Category: Evolution

Evolution is the process by which generations of species undergo some changes in their biological traits over a given period. There are two theories that explain the process of evolution. They include phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Scientists maintain that evolution can only happen as described by the theories (National Academy of Sciences 78).

Phyletic gradualism is a theory that explains a slow and consistent process of evolution that occurs in biological species. It further maintains that change in characteristics of these taxonomic groups involves splitting of the hereditary features of the species into different traits in the subsequent generations.

On the other hand, punctuated equilibrium is an evolutionary theory, which holds the belief that the process of change in biological characteristics is extremely fast. Punctuated equilibrium occurs immediately, and with respect to geology. People rarely notice the changed forms of the species because they exist and disappear very fast (Cook 53).

Punctuated equilibrium makes the prediction of an impossibility in recording the characteristic changes whenever there is registration of an evolutionary process. For instance, there may be records of the ancestors of some species having resided at a certain place. At the same time, there could be a new taxonomic group undergoing evolution in a different area.

The theory also predicts a reduction in the likelihood of ossification among the members (Ross 108). Several processes can lead to rapid evolution. These include rivers that contain toxic substances and changes in climate. Rivers with toxicants can result in the evolution of the fish that lives in its water. These toxicants remain on the riverbeds and do not undergo any process of break down.

Scientists have made a discovery that fish, which lives in rivers contaminated with PCBs, normally evolve and develop some forms of characteristics that poisons from PCBs do not affect. The evolution happens very fast and in response to the effects of the toxicants present in the water of the rivers (Grant 133).

Climate change also culminates in a faster evolutionary process that may lead to a rapid change in the DNA of the species. After analyzing the DNA of penguins that existed more than six thousand years ago and those that are still existing, scientists discovered that there was an alteration in the sequence of the genes before ending up with the current species.

This happened without any variation in the physical appearances of the penguins (Grant 134). Environment is one of the factors that may lead to relative stasis. Semi-permanent stableness of the environment is one of the key factors that encourage evolutionary stasis. Any climatic change may result in the development of a new form of a disease.

If there is no alteration in the climate, there will be no stress on the biological species. This ends up in lack of evolution because the species remain contented with everything around them. Unavailability of predatory animals may also lead to relative stasis. The species may only evolve in order to adapt to a dangerous environment if there is an existing danger.

Absence of predators means no threat to the species hence no need for change (Ross 144). There are several evidences put forward to show that there was life on earth in the early days. Scientists use stromatolites as proof for existence of organisms that had microscopic size, which lived a long time ago, and participated in the development of the sedimentary rocks.

They claim that the microorganisms died, and their bodies formed the rocks. Carbon presence can also provide proof for living things having occupied the earth at the beginning. Living things do ingest carbon-12 (¹²C). Carbon-14 (¹⁴C) exists for a short time compared to ¹²C because it is a radioactive element. The existence of ¹²C bespeaks presence of life, or life that existed.

Rocks with¹²C show that life existed in that area. There are numerous rocks, whose ages may be four billion years old and have ¹²C (Grant 186). Upon looking at the differences in species characteristics and their changes, one discovers that the changes are minimal. This means that the evolutionary process was much slower. For example, one generation of fish species existed and did not have the surface for jawbones.

One hundred years after the existence of the species with no jawbones, the subsequent generation that went through evolution developed jawbones. That is the only difference between the two generations. Another example is in the rocks with traces of microorganisms. There are remains of microorganisms with single cells in a rock that is five hundred and fifty million years old.

A second rock that is five hundred years old has microorganisms with multiple cells. Changes in cells are the only evolutionary processes seen in the microorganisms (Hey 173). Fossil records act as support for punctuated equilibrium. There are cases of tracing a species only within certain duration of time, and then it disappears completely.

The species took long before undergoing any form of characteristic change and then evolved very fast, leaving no evidences for its initial form (Ross 57). In conclusion, evolution is a process that can occur acutely fast or slow. It can lead to the complete disappearance or change in some characteristics of the species. Pollution of the environment and changes in climate may lead to evolution.

People should ensure that toxicants do not find their way into the environment. They should also ensure that they do not engage in activities that may result in climatic alterations, which may culminate in evolution. There are evidences of life in the early years, but the species disappeared due to ecological changes.

Works Cited

Cook, Fuller Orator. Methods and Causes of Evolution. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1908. Print.

Grant, Peter R., & Grant, Rosemary B. In Search of the Causes of Evolution: From Field Observations to Mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print.

Hey, Jody. Genes, Categories, and Species : The Evolutionary and Cognitive Cause of evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.

National Academy of Sciences. In the Light of Evolution III: Two Centuries of Darwin. Washington: National Academies Press, 2009. Print.

Ross, Robert M. , & Allmon Warren D. Causes of Evolution: A Paleontological Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Print.

Introduction

During the entire history of humans, religion and science have been opposed to each other, providing different perspectives on the same issues. This also regards the topic of the creation of the world. The adheres to the theory of divine spark and pays special attention to the ability of organisms to adapt to various conditions and the complexity of their structure. They claim that these specialties can only be explained by the fact that the world has been designed by an intellectual creature. However, science offers another option in this respect, namely the theory of evolution advanced by Charles Darwin implies the gradual development of the organisms from simple forms to more complex ones. In present-day developments, the latter appears to be more popular and convincing for a vast majority of people. Darwins theory is also taught in all educational institutes. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to review the arguments of both perspectives and decide whether creationism may present an appropriate alternative to evolutionism.

Evolutionism

Approximately in the middle of the 19th century, Charles Darwin advanced the theory of evolution in the book The Origin of Species. His ideas and their modern improvements present the base of evolutionism. Darwins theory implies two major principles, and the first one regards all present-day life. All the organisms, which exist in the modern world, are not the product of separate creation, and all of them are connected via a common family tree. Therefore, it is possible to find a common ancestor for two organisms while observing their and their relatives past.

After getting acquainted with the first position, a logical question follows regarding the appearance of new characteristics during the process of evolution. In case all the organisms are related to each other, a broad variety of species requires further explanations (Deloria, 2016). Consequently, the second part of Darwins theory appears to be a logical supplement to the first one and implies natural selection, which is an essential part of life for all species. This thesis is intended to rationalize the appearance of new characteristics and their spreading among organisms and give reasons for the disappearance of old characteristics (Deloria, 2016). The strongest point of this idea is the fact that it has a great number of applications. Genetic mutations present the reason for the diversity of organisms on the planet, and their impact can be perceived in the long run.

These days, the ideas of Charles Darwin with modern corrections are fundamental for biology and other sciences. Scientific knowledge and evolutionism imply the presence of evidence for each thesis. Science is impossible without logical explanations and cause-effect links. The knowledge is acquired via experiments, explorations, and in-depth analyses, which are intended to support or contradict a particular position. According to Sagan (1997), science is not the body of knowledge and presents a way of thinking. Thus, this approach involves skepticism, which is essential for constructing, evaluating, and understanding arguments (Raymo, 1998; Sagan, 1997). In addition, science indicates core assumptions, which present the base for further explorations, and is determined to achieve absolute truth. Consequently, the events, which cannot be explained from the perspective of logic, are beyond the reach of scientific cognition.

