying our resistance to dirt and disease so that one day we'll all be wiped out by the common cold like martians in War of the Worlds.

I believe that the greatest poets of the last century were Edith Sitwell and Don Marquis, that jade is dried dragon sperm, and that thousands of years ago in a former life I was a one-armed Siberian shaman.

I believe that mankind's destiny lies in the stars. I believe that candy really did taste better when I was a kid, that it's aerodynamically impossible for a bumble bee to fly, that light is a wave and a particle, that there's a cat in a box somewhere who's alive and dead at the same time (although if they don't ever open the box to feed it it'll eventually just be two different kinds of dead), and that there are stars in the universe billions of years older than the universe itself.

I believe in a personal god who cares about me and worries and oversees everything I do. I believe in an impersonal god who set the universe in motion and went off to hang with her girlfriends and doesn't even know that I'm alive. I believe in an empty and godless universe of causal chaos, background noise, and sheer blind luck.

I believe that anyone who says sex is overrated just hasn't done it properly. I believe that anyone who claims to know what's going on will lie about the little things too.

I believe in absolute honesty and sensible social lies. I believe in a woman's right to choose, a baby's right to live, that while all human life is sacred there's nothing wrong with the death penalty if you can trust the legal system implicitly, and that no one but a moron would ever trust the legal system.

I believe that life is a game, that life is a cruel joke, and that life is what happens when you're alive and that you might as well lie back and enjoy it.�
� Neil Gaiman, American Gods

by Neil Gaiman

Being a moderator - you have a certain element of acceptance of others and what they believe or not. I can relate to the passage above in some ways.

Jimmy wrote: "It was a little more than a hypothetical question that served no purpose."

I disagree - I got an answer and an explanation of the "certitude" you have about god not existing. That assisted my understanding of where you are coming from with your posts. It revealed a lot.

I look forward to reading more of your posts on the chapter or any of the chapters that have come before this one. You have an interesting viewpoint and I enjoy reading your posts. But let us get back to Metaphysics and Wright which you have aptly been doing.

Thank you for sharing.

Interesting posts, Bentley.

Let me explain my question in post 29. You said the following in post 4:

"Wright did not believe in evolution completely, because to him there were no such things as higher orders and lower orders to a species. There were just differences within the species, but the differences did not make one better than the other."

I don't understand that comment. I can't find it anywhere. I think it is a misrepresentation of the information. It could be true. It just makes no sense to me, and I can't find it in the book.

On page 210, what made Chauncey Wright more like Darwin than the other Darwinians of the time was his understanding that evolution is not progress. There is no ultimate goal. There is no force behind it, except the desire to survive and continue the species. The best example of that is of course the appendix.

Thanks Jimmy - great explanation. We appreciate it.

What a juicy juicy chapter. And what an interesting thread. That was a great list of questions, Bentley. I am pondering them all.

The value in this chapter (for me) was the realization that these men were discussing the role of "Belief" in general in our lives, and in our philosophies (in those instances where living and philosophizing were separate activities).

It is also very exciting to imagine these adult men debating and discussing -- passionately -- ideas that attempted to justify the integration of beliefs. Instead of arguing for or against the idea of god (and I noticed that the era was replete with 'agnostics,' not 'atheists'), or for or against the validity of science, they were wrapping their heads around cosmologies and theologies and probabilities. It just tickles me that statistics has such a prominent role in these initial discussions of metaphysics.

At that point in time, it was just as meaningful to question the role of science as it was the role of religion or spirituality. I think we've lost some of that ability in our 21st Century certainty that science is absolute. Remember, Darwin's theory has never been proven. There is simply no empirical evidence of the adaptation of bird beaks. It remains just a theory.

Menand's keeps ending the chapters with cliff-hangers. After this chapter, I thought to myself, what next? Because I feel like I'm being led provocatively down a path to some eventual final conclusions, among them the final definition of 'freedom,' which is the starting point for these United States.

And thank you, Bentley... I believe in Neil Gaiman ;)

Charles Darwin

Neil Gaiman

Janice, thanks for the comments. So well put.

Kathy, I notice by your name that you're the assistant moderator for "Health/Med/Science." Janice spoke of "Darwin's theory has never been proven" and "simply no evidence of the adaptation of bird beaks" and "It remains just a theory." That was like an underhanded softball toss, and all you can say is "So well put." Somehow I was expecting an explanation about the difference between a scientific theory and a random theory of say Kennedy's assassination. No such luck.

