Slog
News & ArtsThursday, May 7, 2009
Science Hegel's Ants
Posted by Charles Mudede on Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Something new from the world of science:
In a research paper recently published online in the early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers report that all ants, both living and dead, have the "death chemicals" continually, but live ants have them along with other chemicals associated with life — the "life chemicals." When an ant dies, its life chemicals dissipate or are degraded, and only the death chemicals remain."It's because the dead ant no longer smells like a living ant that it gets carried to the graveyard, not because its body releases new, unique chemicals after death," said Dong-Hwan Choe, the lead author of the research paper and a graduate student working towards his doctoral degree with Michael Rust, a professor of entomology at UCR.
"There is no mistaking that it is the dissipation of chemical signals associated with life rather than the increase of a decomposition product 'death cue' that triggers necrophoric behavior by Argentine ants," he said.
The passage from the recent science report echoes a passage from a book written nearly 200 years ago, Science of Logic:
When we say of things that they are finite, we understand thereby that they not only have determinateness, that their quality is not only a reality and an intrinsic determination, that finite things are not merely limited—as such they still have determinate being outside the limit—but that, on the contrary, nonbeing constitutes their nature and being.......[T]he truth of this being is their end. The finite not only alters, like something in general, but it ceases to be; and its ceasing to be is not merely a possibility, so that it could be without ceasing to be, but the being as such of finite things is to have the germ of decease as their being-within-self: the hour of their birth is the hour of their death.
Hegel's doctrine of being is identical with the mechanism for necrophoresis in Argentine ants.
1
I wish I could spend my days floating about the world of the esoteric rather than being rooted right here in good, old, tactile reality.
2
Shoot, we almost had the perfect Chuck M reply page going, then someone went and posted a reply. (I realize I am now also guilty).
3
@2 is right. We should simply boycott Charles' comments section until he posts something semi-intelligent.
(I realize that I am also guilty now, but I wanted to make the point, and I will stop henceforth.)
(I realize that I am also guilty now, but I wanted to make the point, and I will stop henceforth.)
4
Charles, you continue to post material that proves that while science moves forward, sometimes at breathtaking speed, philosophy hasn't accomplished anything new or interesting in 200 years. And, just as the science and medicine of two hundred years ago is mostly bullshit, so too is virtually every philosophical writing that has ever been set down on paper. Reading Hegel is like being bled.
6
@4, Poststructuralism is pretty new and interesting, although technically, it's less philosophy than the deconstruction of philosophy. I know it all sounds horribly pretentious, but still... the unmasking of the mechanisms of philosophical truth -- of absolute authority -- is pretty groundbreaking stuff. I call it progress.
7
Charles's posting makes sense, he explains the whole idea, and he even gives us a creatively cropped picture of Hegel. If you stop and think for a moment, it's interesting to consider that as finite beings we have death within us because we are alive. That's all you have to do: take a second to realize that you can only die if you are alive. Heck, I think this posting is a hell of a lot more useful than Dan's latest "Every Child Deserves a Mother and Father" piece of shit that I skipped over to get down here. Bravo, Charles!
9
This poster is fantastic. It is neat to see it after reading Charles' posting.
http://www.dwell.com/articles/geigys-ste…
http://www.dwell.com/articles/geigys-ste…
11
@6: the underpinnings of absolute truth are the five senses. No more, no less. If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist.
13
Fnarf, you're philosophizing. Which is fine -- if it weren't for philosophers and their efforts, we wouldn't be encouraged to ask questions about being and knowledge. We'd just accept it all as God's word and leave it at that.
Philosophers have been executed for exercising their freedom to think. The evolution of ideas is not "mostly bullshit" as you said.
Philosophers have been executed for exercising their freedom to think. The evolution of ideas is not "mostly bullshit" as you said.
14
@4, @6 Postculturism is definitely NOT where philosophy has moved forward in the last 200 years. you're rigth, it sounds pretentious. That's because it is. It's also totally masturbatory.
But phil has moved forward. Experimental philosophy has started to test how people actually make moral judgments. Most importantly, I'd say that Russell's development of mathematical logic is an actual step forward. It helped make computers possible. Then there's Godel's proof, which came from mathematics, but hugely influenced what philosophers think can be said about the world.
Not that I think philosophy necessarily has to move forward to be of value; would anybody knock literature for failing to progress?
And please, never post anything by hegel on this blog again. he's total trash
But phil has moved forward. Experimental philosophy has started to test how people actually make moral judgments. Most importantly, I'd say that Russell's development of mathematical logic is an actual step forward. It helped make computers possible. Then there's Godel's proof, which came from mathematics, but hugely influenced what philosophers think can be said about the world.
Not that I think philosophy necessarily has to move forward to be of value; would anybody knock literature for failing to progress?