Creationism

As has been mentioned above, creationism implies a theory that supports the idea of intelligent design. It should be noted that there are numerous contradictions within creationism, especially regarding the different points of the features of the living world. For instance, adherers disagree on the age of the earth. Some of them believe it is relatively young, and its age is approximately 10,000 years old (Deloria, 2016). Others claim that according to the newest geological figures, it may be considered ancient (Deloria, 2016). There are also different perspectives on the aspect of the process of creation. Some supporters suppose that there is a single designer for all the organisms on the planet, while there are adherers that share Darwins theory to some extent and believe in a common ancestor (Deloria, 2016). Furthermore, other aspects, which cause multiple debates among creationists, also exist. In general, almost all the views are common in the assumption that God is the designer of all the creatures on the earth, and he is responsible for starting the process of evolution, which can be characterized by mindlessness.

As for the arguments supporting this theory, the most frequently repeated one implies some bewilderment. An illustrative example of this argument could be the claims of the invalidity of evolutionism, which are based on the inability to provide appropriate evidence for events and processes in the distant past with considerable certainty (Deloria, 2016). Another aspect, which contributes to decreasing the credibility of creationism, is discussions on the topic of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The supporters highlight that this law does not include the process of creating order from disorder, and this fact is also applied to natural processes. Therefore, the position of adherers in respect involves the belief that the aforementioned law contradicts the statement that life appears from non-life. However, it is essential to take into consideration that the Second Law of Thermodynamics regards only a closed system and does not provide information on other systems.

Thus, it may be concluded that this approach does not imply achieving an absolute truth. In general, unlike science, creationism is based on beliefs, which are not supported by precise evidence (Raymo, 1998). This theory does not involve strong and undeniable arguments, and people are free to adhere to such theses, which respond to their spiritual requests. Therefore, beliefs, various cultural practices, and sacred truths present the primary way of acquiring knowledge in the context of creationism (Raymo, 1998). It does not imply logical explanations for theses, and belief is the core paradigm for this approach.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be covered that creationism implies a significant variety of forms, and for this reason, this approach includes multiple perspectives on the same subjects. The assumption that God made all the organisms on the planet the way that they are perfectly adjusted to the environment does not have sufficient argumentation. In addition, the version that God influences the traits of the creature of the world to some extent, cannot be tested at all. Furthermore, there are numerous positions within creationism, and they tend to contradict each other. It is also worthy of being highlighted that creationism does not advance convincing arguments opposing Darwins theory of evolution.

On the contrary, evolutionism implies a comprehensive picture in respect of the creation of all the organisms on the planet. It is supported by strong arguments, which supplement each other. In addition, this theory can be applied to explaining other events in nature. Therefore, it is evident that evolutionism is significantly stronger than creationism in the context of argumentation and structuration. However, scientific knowledge is impossible without evidence, and the theory of evolution cannot be tested in practice. In case of further scientific progress, there is a likelihood that this theory may be changed. In addition, science still contains some gaps, which cannot be explained from the perspective of logic.

This way, it is possible to assume that logic is not capable of giving reasons for every event in the world. Furthermore, it may be hypothesized that peoples minds cannot cognize all the laws and principles of living in the entire world. In this respect, creationism appears to be more convincing, as it is based on beliefs, which are impossible to be evaluated from the perspective of logic.

References

Deloria, V. (2016). Evolution, creationism, and other modern myths: A critical injury. Fulcrum Publishing.

Raymo, C. (1998). Skeptics and true believers: The exhilarating connection between science and religion. Walker Publishing Company, Inc.

Sagan, C. (1997). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. The Random House Publishing Group.

Homo Sapiens Invasions

The evolution of human beings on Earth was a complicated process related to animal extinctions. Some scholars connect the latter to human activities, while others explain everything by natural conditions changes. The recent scholarly findings prove that invasions of Homo sapiens to the Austronesian and American continents were the major factors that conditioned the extinction of numerous animal species (Carroll, 2001, pp. 81  82). These data allow at least hypothesizing that the recent scholarly findings bring the science closer to defining actual causes of animal species extinction, unknown to the prior scholars.

Hunting

Hunting that was widely practiced by the Homo sapiens at the initial stages of their development is considered to be one of the main causes of animal extinction (University of Exeter, 2008). The findings of scholars from the University of Exeter seem to prove that hunting, but not climate change or any other naturally conditioned factors, caused the extinction of giant marsupials, also known as the Austronesian megafauna (University of Exeter, 2008). Prior scholarly views on climate change as the main extinction cause were based on the data that giant marsupials in the Austronesian continent became extinct 46,000 years ago, while humans came to the continent only 43,000 years ago.

However, recent research proved that some marsupial species were observed in the continent 41,000 years ago, i. e. 2,000 years after the Homo sapiens arrived. At the same time, the climate did not change essentially during those years, while hunting became used extensively, which allows scholars to argue about hunting as the major extinction factor (University of Exeter, 2008).

Habitat Loss

Further on, Klein (2002) argues about four other causes of animal extinction, and all of them are human-related. These four extinction factors are habitat loss, natural mass extinction, environmental pollution, and the combination of the first three that resulted in species mutations (p. 376). Habitat loss is argued to be the main of those four reasons, and again, it was caused by extensive human activities. Hunting provided Homo sapiens with food and improved their living conditions. The latter impacted the population growth and the need for large settlements (Klein, 2002, p. 378). As a result, the natural habitats of numerous animal species were destroyed to provide living space to human beings.

Environment Change

The pollution of the environment is thus the second most important extinction factor. Klein (2002) calls the Homo sapiens to be the dirtiest animal species on Earth and supports the point with substantial evidence (p. 378). From such a discussion, one can conclude that the waste that human activities bring to the environment makes the life of other species impossible in their natural habitats or in other places where living conditions were acceptable before human beings arrived.

Mutations

Finally, the sum of all the above factors might have caused the mutation of animal species and conditioned their subsequent extinction (Carroll, 2001, p. 182; Klein, 2002, p. 391). The point can be better illustrated by the Allele frequency and relative fitness equations.