And with all due respect to that eminent philosopher, historian, and scientist Neil Gaiman, he is a fantasy writer.

Here is a story about the evolution of the beaks on the finches on the Galapagos Islands. It does come from Harvard. I hope that doesn't discourage anyone:



There are many more stories and videos on the topic. Scientists have spent their lives studying this phenomenon.

When I first joined this group by invitation, I was overwhelmed and impressed by all the lists that Bentley set up. Now I'm a bit underwhelmed. I am still going to assume there are others out there who are familiar with basic science and will comment.

Jimmy - there is no reason to be condescending to Kathy because she liked Janice's comments. And there is no reason to put folks down because they are "underwhelming you". Having been at Harvard myself for a time - I am not sure why you believe that this would discourage anyone. We are not about put downs here. We welcome everybody's posts and we show everybody civility and respect. I am not sure that you realize it but I think you are exemplifying the certitude that Oliver Wendell Holmes was talking about.

Here are some other articles on Finches on the Galapagos Islands.


And here is one Jimmy that I think you are going to love: (obviously put together by folks promoting the opposite)




And here is something for the members on scientific theory:



But Janice is right - at the end of the day - a theory is still a theory and not a law. And in thinking about this I am adding that I do not dispute the facts as we know them.

Love Neil Gaiman - he has an interesting belief system.

Jimmy, didn't you sign up for the discussion when the event notification was sent out. I am of course happy to hear from many different points of view but at the end of the day - folks are entitled to take away what they want.

Right now let us just get back to this chapter and try to not go off the deep end.

@Janice - love your posts as usual and you are right - this is not only a juicy chapter but proving to be a rather controversial one (smile).

Neil Gaiman

My favorite character of this group is Chauncey Wright who according to Menand had knack for assimilating ideas and could explain anything.

I liked his comparison of facts and values to the weather . . .
“Changes of growth are effected by those apparent hardships to which life is subject; and progression in new directions is effected by retrogression in previous modes of growth. The old leaves and branches must fall, the wood must be frost-bitten or dried, the substance of seeds must wither and then decay, the action of leaves must every night be reversed, vines and branches must be shaken by the winds, that the energies and the materials of new forms of life may be rendered active and available.� chap. 9 part 2

This thought provides an explanation for why events occur in our lives . . . their purpose is to provide us with an opportunity to learn from experience and be better able to cope with life.

“Wright did not consider himself an evolutionist. To him the term denoted a belief that the world was getting, on some definition, “better.� His loyalty was only to the theory of natural selection, which he thought corresponded perfectly to his notion of life as weather.� chap 9 part 2

I concur with this thought . . . this classroom of life provides many learning opportunities . . . but if the lesson is not understood . . . then the experience is worthless. And evolution only applies to becoming better adapted to the changes in the environment . . . not necessarily to a better understanding of your environment or the reason for your place in it.

“Atheism is speculatively as unfounded as theism, and practically can only spring from bad motives,� 26 he told Abbot), he was hostile to organized religion, which he considered oppression through the fetishization of words. “Religion� and “religious,� he wrote to Norton, are “good words through which one of the subtlest forms of tyranny is exercised over freedom of thought.� chap 9 part 2

I agreed with this thought as well as I've developed the belief that "religion" is the practice of a belief in God by a group. I myself do have a belief in a higher power but never thought I needed a group to interpret or explain it.

“If faith satisfied an emotional need, there was nothing more to be said about it, except that no one had the right to impose his or her religion on anyone else. Morality was another matter. Religion is personal and unconditional, but morality is social and conventional. Morals do not require philosophical grounding, and they can be imposed on other people, since they simply represent the rules a given society has found reason to enforce� chap 9 part 2

These are the ground rules that a society or group of people use to define how they wish to behave toward each other. And there are consequences for not following them.

Now we come to OWH2 . . .
“Holmes was never keen to acknowledge the influence of other people on his views, but he never had trouble acknowledging Wright’s.� . . . “And he therefore agreed with Wright that philosophy and logic don’t have much to do with the practical choices people make.� chap 9 part 3

I found his belief in 'bettabilitarianism' left a loophole for free will interesting but that he personally didn't believe in it was even more interesting since he spent a good portion of his life involved in the law and served so many years on the Supreme Court. Hmmmm, so where is this leading?

More to follow . . .

Janice also wrote, "It is also very exciting to imagine these adult men debating and discussing -- passionately -- " and I still say that was well put.

Stephen Jay Gould, a popular science writer -- not the science fiction writer, wrote an article, Evolution as Fact and Theory that might be of interest to this discussion. It is not a new article, and may appear dated to some.

