The Dangers of Symbols and Darwinism

Two unconnected things right? Well symbols have an alarmingly scary potential to incorporate just about anything you’ll find. And as for Darwinism, that crops up everywhere. If you would have it as New Athiest and Neo-Darwinian, Daniel Dennett [1] has it (which I do) – Darwinism has become related to every part of thinking and influenced every pursuit in human thought in some way since its inception; perhaps not historically or sociologically but it has that potential to uncover most mysteries. As Dennett advocates, it unites the apparent randonimty of the physical and chemical matter of the universe and the psychological meanings of the mind. Darwin shows us rather revolutionarily that the latter arises from the former, creating meaning as it goes in a bubble up fashion rather than trickle down. Indeed, it challenges our entire perception of thought and informs our entire existence. Now, this is where symbols enter the picture.

I suppose I should start by defining symbolism. Symbols can be dangerous things believe it or not, just like signs (which are notoriously different). Both have a derived intentionality and therein lies our problem. A symbol by its nature has its meaning entirely derived subjectively – it has no original intentions of its own… that would be stupid as we are discussing an artefact. No it is an object, thought, word or visual phenomenon that is designed, utilised, advocated, talked about and attacked based entirely on our subjective understanding of it and no intrinsic meaning it can impossibly hold itself. We create and give it its derivable meaning from our contemporary understanding, opinions, beliefs and such. And of course, this too isn’t universal. Let’s take a flag for instance, a particularly common form of symbol. Let’s make it the Communist Flag, the Red Banner (The one with the hammer and sickle right?) to give a real material example. Now, this flag was created around the early 1900s, it has a formidable history, usage and an uncountable number of connotations. To its creator it meant many things, with personal associations and memories perhaps. To all those who rallied behind it would have meant many things, all different. To some it meant freedom, others the tools embodied the working class like other similar historical flags (many of course would think of this too such as the flags used in Irish Citizen Army). Then there are more modern understandings of the flag; with associations of the Psuedo-Communism of China, Russia and North Korea. All would find different events, values, individuals, places and ideals that spring to mind and are embodied by this particular symbol no doubt.

But surely there is some universal meaning that at least all party members recognised? That is the purpose of a symbol is it not? To break down language barriers and in this case pictorially manifest a shared goal of some sort? See its bloody hard isn’t it, bet you never thought so hard about symbols? Well even if you do provisionally agree for argument’s sake that every single German or Russian socialist, etc that identified with the flag saw the same thing in it (Which of course they didn’t – every united cause is a flood of chaotic subjective meaning), what of those who didn’t? Well that of course, is because these individuals, groups and factions perceive a different meaning in the flag, one that represents values they do not hold or even oppose. Right wing, monarchist bourgeoisie of course would find the flag a symbol of anarchy and threat to their way of life, of social unrest and danger, no doubt. Many would not even recognise it… tribesmen or knights of another time may be reminded of other things by it. Some would not even understand the symbolism meant to be expressed generally by flags, having never encountered a flag before. And to get really anal, ontologically we can ask where is the meaning held? As a symbol how much materially do I need to take away from it for it to lose its significance as a whole? I could remove the stark red or maybe the sickle and it may still serve its purpose perhaps.

I obviously have a different view of the flag sitting here right now, one informed by my, albeit limited scholarly knowledge of flags. Largely I think of the flag in a philosophical sense, one of ontology and epistemology (what can it mean to be a flag?), metaphysics (what really is a flag?) and my relation (if any) to it also. My interpretation, like other’s nowadays is also informed by communist activities since to this present day and the subsequent uses (or misuses) of the flag since its inception – it has a long history, one that informs our view of it in a sense of somewhat objective hindsight. Indeed, with history and scope it has become a broader and vaguer emblem, used to represent other degrees of socialist politicalising, autocratic state capitalist powers, events such as the cold war and numerous uprisings, new figureheads and even popular contemporary culture. Not to mention the medium for experiencing this symbol changing with developments in media.

So that’s another thing, where is this authority? Is there an original meaning to retain? Who holds the apparent monopoly on what the flag truly means? It’s creator and designer, Marx himself? Clearly the flag in its own right has no meaning as we have established. What Russian devil has gone and misinterpreted the 'obvious' meaning of the flag… Oh Stalin was that you, you cheeky genocidal bugger you?

So you see the difficulties? There are more questions than one may think. By their very nature symbols are a conglomerate bundling of ideas, thoughts and semantic meanings that are subjective. The sheer amount of things it can embody is a problem in its own right, yet alone how. And that’s just something as simple as a flag... don’t get me started on the Nazi/Hindu symbol which I have deliberately avoided. Like many writers I feel Nazi allegories employed in philosophy and other forms of intellectualism are overplayed [2]. It seems that Hitler is used as a synonymous term to symbolise anyone bad - 'Would you kill Hitler to save millions?' 'Would you hide the Jewish refugees in your home?' 'How would you navigate the Nazi regime?' But that’s a whole different problem… Or is it? Hitler is being used as a symbol there after all, in a similar way. And his justifications of social Darwinism bring us back to evolution… just in time no less.