Thus, supposing that before the effects of human activities conditioned the extinction of giant marsupials in the Austronesian continent a sample of ten of these animals had only AA or Aa genotypes (AA, AA, AA, Aa, AA, Aa, Aa, Aa, Aa, AA), their Allele frequency will be:

• pA = 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 / 20 = 0.75 = 75%
• pa = 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 0 / 20 = 0.25 = 25%

So, we can assume that the AA genotype was the natural genotype of the Austronesian marsupials. However, the human activities changed the genotype and increased the number of aa genes into the population (AA, aa, aa, Aa, aa, aa, Aa, Aa, aa, AA):

• pA = 2 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 2 / 20 = 0.35 = 35%
• pa = 0 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 0 / 20 = 0.65 = 65%

Thus, it is obvious that human activities might have changed the genotypes of the animals, deprived them of their natural qualities, and cause their extinction. Further on, the relative frequency of the genes also proves this point. The absolute frequency before and after the human invasion is supposed to be:

Accordingly, the relative frequency before the human invasions was always the highest (1), while after the invasions it changed to 0.4 and 0.6 in AA and Aa types respectively, while the mutated genotype aa acquired the highest relative frequency 1. So, the effects of human activities seem to be more important for animal extinctions than climate change and other natural conditions.

References

Carroll, Sean. From DNA to diversity: molecular genetics and the evolution of animal design. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001. Print.

Klein, Jan. Where do we come from?: the molecular evidence for human descent. NY: Springer, 2002. Print.

The University of Exeter. Humans Implicated In Prehistoric Animal Extinctions With New Evidence. Science Daily, 2008. Web.

Introduction

International organizations and institutions set and execute rules in societies across the world. These rules are akin to constraints that shape how humans behave. Consequently, they define incentives concerning social, political, as well as human economic exchanges. Since organizations and institutions determine how communities change over time, they are important in comprehending historical contexts (Li and Abiad 1). These bodies impact the performance of state economies. In addition, that the differential outcomes of economies in several periods are influenced by how these bodies evolve is also not debatable. Immediately the World War I ended, policymakers in the West started to establish steps that could guarantee Europe as well as other parts of the global security. The measures they adopted were founded on institutional platforms, which defined and implemented security measures (Li and Abiad 1). However, in doing so, they did not take into account the role of balance-of-power politics in the post-Cold War. When Clinton was campaigning in 1992, he said that it was cynical to champion power politics in a world where people were entitled to freedom (Mearsheimer 12; Wallander 706). Later, his administration criticized the former political regime for looking at the world via a prism that was typified by relatively high levels of the classic balance of power.

In this context, it can be stated that this strategy of international politics recognizes the belief that organizations and institutions are key ways of promoting peace around the world. To be specific, Western policymakers argue that the bodies that served the West very well before the collapse of the Soviet Union should be reorganized to incorporate Eastern Europe (Wendt 76). Some of these institutions include the European Community (EC), the Western European Union (WEU), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (Li and Abiad 5; Nugent 44). This essay discusses how international organizations and institutions have changed over the years and whether they constrain state behavior based on their mandates. Moreover, it discusses how these bodies have failed or succeeded in their mission. Peacekeeping, international trade, and development are the focal areas of discussion.

The Evolution and Constraints

The Versailles Peace Conference in 1919 is one of the earliest starting points of influential international organizations and institutions. In attendance at the conference were victorious power representatives, state interest groups, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) championing varied objectives such as better public health outcomes, improved working conditions for employees around the world, and reviewed laws of war. Those who represented states were keen on creating an international body that would handle world peace as well as economic and social issues. Their arguments were founded on long experience of peaceful co-operation among European states, but they were underpinned by private international organizations that were established in the 1899 and 1907 conferences in The Hague (Archer 2; Keohane 387). Nevertheless, they created the League of Nations and the International Labor Organization (ILO).

The Versailles Conference in 1919 was attended by heads of state and government, ministers in charge of foreign affairs, and their advisers (Archer 5). The meeting was concerned with international peace, although social and economic issues were introduced and considered during the proceedings. Since World War I had just ended, the conference was tasked with creating a treaty that would enhance interstate relations both in the short and long run (Archer 21). To understand why international organizations and institutions began to grow in the 19^th century, it is critical to reveal the reasons for their nonexistence before that time. First, these bodies had to wait for the establishment of more stable states in Europe. Second, powers demonstrated by both the papacy and the Roman Empire could not allow a unifying body in Europe. Third, the international organizations that operated outside Europe before the region was integrated into the European system were not keen on founding another body. However, in the second half of the 19^th century, international unions, as well as private associations, burgeoned. The most notable conference around that time was the World Anti-Slavery Convention in 1840 that had an impact on bodies such as the International Institute of Agriculture, the Universal Peace Congress, as well as the International Law Association (Archer 23; Pond 9). Notably, the founding of the United Nations Organization was based on the need to predict the future needs of its members.

Nevertheless, it can be stated that as global organizations and bodies evolve, they constrain country behavior in compliance with their mandates. There has been a growing number of powerful commitments as supported by global bodies since WWI to incorporate customary practices into tools that have international legal significance (Hasenclever et al. 17). Due to these constraints, states cannot uphold their legal sovereignty, implying that they are left with no authority to determine the acceptability of their national policies in the context of global relations.

The issues

In trying to answer whether international institutions and organizations are doing their job, it should be understood that member states constitute these bodies. Thus, their failings and successes are attributed to their members. If these bodies fail people, it is because countries fail their citizens. Moreover, if states fail their populations, it is because individuals do not hold their countries responsible. What this implies is that political democracy entrusts every individual in a society with the role of identifying and promoting things that are associated with particular levels of significance (Mearsheimer 5; Simmons and Martin 195). In other words, international organizations and institutions are mere instruments, which cannot be likened to independent actors.

There is evidence of the success of these bodies in several spheres of life. First, they have succeeded in the creation of a world economy and international development of markets as evidenced by the change of GATT to WTO, the establishment of a free-trade region in South America, the evolution of the European Community into the European Union, and the creation of NAFTA from the American-Canadian Free Trade Area. In this context, it can be argued that economics (global trade) has been top of the agenda of international bodies (Nugent 39). Consequently, the thriving of global trade has led to unprecedented levels of international development across all sectors of the economy. Second, international institutions and organizations have led to the creation of security and conflict resolution strategies across borders.

The UN Security Council, as well as General Assembly, undertook and authorized operations in the Persian Gulf, Haiti, Namibia, and Mozambique. However, it is critical to underscore that peacekeeping missions have changed over time. For example, they have evolved from maintaining buffer zones (in the Sinai case) to monitoring the demilitarization of armed factions (in the Nicaragua case) (Durch 154). Moreover, peacekeeping missions have been shifted to overseeing elections and ensuring that there are conflict-free transitions of power as demonstrated in Namibia. To support these efforts, the UN can sometimes oversee the administration of territories and states such as Cambodia as well as Western Sahara cases (Ten Years after UNTAC 3). There has been an evolution of treaties and institutions such as NATO and ASEAN to handle highly dynamic issues like chemical warfare. In addition, the creation of the ICJ has helped to hold leaders responsible for their acts of atrocities.

