• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 2
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
Running Head: THE SECULAR PHILOSOPHY OF DANIEL DENNETT
The secular Philosophy of Daniel Dennett: A Critical Essay
BWOctober 3, 20091
 
The Secular Philosophy of Daniel Dennett: A Critical Essay(or, An Essay of Criticism?)
Daniel Dennett, an Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University, wasinterviewed by Robert Wright for “Meaningoflife.tv,” on December 16, 2008. I found this“master” of philosophy’s use of “quantum physics” formulary, his use of “big” words, and hisability to create “new” words (verbogenesis?) rather humorous but quite often insulting. In arather round-about way of answering questions, Dennett never really does come to anyconclusions about anything. He never allows himself to commit to an actual “yes” or “no”answer to any of the questions posed him about God, free will, or evolution.Dennett and his group of followers, inadequately named the “Brights,” believe there is nosuch thing as anything supernatural. Dennett of course, states that the term “Brights” does notrefer to intelligence, but simply refers to a group of people who reject anything supernatural.Dennett and his followers view those who believe in God as ones who have not yet “evolved”into a higher state of mental capacity, as they have. They have no need of “fairytales” to givethem something to live for. They have the ‘god’ of Science and Intelligence and“compatablistism!”Sadly, the “brights” may not be so “bright” after all: If they truly believe nothing is“supernatural,” and if one looks at the meaning of the very word “supernatural,” (“super”meaning, “over and above; higher in quantity, quality, or degree than;” and “natural” of courserefers to nature), then because Dennett believes he is “above” nature, as he has “evolved” over it,then Dennett has “philosophized” himself out of existence!2
 
 Nevertheless, there are much deeper problems with Dennett’s philosophy that go way beyondhis pious and simple word-play. Dennett’s “god” of science has reduced the human being - themost precious creation of the Living God, Yahweh - into simple “harm avoiding” machines withno purpose, no reason for even
being 
, except to “pass genes onto the next generation.”But take heart, everyone! According to Dennett, we have endless potential! He states very
 proudly
how, “natural selection is an
explosion
of evitability. We’ve had huge increases in thedegrees of freedom (or mastery over nature?). The powers that the products (is he
actually
referring to people as
 products
?) of evolution have the accrued, this is one of the most
obvious
facts in the physical world – this growth evitability.” Nothing is impossible for us “products,”according to Dennett. Quantum-physically speaking, product potential is “truly indeterminate,”meaning that people (or products?) could potentially have endless potential – but to what potential end is potentially all this potential? The world looks to philosophers like Dennett for answers. Can he give the world some hope? Does he have the answer to the very meaning of life? I think not (wait, does that now mean that “I am not?”).The “great” philosopher of our day can only offers potential alternate realities. He states that,“all the varieties of free will that [we are] wanting [to] have, we can have in a deterministicworld. I can define varieties of free will that are incompatible with determinism, but they’re pointless. They don’t give you anything that matters. They aren’t needed for moralresponsibility. They aren’t needed to give your life meaning. They are completely gratuitous, sortof bizarre metaphysical conceits. They don’t pull their weight; you don’t need them, who cares.”In other words, there
is
no meaning of life; “Your truth may or may not be my truth;” or,“whatever reality works for you may not work for me.”3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...

This "essay" is a piece of garbage. The author uses ad hominem attacks and a sub-par understanding of Dennett's thought to "critique" his work. Sad, really.

This paper was extremely well-written. I actually laughed out loud, reading the third paragraph on the second page - Ruah Ranch is right! Dennett and his not-so-"Brights" philosophized themselves out of existence! These "self-exhaulted," wine-drinking, babling idiots who think they know it all because they can turn questions into arguments with no premise and just go around and around using the "big" phony words. I pray for them that they find the TRUTH some day! "Faith" is based on an unshakeable foundational truth. Do these "lovers of knowledge" even research what it is they believe in? I think not. Here, Daniel. Have another glass of wine.

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...