Ah yes, Darwinism… and these complicated symbols. I believe there has been a tendency to overgeneralise as it were particular arguments and subsequently symbolise discourse. Of course, now I am discussing a different kind of symbol, that used in language which is inherently still the same and just as potentially dangerous to be thought of idly without proper consideration. That is, Darwinism like many other arguments and doctrines of thought are being too easily thrown around willy nilly and are becoming unwanted symbols in the ‘debate’ with science and religion. Using symbols in such a way, often both incorrectly and at the wrong time serves only to escalate the incomensurable 'talking past' one another in the unfocused and irrelevant debate. So, symbols are complicated as we’ve established and the last thing you want to be doing is slapping them out on the table in a debate that’s already going nowhere and hoping they’ll speed things along. But how is this often unnecessary and inaccurate symbolising of Darwin’s ideas being done and to what desired effect?

I would just like to add at this point that this danger of symbolisation in discourse is a problem in many engagements and is certainly not isolated to this topic and it is necessary to be mindful of it in all aspects of thought where clear and rational thinking is desired.

It comes as no surprise that such a fantastic discovery so important and revolutionary as Darwinism [3] should entice many to jump on the bandwagon as it were and in hopes of criticising theists and perceive Darwin as a metaphor for general forward thinking. People appealing to science, I find, will often cite the theory of evolution (another is the big bang of course) as a symbol of great thought and an inspiring immutable fact of existence for all to ceaselessly ponder until the end of time. That’s fantastic and everything... but people don’t do they? And deploying that kind of talk so rashly into an argument which comprises of literalists, creationists and others who do not accept Darwinism is the best way to be utterly disrespectful and rejected.

We have already examined the problematic nature of symbols and critical atheism it seems has far too many ideas and concepts running through its discourse which are beginning to be lumped together and utilised with seemingly no concern as symbols. A most blatant use of this is simply when people are challenged by religious and illogical theories of creation and simply cite Darwinism as the only credible alternative and inherently superior (which is not strictly speaking a problem or false in its own right). The danger here is that this exhibition is increasingly habitual and is done with little or no consideration, that is to say - what are in fact brilliantly good ideas are being quoted and advocated by popular fashion rather than rational thought. An assumptive equation has taken over people’s thinking which is evoked by instinct whereby people revert to immediately thinking Darwin = good, religion = bad. This is hardly logical or critical thinking but simple regurgitation of something most utilising it do not understand or give much serious consideration to beyond conforming to a few skimmed articles and popular opinion that Darwin’s idea is acceptable. Not only this but it results in the creation of camps of thought... often ones that make no actual sense like scientific or religious (which are not by any sense of definition opposed on any matter until the fundementals are addressed by both sides).

So, my observation is that anything Darwinian has become a symbol or tautology; simply another word for 'correct' and anything symbolically seen to oppose it is naturally or neccesarily wrong by simple definition… no thought required, a dangerous trap for aspiring thinkers to fall into. Rationality alone is the key to solution of debate and not a symbolisation that contains it no matter how amazing or revolutionary an idea is.

[1] Daniel C. Dennett, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools For Thinking (Penguin: UK, 2013) p. 201

[2] Ian F. W. Beckett, Why I Believe a Moratorium On Hitler Is Overdue, The Times Higher Education, 15 December 2000, <http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/why-i-believe-a-moratorium-on-hitler-is-overdue/155843.article> [Accessed 1 February 2015]

[3] The Importance of Charles Darwin: His Ideas Are a Linchpin of Modern Science, Being Human, 30 July 2013 <http://www.beinghuman.org/article/importance-charles-darwin> {Accessed 1 February 2015]

After a few people read this they questioned if I liked Darwinism or symbolism at all, so I thought I should add further clarification. Symbolism is great; it’s a perfect tool for generalising and allows us to conglomerate huge strings of ideas, people and events into conveyable concepts which beautifully save time when conversing - but only when both sides agree as to the meaning of the symbol in play. In the case that they do not arguments should always be fought and won through chains of logical thought, constructing ladders of reasoning, intricately breaking down and deconstructing discourse, analysing linguistic terms, intellectually considering the tiniest of details and fully exploring the widest worlds of thought experiments. One should not be finding themselves avoiding these steps and simply leaning on a dizzyingly high tower like Darwinism – an idea with a hundred thinkers, millions of hours and libraries of works behind it. Yet so any people do so without consideration of how it should truly fit into their (obviously) flawless chain of thought. So many of us replace political and religious symbols such as Communism, Democracy, and Christianity as pseudonyms for ‘good’. When you have the right answer in your hands the reasons should never be forgotten - the reasons are the answer. You'll be pleased to know that Sam and other friends have written replies to this piece, which I may or may not expand on in a later entry.

Daniel Dennett: <http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/>

Daniel Denett on Twitter: <https://twitter.com/danieldennett>