Despite the successes highlighted above, these bodies have supported the resurgence of neo-tribalism because they hold the principle of self-determination. Notably, while addressing the Versailles Conference, Lord Keynes stated that the notion of self-determination would aid ethnic conflict and, consequently, minimize the benefits of trade. The multinational state system has constrained the actions of member countries, leading to relatively high levels of decolonization. Finally, as global organizations thrive, they transit to centers where important decisions about distributions of products are made. A state should be a member of a global body, such as the General Assembly, the World Bank, and the Universal Postal Union, among others, to make contributions (Mearsheimer 34; Pond 8). This is one of the factors that promote the tribal concept into a political strategy

Conclusions

In conclusion, international organizations and institutions shape how societies behave, and they also impact their politics and economics. The founding of the current global bodies was influenced by past social, political, and economic trends around the globe. The evolution period is long; starting from the second half of the 18^th century to date. Although these institutions have faced numerous turbulent times, they have delivered positive outcomes in the establishment of a global economy as well as the development of markets. In addition, they have helped to create strategies geared toward maintaining world peace. For example, the UN peacekeeping missions have evolved with time to cater to the complex needs of member states such as smooth transitions of political leadership. However, these organizations have failed to end decolonization, ethnicity, and neo-tribalism.

Works Cited

Archer, Clive. Definitions and History. International Organizations. 2nd ed., edited by Archer Clive, New York, NY: Routledge, 1992, pp. 1-33.

Durch, William J. Building on Sand: UN Peacekeeping in the Western Sahara. International Security, vol. 17, no. 4, 1993, pp. 151-171.

Hasenclever et al. Conceptual Issues: Defining International Regimes. Theories of International Regimes, edited by Hasenclever et al., Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 8-22

Keohane, Robert O. International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 4, 1988, pp. 379-396.

Li, Wei, and Victor Abiad. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Mearsheimer, John J. The false promise of international institutions. International Security, vol. 19, no. 3, 1994, pp. 5-49.

Nugent, Neill. The Creation and Development of the European Community. The Government and Politics of the European Union, edited by Neill Nugent, New York, NY: Palgrave, 1994, pp. 38-54.

Pond, Elizabeth. Come Together: Europes Unexpected New Architecture. Foreign Affairs, vol. 20, no. 3, 2000, pp. 8-12.

Simmons, Beth and Lisa Martin International Organizations and Institutions. Handbook of International Relations, edited by Carlsnaes et al., New York, NY: Sage Publications, 2001, pp. 192-211.

Ten Years after UNTAC: Embedded Norms and Institutions of Democracy in Cambodia. Dissertation.

Wallander, Celeste A. Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO after the Cold War. International Organization, vol. 54, no. 4, 2000, pp. 705-735.

Wendt, Alexander. Constructing International Politics. International Security, vol. 20, no. 1, 1995, 71-81.

Objection

Since human beings evolved from primitive creatures which did not have minds, it is implausible to suppose that at some point Mother Nature somehow created immaterial Cartesian minds in addition to cells and physical organs.

Introduction

In general, according to this objection, it is improbable that Mother Nature created an immaterial Cartesian mind in addition to a physical body, as there is strong evidence proving the theory of evolution that shows that human beings and other creatures evolved over billions of years, only with the help of natural selection and physical processes. Otherwise, evolution would have had to create immaterial minds at some point in human beings lineage (Heil 42).

Main body

This objection can also be extended to non-dualists, and the question of why nature did suddenly create consciousness should be asked. Unless naturalists can give a reason why consciousness exists, they are left seeking an explanation. Besides, most dualists are not only dualists concerning the philosophy of mind but also concerning explanations. They try to explain phenomena not only from the point of view of physical laws, for example, neurobiology, genetics, selection, and so on, but in terms of teleology as well. Natures role here is to produce an effect in the form of consciousness. Therefore, they will not try to explain the nature of the mind and recourse to the physical history of biological beings even though this history is very important (Heil 40).

Conclusion

Additionally, this objection assumes evolutionary imperialism which is definitely open to dispute. Thus, the human mind could unlikely have appeared as a result of a pure natural selection or physical process of mutation, as if it had, human beings would not have been able to understand and even discover it. On the other hand, in case deism is true, then Omnipotence definitely possesses the power to create souls or to provide matter with the ability to generate souls (Heil 41).

Work Cited

Heil, John. Philosophy of Mind: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge, 2013.

The notion of evolution is infatuated to all thinkers. Both Bergson and Whitehead worked in the same philosophical areas and were involved in psychical research. Their philosophies are often visualized as distinct, even contradictory descriptions of viewpoint.

Bergson Bergson focuses on modern science in an intuitive but coherent way. He observed change and evolution ubiquitously. In developing his philosophy, he discriminated between matter and consciousness. His philosophy shows that while the matter is perfunctory, consciousness is ingenious, managing newer and newer situations in the process of evolution which makes wider fields of consciousness from the situations of the past.

The description of God in Bergsons viewpoint is limited, unaware of its future, not omniscient, not all-powerful, always in a weak position by the presence of matter, struggling against likelihood, finding with difficulty its next step in the obscurity of what is yet to come to it as experience. He stated that one can attain knowledge and consciousness in the future through evolution with the presence of omniscience and eternal astuteness in the deep alcoves of our own being, which we are only relating in the process of evolution. Bergsons approach to defining evolution is under the grip of criticism. It is just a process of the life-force without an end or a purpose.

Bergson mistakenly recognized the unchanging Reality with phenomenal life-force and mind which are subject to change and evolution in time. With this faulty vision, he thought that intend of evolution is in every immediately subsequent stage and not in any eternally fixed being. It is totally flawed thinking. Even God cannot destine the goal of evolution. The errors, bungling, and apparent regressions observed in life do not establish that evolution is not directed by a final aim and that it is all new invention at every succeeding stage of evolution. His spirit of life seems to be a thoughtful perception of the flow of the psychological consciousness and not the recognition of the highest consciousness with a pure being.

The main problem in the philosophy of Bergson is the principle of the psychological functions and naturally, a matter which is presented as the body of the cosmos should be sovereign of these functions. In reality, Bergson explains that intellect is only one of the expressions or adaptations of life in its progress. If instinct becomes self-conscious and ennobled can be recognized with insight, intellect too can become intuition when it is divested of its space-time relations.

It appears to be a current passing from one germ to another through the medium of a developed organism, an internal push that has carried life by more and more complex forms, to higher and higher destinies. It is a self-motivated continuity, a continuity of qualitative progress, a duration that leaves its bite on things. ¹ Finally, in reviewing the evolutionary process explained by Bergson that evolution manifests a radical contingency. He indicates that between the ideal humanity and ours one may visualize many possible mediators, equivalent to all the degrees conceivable of Intelligence and Intuition.