And please, never post anything by hegel on this blog again. he's total trash
15
Irena, the words "being" and "knowledge" have no meaning. You're in a closed loop. Your "philosophy" is just a tautology. It doesn't mean anything. No philosopher has contributed anything to the advancement of what we know for hundreds of years. And your opposition isn't "God", whatever the hell that's supposed to be, but science.
Philosophers aren't actually thinking at all; they're just rearranging their Scrabble tiles randomly, pretending they understand the patterns they see there. Oh, look, BYROIUE.
Literally nothing that Hegel ever wrote -- not a blessed word of it -- is objectively true, because literally not a word he ever wrote refers to a tangible thing. It is Hegel, and his fellows in the priesthood of philosophy, who are reminiscent of "God's word" -- and frankly, the religious nuts have more interesting imaginations than the philosophers. Come on -- gold tablets in the dirt? That's good stuff -- and just as likely as having "the germ of decease as their being-within-self". None of those words -- not "the", not "germ", not "of", not "decease" have any semantic content at all. He might as well have said "the fizz of ergolection brings the worm-god to the edge". Philosophy IS religion.
Words without referents are meaningless squiggles.
Philosophers aren't actually thinking at all; they're just rearranging their Scrabble tiles randomly, pretending they understand the patterns they see there. Oh, look, BYROIUE.
Literally nothing that Hegel ever wrote -- not a blessed word of it -- is objectively true, because literally not a word he ever wrote refers to a tangible thing. It is Hegel, and his fellows in the priesthood of philosophy, who are reminiscent of "God's word" -- and frankly, the religious nuts have more interesting imaginations than the philosophers. Come on -- gold tablets in the dirt? That's good stuff -- and just as likely as having "the germ of decease as their being-within-self". None of those words -- not "the", not "germ", not "of", not "decease" have any semantic content at all. He might as well have said "the fizz of ergolection brings the worm-god to the edge". Philosophy IS religion.
Words without referents are meaningless squiggles.
16
I get a lot of what Fnarf is saying about philosophy, and it sounds a little like wittgenstein. (does that make it philosophy?) But what do you mean by " the underpinnings of absolute truth are the five senses"? That just seems logically impossible. Humans didn't evolve to understand the universe, so why should they have all the necessary tools to do so? I think most physicists (like Feynman for example) agree that there are some things that can't be entirely understood or perceived.
17
I get a lot of what Fnarf is saying about philosophy, and it sounds a little like wittgenstein. (does that make it philosophy?) But what do you mean by " the underpinnings of absolute truth are the five senses"? That just seems logically impossible. Humans didn't evolve to understand the universe, so why should they have all the necessary tools to do so? I think most physicists (like Feynman for example) agree that there are some things that can't be entirely understood or perceived.
18
I get a lot of what Fnarf is saying about philosophy, and it sounds a little like wittgenstein. (does that make it philosophy?) But what do you mean by " the underpinnings of absolute truth are the five senses"? That just seems logically impossible. Humans didn't evolve to understand the universe, so why should they have all the necessary tools to do so? I think most physicists (like Feynman for example) agree that there are some things that can't be entirely understood or perceived.
19
But Fnarf, that's the thing -- I agree with you 100%. I agree that not a word of it is objectively true, that those words have no semantic content in and of themselves, that meaning is unstable and always contingent on context. That's why I stressed the importance of "unmasking the mechanisms of philosophical truth". It's all rhetoric, as far as I'm concerned, but like it or not, Western philosophical rhetoric has provided the foundations of the way we think. I'm not saying rhetoric is a bad thing -- it's the way we communicate and persuade. But its very constructedness has to be exposed. Yes, philosophy IS religion insofar as it refuses to question itself. I think common understandings of "being" and "knowledge" -- and "philosophy" -- need to be questioned. And clearly, you do too.
I respect that philosophy has brought us to this place, but philosophers who refuse to accept the theories that have shaken its foundations do seem protective of their "priesthood".
Speaking of which, @14: "Postculturism" - WTF? And, "would anybody knock literature for failing to progress?" You're fucking kidding me, right?
I respect that philosophy has brought us to this place, but philosophers who refuse to accept the theories that have shaken its foundations do seem protective of their "priesthood".
Speaking of which, @14: "Postculturism" - WTF? And, "would anybody knock literature for failing to progress?" You're fucking kidding me, right?
22
Ok, just to be controversial-- I really like Charles' posts, even when I totally disagree. Abstraction like this isn't something that can just become obsolete. It's a way of perception that's always been rare, and since he's the only one posting this way I wish he would post more.
If you don't like it it's probably just that your personality type is different. If you get INTP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTP) on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, I'll bet you like Charles.
If you don't like it it's probably just that your personality type is different. If you get INTP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTP) on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, I'll bet you like Charles.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (22) RSS