Memes to Genes?

When examining the concept of memes proposed by Darwin I was wondering if these led to evolution. Do memes facilitate natural selection? Is this this one of the basis for choosing which physical traits will succeed. Are those who don't follow memes weeded out? I was just wondering if memes could be one of the first steps in natural selection and then evolution. Or do memes come and go to fast to have any effect.

Response to "The Importance of Science"

I strongly agree that science should be used when creating theories of human nature. We can use material evidence to try to explain why we do the things we do. My one warning in using science, is to be aware of the fact that there is a lot of things that we do not understand. We can be deceived in believing science has given us the answer, when in fact we are still missing information. At one point we "knew" the earth was flat, and i am 100% confident that there is something right now we think we "know" that will be proven false. Science definitely should be used in creating theories of human nature, however we should use it cautiously.

No Equal Worth?

Nietzsche believes that if we realize there is no rational basis for believing in God than the notion of equal worth would dissolve. My problem with this claim is that often times religion is the cause of people feeling superior to others. They will have the attitude that they are better than someone else because they are Catholic, Muslim, ext. it seems as though the notion of all humans being equal is rooted in the fact that nobody would want to be treated worse than someone else. This can seem like a selfish concept, but if everyone wants to be treated at least as well as others, they would rather settle for equality, rather than failing to reach superiority and being treated as an inferior being. To me removing religion might enhance the idea of equal worth by removing the one way thinking of what it means to be a good person.

Freud vs. Marx - Religion - Response to Dom Cooper's Response

I agree with you that it is problematic when people interpret the bible "literally." However I believe interpreting the bible is a little more complex than interpreting a Christmas story. While I believe the key points in both are the morals, the difference is there is some factual truth to the bible. Most scholars would agree that Jesus did exist, or that he was crucified. this is where I believe the difficulty comes in, which stories to take literally and which ones to just take the morals away. My rule of thumb would be always accept the most logical, and least miraculous explanation. The whole point of this post is that I believe interpreting the bible can be tricky because some of the writing have some "literal" truth to them, while others are just morals.

response to "Nightmares, a glitch in the system "

I tend to think that Freud has touched on a good topic about dreams deeper meanings. A few of my main thoughts on dreams would be
1) They can and do have some underlying meaning
2) They don't always have to have such a deep meaning that Freud is looking for
3) We are still very far away from being able to truly understand them

I believe that we have begun to be able to decode simple messages, ex/ something representing something else, but I also believe that we could hear two different interpretations of a dream, have multiple "experts" agree on each different one. My overall belief on dreams is that we ave discovered that they can have meaning, but we are just scratching the surface on how to find this meaning.

Rejecting Sex Drive

Overall I seem to find a strong tendency for people not to agree, or "Want" to agree with with Freud that sex plays a huge role in our decision making, and daily life. While I definitely would not take it as far as Freud and say that sex is the answer to explaining almost everything we do, I accept the idea that it strongly influences us. It seems as though society has built in a negative connotation to someone being influenced or motivated by sex. I think Freud has over exaggerated the effects, but it still plays a major role in making up who we are. Marketing has shown it is very powerful, yet most people seem to say something like "Well it seems to work on a lot of people" as if to exclude them self. It seems as though a lot of people either won't accept, or don't realize that it is also working on them. I was really hoping to get some more feedback on this topic, either an explanation as to why you believe this to be true, or a contrasting opinion thanks

Nature vs Nurture?

The question raised in our Q&A's about the quote "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness" seemed to be more tied into our previous debate about nature vs nurture, than it did to Communism. In this quote Marx definitely seems to be siding on the nurture side of the debate, by saying society makes the person, but the person does not make society. It is not exactly the same as the nature vs nurture debate as Marx is talking about the nature of humans as a group not individual characteristic, however he is expressing an opinion that society shapes people. it is just interesting to see how all of these debates tie together.

Respnse to "Fear of Marxism"

While I believe there are multiple intellectual arguments that could be made against Marxism, it appears obvious to me that the overwhelming reason Americans reject the ideas are because of the relationship and connections Marxism has to the Soviet union. While most of these associations are false, or misinterpreted, most people are not aware of the mistake they are making in associating the two. I believe that Americans as a whole still can't separate the ideas and concepts of Marxism from the Soviet Union, therefore they can not objectively look at the theories.