Whitehead

Whitehead created two unrelated types of process philosophy. With reference to an evolutionary cosmology, it is apparent that Whitehead himself did not devise an explicit evolutionary cosmology, although he is understood to have formulated a process cosmology. According to his explanation of evolution, the living organ or experience is the living body as a whole. Human experience has its source in the physical activities of the whole organism which tends to readjustment when any part of it becomes unbalanced. Whitehead detained that person cannot decide with what molecules the brain begins and the rest of the body ends.

The human experience is considered as an act of self-origination, including the whole of nature, limited to the perspective of a focal region, located within the body, but not essentially persisting in any fixed coordination within a definite part of the brain. Based on this notion of human experience, Whitehead created a new philosophy of the organism, his cosmology, his defense of speculative reason, his ideas on the process of nature, his rational approach to God. The objective of his exploratory philosophy was to outline a logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms from which every item of our experience can be inferred.

To define process and reality, Whitehead states that There are two species of process, macroscopic process, and microscopic process. The former process is efficient; the latter process is teleological. The future is merely real without being actual; whereas the past is a nexus of actualities. The present is the immediacy of the teleological process whereby reality becomes actual. The former process provides the conditions which really govern attainment; whereas the latter process provides the ends actually attained.²

Critics argued that Whitehead forsook substance as a category of existence. He could have reconstructed substance dynamically, but was deceived by the adverse prevalence of the view of substance as something both static and standing by itself. Whitehead contradicted realism every time except the instantaneousness of occasions. Whitehead botched to distinguish the omnipresent role of dialectic in existence, experience, and logic (Archie, 1953).

Although he identified the existence of various opposites and emphasized that opposites are elements in the nature of things, and are incorrigibly there. Whitehead observed God, in both its Primordial and Consequent Natures, as essential to his Philosophy of Organism.

For Organicism, the matter of whether one selects to regard existence, the universe, or Nature as atheistic or theistic is unimportant.³ In evaluating his philosophical thoughts of evolution, Whitehead is basically inclined with the emergence of new features in instant occasions of experience, beyond that indicated by the constraints of the immediate past on such experience. Whitehead is already at work creating an early account of what will finally become his micro-ontology of the genesis and generic features of actual entities and he finds prior accounts of emergence in evolutionary entirely unsuited to this explanatory task. He did not mention the larger macroscopic evolutionary cosmologies from which these accounts of emergence derive. ⁴

To conclude, Whitehead and Bergson mentioned a thought about the over-intellectualization of reality in explaining evolution. Whitehead believes that Bergson is dedicated to requirement about this built-in to the nature of human intelligence. Whitehead afterward shaped his view more refined and criticized that Bergson has been fraught with ever since he wrote creative evolution that the intellect necessarily deforms reality by spatializing it.

Bibliography

Archie,J. Bahm, Philosophy, An introduction. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1953.

George,R. Lucas, Jr., The Genesis of Modern Process Thought: An Historical Outline with Bibliography. American Theological Library Association Bibliography Series, 7. Metuchen, NJ., and London: The Scarecrow Press, 1983.

Mason.The Philosophy of Evolutionlecture IV, of Lectures on Bergson, in Modern Philosophers, Pp. 270.

Organicism: The Philosophy of Interdependence, International Philosophical Quarterly, 7,2 1967, 251-84.

Whitehead,Alfred North. 1978. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology New York: The Free Press. Pp: 214.

Footnotes

1. Bergson Henri. 1998. Creative Evolution, pp. 27-29.
2. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 214.
3. Organicism: The Philosophy of Interdependence, International Philosophical Quarterly, 7,2. 1967, 251-84.
4. George R. Lucas, Jr., The Genesis of Modern Process Thought: An Historical Outline with Bibliography. American Theological Library Association Bibliography Series, 7. Metuchen, NJ., and London: The Scarecrow Press, 1983.

Judaism is the religious beliefs and the way of life of the Jews, that started as the faith of the early Hebrews. Their holy book is the Hebrew Bible especially the Torah. The Basic concept of Judaism is that the Israelites are chosen to bring light to the rest of the world. They worshipped Yahweh, which means God in Jerusalem beginning in the time of David. Rabbinic Judaism came into being with their various believes and way of life that were related to the Temple of Jerusalem. Their verbal laws and interpretations were written in Talmud and Mishna. They maintained their cultural beliefs even after the maltreatments they underwent from other nations.

Judaism during the age of definition started with the laws of the Pharisees who stressed the importance of strong definition of Torah. The study of Talmud was vital in order to understand the legal and theological issues that came up. The verbal law and the Talmud managed how the scripture were interpreted thus enhancing the practice of Judaism when Temple sacrifices were not there. It is believed that Moses at Mount Sinai accepted the Torah from God and some additions of the oral or verbal law that Moses conveyed to the people. They incorporated these teaching of Moses in their religious and cultural practices.

The Rabbi was considered as the teacher of the oral law during the time of Talmud. Their work was to interpret Judaisms both the written and the oral law. They also acted as civil judges and directed people on matters of morality. The scribes recorded the interpretation of the law as they transpired throughout. The Pharisees were a cult that dedicated to follow the precise verbal or written law. The Rabbi was a respected member of the society and was addressed with humility and respect. The society offered animal sacrifices to Yahweh in prayer and to ask for his blessing. They received Yahwehs answer for their prayers and thanked him through other sacrifices. Yahweh talked to people from his heavenly throne and watched over them while they followed his commandments.

Judaism was a religion where they believed in one God but worldly gods replaced this with time. It was after God gave Moses the oral law that the various divisions in Judaism occurred. These included the Samaritans, the Sadducees and with time came the Karaites. These groups depended on the written law that they followed with their own interpretations. With the later years, the issues of a messiah cropped up. They believed that the messiah would come to save the world from destruction of sin that some believed and others did not. In the Torah, the teachers of the law studied that the messiah would come and he will self proclaim himself to the world. (Boyarin)

Judaism has been in existence for a long time and it is among the first religions of the world. It is believed that Christianity and Islam among others were born from Judaism, which applies, to all human beings. Judaism differentiates between the Jews and the non-Jewish with the scripture. The Jews are believed to be those that are guided by the biblical commandments ultimately those by the rabbis to number 613. The Non Jews are those that who are guided by the seven commandments Noachide Laws designed after the floods. Judaism emphasizes on the importance of observing the state of Holiness.

Works Cited

Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.Print.

Evolutionary explanations for morality and altruism have been developed considerably during the last several centuries to comprehend its roots and urgency¹ and prove its appropriateness, correctness, and importance in comparison to other refined applications of the emotions.² Morality may be defined as a kind of social obligation to authority-independent norms and moral judgments that may be imposed by a number of legally approved sanctions,³ a byproduct of some accidental or invented faculties,⁴ or, in other words, everything that people can harbor in their heads and describe in the most adequate way for them.⁵ Krebs admits that all normal people may have a sense of morality that can be defined as what people may think it is.⁶ This means that any kind of interpretation of morality developed by people should be appropriate for them because all these interpretations and definitions are based on the experience and knowledge of these people.