A quote from the article, "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."

The article can be read online at:

Tomerobber, I too enjoyed Chauncey Wright the description of why he did not consider himself an evolutionist. And also what he thought of Agassiz and Herbert Spencer.

This has definitely been an enjoyable chapter and I re-read it just to see what I had missed the first time around. Like Janice, I am wondering, "What next?"

Louis Agassiz (no photo)
Stephen Jay Gould
Herbert Spencer

Tomerobber wrote: "My favorite character of this group is Chauncey Wright who according to Menand had knack for assimilating ideas and could explain anything.

I liked his comparison of facts and values to the weathe..."

Great post Tomerobber and you backed up your thoughts with references and quotes from the book itself.

I personally think that this would be a "tougher book" for those folks who do not have a background in science, mathematics, philosophy possibly because of the detail and the brief tidbits on a lot of theories, belief systems, science at the time and mathematics. Most of you are doing a splendid job of coping with the uncertainty of what is coming next in the book as well as all of the above.

Thank you Kathy for the article - I had to laugh when I read what Reagan said in one of his speeches:

Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Obviously political pandering - now let us look at what he said -

Well it is a theory - true
it is a scientific theory only - true
it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science (maybe)
not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was (which scientific community?? - and this is pretty much doublespeak and untrue - not to be as infallible as it once was (by whom I would ask).

Ronald Reagan

Also Kathy I was impressed by how deeply moved Gould was about his profession and how I guess in some respects it has been manipulated:

This is the part I am talking about:

Gould stated in his article:

I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad. Sad for many reasons. Sad because so many people who respond to creationist appeals are troubled for the right reason, but venting their anger at the wrong target. It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist. It is true that we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us�"Scientists say that Brand X cures bunions ten times faster than�"

We have not fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new priesthood. It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities. I can understand that school curricula, imposed from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds. But the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any other fact of the natural world. Identify and fight our legitimate enemies by all means, but we are not among them.

I am sad because the practical result of this brouhaha will not be expanded coverage to include creationism (that would also make me sad), but the reduction or excision of evolution from high school curricula. Evolution is one of the half dozen "great ideas" developed by science. It speaks to the profound issues of genealogy that fascinate all of us—the "roots" phenomenon writ large. Where did we come from? Where did life arise? How did it develop? How are organisms related? It forces us to think, ponder, and wonder. Shall we deprive millions of this knowledge and once again teach biology as a set of dull and unconnected facts, without the thread that weaves diverse material into a supple unity?

But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.

But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost."

(Source:)

Stephen Jay Gould

Here is some housekeeping:

Folks, if you are discussing and mentioning any of the members of the Metaphysical Club which this book is about, or The Metaphysical Club book or its author Louis Menand - you do not have to repeatedly do citations on any of those folks including: Holmes, Green, Dewey, Wright, James and others. I am also setting up separate threads for those folks.

But if you mention Gaiman, Gould, Reagan, Darwin, etc - then they have to be cited.

I am going back and checking to make sure that I did the above and will do any edits necessary and will let you know in this post - if I see some citations missing - I would appreciate your just editing your posts and adding the citations so that your post can be accessed and counted and most importantly so that the goodreads software can cross populate our site with this information and on the profiles of these folks who are authors in their own right even if we know them as scientists or presidents.

Also you will notice on the right hand side of the thread in the margin - goodreads also tracks the books, people and authors that are discussed if we cite them properly and how many of us cited them. This is important because it not only provides helpful links but it makes your post stand out and that means it can be accessed by folks looking for information on that author or book.

If you click on other topics on the right hand side - you will see some examples how the citations does the indexing automatically when you cite an author or a book which is helpful for everyone.

Jimmy - message 37, 33, 29 - for 37 citations for Darwin, Gaiman, Kennedy are missing - please edit and for message 33 - simply Darwin, message 29 - Darwin

Neil Gaiman

Charles Darwin

John F. Kennedy

Folks, I was so caught up in the discussion - I forgot myself and just went back and fixed things up on any of my omissions. Thanks for your cooperation and thanks to Kathy, Janice G, Jimmy, Tomerobber who are posting with some different but thought provoking viewpoints which makes for a great discussion. Those of you who are out there reading the book - do not be shy - just jump right in.

Jimmy wrote: "Kathy, I notice by your name that you're the assistant moderator for "Health/Med/Science." Janice spoke of "Darwin's theory has never been proven" and "simply no evidence of the adaptation of bird ..."

