Ewolucja religii w memetyce (Dawkins, Dennett). Teoria doboru kulturowego w wyjaśnianiu zjawisk powstania, rozwoju i ewolucji kultury

• Authors: Damian Rusek

Title variants

EN

Evolution of religion in memetics (Dawkins, Dennett)

Abstracts

EN

Since ‘The Selfish Gene’ by Richard Dawkins was published the notion of evolving culture has become a matter of a growing concern which appears to be especially intriguing from the perspective of biology (R. Dawkins), psychology (R. Brodie) as well as philosophy (D. Dennett). The essence of Darwin’s project is a natural selection within the sphere of a natural science. From this standpoint, a human is considered to be an effect of an evolutionary development. In the memetics approach, a human being is perceived in a different manner. An unit of gene, which task is to pass on the information in a process of a natural selection, has been replaced by a notion of a meme that is an entirely new replicator which, as opposed to a gene, may be applied to the various environments, not only a biological one. The crucial factor that determines the uniqueness of every man would be culture. From this point of view, the transfer of culture, which is developing in a specific procedure, is emphasized. What can be included in the evolutionary processes in the vast area of culture? What is the discrepancy between the Dawkins’s biological position and the grounded on a philosophy of mind  the position of Dennett? The above mentioned attitudes result in various definitions of meme as well as the further implications that result from these definitions. Does the Theory of Cultural Selection fully explain a matter of the origin and evolution of languages, societies and religions?

Keywords

EN

meme; replicator; New Atheism; cultural selection; imitation

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Internetowy Magazyn Filozoficzny Hybris
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 28
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 158-173

Dates

published

2015

Contributors

author

Damian Rusek

• Uniwersytet Łódzki

References

• Biedrzycki, Mariusz, 1998, Genetyka Kultury, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prószyński i S-ka.
• Blackmore, Susan, 2002, Maszyna Memowa, przeł. Norbert Radomski, Poznań: Dom Wydawniczy Rebis.
• Boroch, Robert, 2011, Przeciw memetyce, „Hybris”, nr 15, s. 62–99, http://magazynhybris.com/images/teksty/15/05.Boroch%20[62-99].pdf (03.09.2013)
• Brodie, Richard, 1997, Wirus umysłu, przeł. Piotr Turski, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Ravi.
• Dawkins, Richard, 2007, Bóg Urojony, przeł. Piotr J. Szwajcer, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo CiS (The God Delusion, New York: Bantam Books 2006).
• Dawkins, Richard, 2003, Fenotyp Rozszerzony. Dalekosiężny gen, przeł. Joanna Gliwicz, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Prószyński i S-ka (The Extended Phenotype. The Long Reach of the gene, Oxford, W.H. Freeman, 1982).
• Dawkins, Richard, 1996, Samolubny Gen, przeł. Marek Skoneczny Warszawa: Prószyński (Selfish Gene, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1989).
• Dawkins, Richard, 1994, Ślepy zegarmistrz, przeł. A. Hoffman, Warszawa: PIW (The Blind Watchmaker, London: Norton 1986).
• Dennett, Daniel, 2008, Odczarowanie. Religia jako zjawisko naturalne, przeł. Barbara Skarga, Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
• Kozłowski, Tomasz, 2012, O metodach racjonalnej argumentacji wiary religijnej - David Hume, William James, Daniel Dennett, Łódź (praca magisterska).
• Załuski Wojciech, 2012, O teorii kulturowego doboru grupowego na przykładzie chrześcijaństwa w Cesarstwie Rzymskim, „Logos i Ethos”, nr 1 (32), s. 63–79.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/1689-4286.28.09

Biblioteka Nauki

18686421