Essence of Evolutionary Theory and Its Connection to Moral Behavior

The evolution of morality is closely connected to the issues of human evolution and human moral development⁷ that are discussed by Darwin and his followers. In fact, there are many types of writers and scholars that can use the evolutionary theory as the main explanation of morality. For example, Lawrence Kohlberg is the representative of moral psychologists who developed an idea that children should not be identified as passive receptacles of morality only because they are able to develop their own conceptions of morality and interpret the information they get from different sources regarding their knowledge of social words.⁸

There are also many modern moral philosophers, such as Richard Joyce, who tries to explain the development and evolvement of moral traits and human behavior. Boehm introduces Darwin as one of the brightest evolutionary pioneers in the discussions of moral aspects of human nature.⁹ Darwin did not offer the alternatives but defined human nature as something that could be blank from the beginning and could be relatively specific, with time being determined by the existing culture.¹⁰ Human morality is a product of human evolution. Evolution helps people find out moral truth and comprehend the conditions under which they have to live and to follow the norms identified during different epochs.¹¹ It also helps people to comprehend the essence and boundaries of moral progress they can achieve.

Social and Political Behavior in Terms of Morality

Many researchers and philosophers also admit that the evolution of morality has to be defined in certain political and social terms because the way people understand their moral issues may influence their political philosophies.¹² Psychologists and philosophers are ready to introduce different opinions and attitudes to moral ideals, human opportunities, and the outcomes to their social lives. On the one hand, there are moral psychologists, who believe that the boundaries of moral idealism have to be lower because of various human limitations and contradictions. On the other hand, there are the philosophers, who underline the power of philosophical idealism in terms of which all human actions and social organizations have ideal forms that may or may not be in balance with the current human needs and wants.¹³

The social and political behavior of one group of people may be misunderstood or judged by the representatives of other groups because nowadays people are eager to introduce their personal truths and ideals that they cannot demote or change. Every human has the ability to find out the reasons for actions taken and the decisions made, and the identification of personal values can be used to comprehend the essence of morality and identify the moral standards. Therefore, the rise of open-ended normativity may result in the diverse standards of ethics that people develop using their own ideas, promoting their ideals, and appreciating their experience.

Open-Ended Normativity and the Rise of Morality in a Constantly Developing Society

Many psychologists believe that human ethics is based on the instinct of survival and a moral instinct that helps to generate the rapid judgments and social expectations¹⁴ to avoid making wrong decisions while being aware of both aspects and their options in case some wrong decisions have already been made.¹⁵ Buchman and Powell,¹⁶ as well as Buchman¹⁷ independently, made an attempt to explain the importance of open-ended normativity as one of the main capacities to change human behavior by means of the reflections and modifications of the moral norms. Still, in both projects, the authors did not identify the conditions under which open-ended normativity can be explained or even improved. They also did not explain the peculiar features of the capacity but focused on the explanation of moral norms and moral evolution that could underline the importance of open-ended normativity.

Ideas of Reciprocal Altruism and Altruistic Punishment

Morality is necessary for people to cooperate, and their cooperation should be based on the ideas of altruistic punishment.¹⁸ In fact, altruism has posed a specific puzzle for many philosophers due to the power of selfishness inherent to people.¹⁹ Different groups demonstrate different attitudes to the ideas of altruism and altruistic punishment as the crucial aspects of evolutionary morality.²⁰ Boehm offers to contrast the peculiarities of altruism to the peculiarities of behavioral nepotism.²¹ There is also an idea to avoid or be very careful with the idea of punishment because it may destroy ethical and moral forms. There are three main types of altruismbiological, behavioral, and psychologicaland each of them influences how people understand the essence of ethics and peoples intentions to interpret their decisions.²² The evolution of altruism may be observed in small groups where migration is a frequent notion, and altruistic punishment can help to avoid the complications based on the moral ideals developed by people.²³

Moral Obligations of People

The evaluation of morality and human evolution proves the fact that people try to act morally correct and use their experience and personal judgments to identify the positive and negative outcomes of their behavior. People try to consider open-ended normativity as a chance to explain the rise of morality,²⁴ to underline the worth of altruism and self-sacrificial behavior,²⁵ and to realize that altruistic tendencies make sense and guide people on how to create morally stable communities regarding their current needs and expectations as well as acquiring their reputation. There are many types of obligations that help people take care of their children, such as the provision for their children of appropriate education or the idea to share their knowledge and experience to introduce the norms that should be followed. All these moral obligations and behaviors prove that evolutionary theory and morality are closely connected, and this connection should be investigated in terms of philosophers and psychologists points of view.

Bibliography

Boehm, Christopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Boyd, Robert, Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles, and Peter Richerson. The Evolution of Altruistic Punishment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100, no. 6 (2003): 3531-3535. Web.

Buchanan, Allen, and Russell Powell. The Limits of Evolutionary Explanations of Morality and Their Implications for Moral Progress. Ethics 126, no. 1 (2015): 37-67. Web.

Buchanan, Allen. The Open-ended Normativity of the Ethical. Analyse & Kritik 34, no. 1 (2012): 81-94. Web.

Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Eccleston, Charles, H., and Frederic March. Global Environmental Policy: Concepts, Principles, and Practice. New York, NY: CRC Press, 2011.

Fiske, Susan T., Gilbert, Daniel T., and Gardner Lindzey. Handbook of Social Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

Human Evolution: Moral Thinking. The Economist (2008). Web.

Katz, Leonard D. Toward Good and Evil: Evolutionary Approaches to Aspects of Human Morality. Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Thorverton: Imprint Academic, 2000: ix-xvi.

Kitcher, Philip. The Ethical Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011.

Krebs, Dennis. The Origins of Morality: An Evolutionary Account. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

MacDonald, Kevin B. Evolution and a Dual Processing Theory of Culture: Applications to Moral Idealism and Political Philosophy. Politics and Culture 1 (2010). Web.

Mathew, S., and R. Boyd. Punishment Sustains Large-scale Cooperation in Prestate Warfare. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, no. 28 (2011): 11375-1380. Web.

Petrinovich, Lewis. Human Evolution, Reproduction, and Morality. New York, NY: Springer, 2013.

Prinz, Jesse. Is Morality Innate? In Moral Psychology, edited by W. Sinnott-Armstrong, 367-406. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.