Don't get me wrong here, I have no argument with Darwin, or all things scientific. If I remember my anthropology courses, Darwin's use of "survival of the fittest" for natural selection has been misinterpreted by those of us not well-versed in the hard sciences to mean that only the strong or aggressive (or adaptable) of the species survive, while its actual meaning refers to reproduceability -- those that are able to reproduce are the fittest, and survive. Any number of variables could apply to why any single specimen or group in a species is able to reach an age of reproduceability, among them of course is adaptability.

But this is an example of the point I was trying to make... Menand's already makes it clear that popular belief about scientific data or theory can be misinterpreted and fall wide of the truth. Besides that, the data and the conclusions can (and do) change. Science is not infallible, belief systems are not infallible, and certainly religions are not infallible (even tho' they may claim otherwise... a risky type of certainty).

What I found so rewarding about this chapter is that the members of the Metaphysical Club embraced the concept of fallibility in all fields and philosophies, just as the law of errors was embraced in mathematics. Instead of each man having an agenda to only uphold and understand his own belief, these men opened their minds to each other and looked to transcend the flaws and confusions with more holistic concepts. This is the method of pure scientific research. This is what I found so exciting.

I am currently reading The Stars My Destination, and in it the protagonist, who has been floating alone in a wrecked spaceship in space for many months, is captured by a "savage" population of an asteroid. These "savages" are the descendants of the crew of a rocket ship from earth that had crash landed on the asteroid 300 years ago. They had had no contact with any other humans in decades. When the protagonist regains consciousness after his capture, he sees he is surrounded by these savages, and their spokesperson says to him,

"You are the first to arrive alive in fifty years. You are a puissant man. Very. Arrival of the fittest is the doctrine of Holy Darwin. Most scientific."

Just an example of our fallibility as human beings.

Charles Darwin

Alfred Bester

I love your posts Janice - they are always full of "original thought" and it is so refreshing.

The part I liked the best was this paragraph:

What I found so rewarding about this chapter is that the members of the Metaphysical Club embraced the concept of fallibility in all fields and philosophies, just as the law of errors was embraced in mathematics. Instead of each man having an agenda to only uphold and understand his own belief, these men opened their minds to each other and looked to transcend the flaws and confusions with more holistic concepts. This is the method of pure scientific research. This is what I found so exciting.

There does not seem to be anybody on the thread who is questioning Darwin and nobody has surfaced on any of these threads who claims to be a Creationist so I think we are all violently "agreeing" with each other. The only questions of interpretation are how Menand is interpreting these theories etc. and of course we will probably find as many different interpretations and nuances as there are readers.

Thank you by the way for the edit - very much appreciated.

“If faith satisfied an emotional need, there was nothing more to be said about it, except that no one had the right to impose his or her religion on anyone else. Morality was another matter. Religion is personal and unconditional, but morality is social and conventional. Morals do not require philosophical grounding, and they can be imposed on other people, since they simply represent the rules a given society has found reason to enforce� chap 9 part 2

The part about morals in this quote bothers me. What about when you have two societies with different morals (Southern slave owners and Abolitionists for example) that are part of the same political entity. Who gets to do the imposing? Is this where "might makes right" becomes the philosophical underpinning of which set of morals should be imposed?

What about societies that are not in the same political entity? Do we have a "right" to impose our morals on them because we disagree with certain customs such as burning widows on their husbands funeral pyres?

@Bentley I was sure I saw a comment where you wrote abut the decline in moral values. I can't locate it right now. I am pretty sure it was in a previous chapter thread. Are morals like evolution? Evolution has no implied direction so it is pointless to talk of higher animals vs lower animals. Is it pointless to talk of higher morals and lower morals. Are they directionless?

That is strange - I did post a comment like that - That is interesting - I think civility and non predatory behavior can be taught or conditioned or learned but evolved is an interesting idea. I guess it could be - if folks are conditioned to certain behavior over time - why wouldn't their brain respond accordingly and learn or embed or imprint that kind of behavior over time and become part of the DNA passed down through generations as behavioral characteristics.

I think morals may be based on what has been agreed upon that traditionally "works" for a society or culture, and there seem to be cross-cultural agreements on a few basic morals such as murder, incest, and robbery. Maybe we could trace these back to when pre-history tribes and groups were trying to survive, and these were agreed upon because they threatened the survival of the tribe. So, we could have inherited these basic morals genetically... certainly our reaction to them seems visceral and instinctive across the human species.