In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins elaborates on another perspective of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, basing his argument on the recent discovery of the DNA molecule's structure. The theory of evolution, which relevance had been largely suffering from a lack of physical validation, now benefits from the irrefutable explanation of the evolution of genes. Starting from the genesis of DNA, Dawkins will show they are our first ancestors, and that mankind exists as a consequence of their survival needs. Whilst all the process doesn't require any morality or will, since the neutral law of nature is sufficient, for all that the author doesn't mean we are condemned to selfishness. Understanding our origins and trajectory helps us decide between two selfish horizons, one of them being more favorable to a peaceful and collaborative world. The text addresses to the whole human species – unfortunately animals cannot read. More a humanist philosopher than a narrow-minded scientist, Dawkins succeeds in vulgarizing and popularizing a strong axiom that could soon modify our own perception of life.
[...] Thus Dawkins suggests that evolution determines where our species go, not what I as an individual can have access to during my short conscious existence. When saying that is a fallacy [ ] to suppose that genetically inherited traits are by definition fixed and unmodifiable”[11], he justifies his new concept: a meme, as a unit of human cultural evolution, replicated through imitation among a society, which makes possible the transgression of the selfish gene. Even as a philosopher, Richard Dawkins is meticulous and has a very scientific approach with his argument. [...]
[...] Even though his words may sometimes be crude it is hard to accept the possibility that there weren't anything ethereal in our mind, and far from an anthropocentric view of life. Still, he raises an interesting perspective for our species: our “selfish gene” only determines global guidelines. As a consequence, there could be a place among mankind for short term expressions of solidarity. By helping us understanding our origins, Dawkins could show us a new way to be ourselves, to “rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators”. As a product of evolution, we [...]
[...] He sets out all hypotheses before using them, and he right away clarifies his aim: want to explain briefly what sort of an argument it is, and what sort of an argument it is not”. However he does not try to answer a key question: where is the frontier between and inert matter? It goes much further than the brief analysis Dawkins draws up by saying that mere presence in the dictionary of a word like ‘living' does not mean it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world.”[12] Eluding this fundamental philosophical and humanist interrogation seems to be quite a pity, given that the implications of a possible answer would have a huge impact on our lives. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