Footnotes

1. Leonard D. Katz, Toward Good and Evil: Evolutionary Approaches to Aspects of Human Morality, Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (Thorverton: Imprint Academic, 2000): ix.
2. Human Evolution: Moral Thinking, The Economist (2008), Web.
3. Allen Buchanan and Russell Powell, The Limits of Evolutionary Explanations of Morality and Their Implications for Moral Progress, Ethics 126, no. 1 (2015): 38, Web.
4. Jesse Prinz, Is Morality Innate? in Moral Psychology, ed. W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008), 367.
5. Dennis Krebs, The Origins of Morality: An Evolutionary Account (New York: Oxford University Press, 201), 15.
6. Ibid.
7. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1989): 15.
8. Krebs, The Origins of Morality, 5.
9. Christopher Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 229.
10. Ibid.
11. Susan T. Fiske, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey, Handbook of Social Psychology (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010), 808.
12. Buchanan and Powell, The Limits of Evolutionary Explanations of Morality, 45.
13. Kevin B. MacDonald. Evolution and a Dual Processing Theory of Culture: Applications to Moral Idealism and Political Philosophy, Politics and Culture 1 (2010), Web.
14. Charles H. Eccleston, and Frederic March, Global Environmental Policy: Concepts, Principles, and Practice (New York, NY: CRC Press, 2011): 213.
15. Lewis Petrinovich, Human Evolution, Reproduction, and Morality (New York, NY: Springer, 2013), 130.
16. Buchanan and Powell, The Limits of Evolutionary Explanations of Morality,38.
17. Allen Buchanan, The Open-ended Normativity of the Ethical, Analyse & Kritik 34, no. 1 (2012): 81, Web.
18. Robert Boyd, Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles, and Peter Richerson, The Evolution of Altruistic Punishment, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100, no. 6 (2003): 3531, Web.
19. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest, 200.
20. S. Mathew and R. Boyd, Punishment Sustains Large-scale Cooperation in Prestate Warfare, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, no. 28 (2011): 11375, Web.
21. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest, 200.
22. Philip Kitcher, The Ethical Project (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011): 19.
23. Boyd, Gintis, Bowles, and Richerson, The Evolution of Altruistic Punishment, 3532.
24. Buchanan, The Open-ended Normativity of the Ethical, 81.
25. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest, 200.

Alvin Plantingas claims revolve around individuals who argue against naturalist concepts such as the rejection of the existence of supernatural beings like God, but instead, support theories such as that of evolution.

Plantinga claims that such individuals have a self-undermining set of beliefs. Plantinga uses various abbreviations to illustrate his claims, whereby naturalism is represented as N, the evolutionary theory as E, evolutionary naturalism as NE, and the reliability of cognitive faculties as R.

Plantingas arguments begin with a Probability Thesis, which is followed by the Defeater Thesis. The Probability Thesis states the probability that R is true given the truth of N and E is either low or inscrutable (Fales 434).

The Defeater Thesis, on the other hand, holds that an evolutionary naturalist who is apprised of the Probability Thesis has a defeater for her belief in R (Fales 434). This paper seeks to explain Plantingas Defeater Thesis and the basis for his beliefs, including his claim that the naturalist has a defeater for R and other beliefs.

The Probability Thesis holds that individuals are the product of an undirected evolutionary process, in the event that both N and E are true. However, the probability that a being with this sort of attribution would have reliable cognitive faculties is either low or inscrutable.

Hence, the assumption that the probability of individuals cognitive faculties are reliable given N and E are true is low or enigmatic (Fales 435).

Plantingas argument for the Defeater Thesis is based on the evaluation of instances whereby agents are observed to be contradicting their beliefs.

Plantinga also bases his arguments on the correlation between such individuals and evolutionary naturalists, who are facing a defeater for their belief in R, owing to their awareness of the Probability Thesis. Plantinga uses four analogical cases to argue for the Defeater Thesis.

These cases include the Widget Cases, the Freudian Theist Cases, the space Radio case, and the Brain-in-a-vat Case (Fitelson and Sober 119).

According to the Widget Cases, the individual is presented with two contradicting arguments about a situation that she is familiar with, causing her to doubt her beliefs. This is illustrated when the individual walks into a factory that appears to be manufacturing red-colored widgets.

However, the individual is informed by the shop superintendant that the widgets are red due to the effect of light on them, but majority of them are actually not red in color. Based on this revelation, the individual acknowledges that there is a low probability that the widgets are red in color.

However, the individual later encounters the vice-president of the production line, who claims that the superintendant cannot be trusted with the information provided earlier regarding the color of the widgets. This information causes the individual to have a dilemma about the color of the widgets.

Plantinga regards such a situation as causing the individual to be doubtful about her visions ability to provide her with accurate information regarding the color of the widgets, which causes the individual to have a defeater of color beliefs about widgets observed in an assembly line (Fitelson and Sober 120).

The other cases are also based on different situations that bring doubt to the individuals, causing them to question the rationale that made them belief or trust, in the first place. Based on this argument, a general principle of Low Reliability (LR) principle of defeat can be proposed in the form of:

S has a defeater for the belief p if, relative to all her evidence, S takes as low the probability that the source of p is reliable.

The shortcoming with this LR principle is due to the fact that the individual in the widgets case does not make the deduction that her perceptual faculties regarding the color of the widgets are unreliable under the circumstances of the case.

This implies that the LR principal falls short in explaining the reason for the defeater. In order to explain the defeater in the widgets case, it can be assumed that the individual finds the rationale in the case.

For this intervention to pass as accurate, it is essential to identify the requirements of rationality that are relevant in the matter, as well as the kind of rationality that is raised in the case.

One of the requirements for the individual to identify the rationale behind her case can be identified by forming the belief that her perceptual faculties concerning widgets are unreliable.

However, this perspective is thought of as being too demanding in proving the rationale behind the case, as it would require the individual to condemn her perceptual faculties as unreliable.

She may also fail to acknowledge that her color detection faculties are unreliable in her situation, which is basically the reason why her defeater for color beliefs concerning the widgets manifests itself (Fitelson and Sober 121).

Another method of explaining the case of self-defeat in the scenario involves the use of internal and external rationality. Plantinga refers to internal rationality as that which deals with maters downstream from experience, while external rationality deals with matters upstream from experience (Fales 441).

The case of color belief pertains to irrationality that is downstream from experience, which requires elaboration on the basis of internal rationality (Fales 441). Plantinga argues that internal rationality can only occur if the agent possesses the required level of coherence.

As such, the belief that there is a defeater in the widget cases is due to the fact that the visitor would not satisfy the nominal level of coherence required for internal rationality in the event that she denied that the probability that her color-detecting faculties are reliable in the circumstances at hand is rather low.

Based on this argument, the Low Reliability (LR) principle can be re-written as:

S has a defeater for the belief p if, relative to all of her evidence, S takes as low, or it would be internally irrational for S to deny as low, the probability that the source of p is reliable.

The various factors that may have influenced the individual in the first case to believe regarding her cognitive faculty, which led to her belief in R, or the R-faculty, are influenced by the Unsubstantiated Source (US) principle of defeat, which holds that:

S has a defeater for the belief p if, relative to all of her evidence, S takes as low or inscrutable, or it would be internally irrational for S to deny as low or inscrutable, the probability that the source of p is reliable.

This implies that it would be internally irrational for her to deny that relative to all of her evidence, the probability that her R-faculty is reliable is either low or inscrutable. Based on the US principle, it is clear the individual has a defeater for her belief in R.

It is possible for someone to claim that it is internally irrational for the evolutionary naturalist, who is acquaint with the Probability Thesis, to deny that despite all the evidence, the probability that her cognitive faculties are reliable is low, based on the Attended No-reason (ANR) condition.

This principle concerns the level of coherence on the individuals beliefs that is required for the person to be internally rational. The ANR condition holds that:

if agent Ss attention is brought to bear on whether her belief B is formed in a warranted way, and it is internally irrational for her to accept any reason for thinking that B is warranted, then it is internally irrational for her to continue to believe B.

This condition implies that the internal rationality of the agents acceptance of B can be influenced by the individuals reflection on B, despite the agents acceptance of B prior to the reflection.

The variation is caused by the process of reflection, which causes the agent to consider whether B is warranted. The ANR principal proposes that it is internally irrational for the agent to continue to believe B after the revelation during her reflection (Fales 444).

The ANR principle explains how the evolutionary naturalist is supposed to proceed, from the acknowledgement of the Probability thesis, to the possession of a defeater for R. Reflection on the Probability Thesis is what causes the naturalist to focus on determining whether her belief in R is formed in a reasonable way.

In the event that there is no internal rationale to defend the belief, then it implies that the reflection on the Probability Thesis causes the evolutionary naturalist to have a defeater for her belief in R. As such the ANR principle forms a vital pillar in the support of Plantingas case against evolutionary naturalism (Fales 446).

Works Cited

Fales, Evan. Plantingas Case Against Naturalistic Epistemology. Philosophy of Science 63 (3), (1996): 432-451. Print.

Fitelson, Branden and Elliott Sober. Plantingas Probability Arguments Against Evolutionary Naturalism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79, (1998): 115-129. Print.

The political has always been the object of philosophers research. Still, the subjects position about power in the philosophical systems of thinkers of different eras has fundamental differences. Thus, the diversity of concepts of power has determined the political and ideological contradictions throughout history. Now comes a time when politics tangibly affects the life of any person. The source, the material for the analysis of political philosophy, is a directly political practice. From singular political acts, there is a transition to the identification of the nature of the political. Political philosophy divides the sphere of the political into immediate practice and the ideal level of being political.

Through the political sciences, it becomes possible to ensure the formation and development of objective knowledge about politics, together with the development of theories that can explain the essence of political phenomena; in addition, they can also describe and investigate the historical development of all political institutions, together with their relations and processes. Political philosophy develops transhistorical (general) foundations, as well as political principles, based on human nature as that which is present in a social being endowed with self-awareness and consciousness. The category of power emerges, which acts as its source while realizing its meaning and role. The political sciences reflect the grounds that make possible political self-organization in society, highlighting the importance of these processes of the state structure and civil society phenomenon. In addition, these sciences reflect the processes of creation, development, and disintegration of political systems. At the same time, political science is a complex system reflecting the processes of analysis of patterns found in political technologies.

Adam Smiths Political Economy

The flowering of the ideas of political economy in the historical sense came in the works of the eighteenth-century English economist Adam Smith (1723-1790). England facilitated this in the period in question, far ahead of the other European countries in economic development. The progressive development of economic relations created favorable conditions for the intensification of research in the field of political economy. Smith regarded the community of men as a kind of exchange union, and he called the essential characteristic of men a disposition to exchange and trade. At the same time, he pointed out that the desire of an individual member of society to benefit from economic activity coincides with the interests of society as a whole.

Adam Smiths economic teaching was generally based on the principles and ideas of economic liberalism, the main points of which were several theses. First, economic phenomena and processes were based on the idea of the natural order, that is, the classical market economy (Hampton 147). The interests of individuals do not contradict but rather coincide with the interests of society as a whole. Smith proposed the model of the economic man, that is, the individual who, on the one hand, is endowed with an egoistic worldview and, on the other hand, continually strives to maximize the accumulation of wealth (Hampton 148).. The second prerequisite for the effective functioning of the laws of economics, from Smiths point of view, is free competition. Pursuing profit and free trade act as activities that positively affect society. The regulation of the market is the result of an invisible hand through which the actions of people are controlled through their interests by free competition.

In developing his political-economic line of scientific thought, A. Smith formulated his vision of the states economic policy. For example, he pointed out that the principle of total non-interference of the state in the state economy should prevail in the relevant sphere as a prerequisite for national welfare. State regulation, Smith wrote, is necessary only when there is a real threat to the common good. It seems to me that his idea is in a promising direction in developing society and the state since people get free trade. In addition, government involvement in economic processes not only does not hinder private traders but helps to increase profits. I would use Adam Smiths ideas in organizing the economic component of the state and market relations within and outside the state.

Hannah Arendts Philosophy

A student of Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers, she was a political thinker and researcher on the anthropological basis of German totalitarianism. She was one of the first to speak of the true nature of evil and to study it comprehensively, a phenomenon which, in her view, is much more often associated with the denial of thought and ones responsibility for ones choices. As a witness to the birth, flowering, and decline of totalitarian regimes, Arendt made totalitarianism the starting point of many crucial considerations that helped her to take a fresh look at human rights (Hampton 220). She also explored the relationship between will and thought, the problem of freedom and responsibility, and the distinction between private life and public space. Arendt always looked profoundly and tried to understand the causes of the phenomena she wrote about and the conditions of their emergence and development  perhaps that is why her thoughts are so relevant today.

The concept of human rights, based on the assumption of the existence of the individual human being, collapsed at the very moment when those who professed to believe in it first encountered people who had lost all other qualities. Hannah Arendts first seminal philosophical work was her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, in which she explores the knotty problem of the historical process in the twentieth century  the totalitarian movements that emerged in Germany and the USSR (Hampton 223). Arendt sees the ideological origins of the totalitarian transformation of society in the concepts of anti-Semitism and imperialism, which made themselves felt in the XIX century.

The twentieth century gave rise to such a phenomenon as mass, in which totalitarian movements find opportunities for implementation. Arendt was one of the first to try to make sense of the terrible tragedies of the twentieth century, and her work is still relevant today. Arendt shows that the cause of evil can be not only evil will, the intention to harm, but also quite philistine and harmless considerations  the desire to gain favor, the fear of losing ones job. Under the conditions of a totalitarian machine, a person must make an extra effort to hear the voice of conscience, not close himself off from reality with lies and nonsense, and not fall into self-deception.

Arendt rejected Jewish nationalism in the same way that she rejected German nationalism; she defended the idea of universalism. Reliance on the universal is an essential characteristic of the Jewish position in the modern world. Her philosophy tells me the truth about totalitarian regimes because they violate human rights. Mass purges, repression, and Nazism are things that must not be repeated. I would use the knowledge gained from her studies to build a democratic state.

Work Cited

Hampton, Jean. Political philosophy. Routledge, 2018.