The Philosophy of Early Human Evolution

Jessica Gonzalez said:I guess the hardest thing about these debates—something people tend to overlook without realizing it—is how difficult it is for our minds to actually grasp the sheer scale of biological or human eras on Earth. We understand the math behind the number 65 million, but it’s almost impossible to truly feel the weight of those 65 million years that have passed since the asteroid hit Florida. It feels much the same when we try to wrap our heads around 100,000 or 200,000 years and all the humans who lived through that span leading up to today. From that viewpoint, I suppose there isn't much difference between mentioning a billion years, 100 million, or 100 thousand. The numbers all feel equally abstract to us. Even the Middle Ages feel like a distant history that's hard to culturally connect with, let alone Ancient Greece, Egypt, or Mesopotamia. Those are periods and cultures we know somewhat well through architecture or written records, yet they still seem unimaginably far away and disconnected from our lives now. And that's only a few thousand years back. So, trying to mentally process 100,000 or 200,000 years ago is a huge stretch.

It’s also pretty tough being constantly bombarded with information today, where things like computers, the internet, airplanes, electricity, satellites, cars, schools, and office jobs are just taken for granted. Then you get hit with the fact that for 99% of human history, people didn't have any of that, nor could they have ever dreamed it might exist one day. Biologically speaking, I think we evolved as hunter-gatherers, with muscles, bones, teeth, speech, vision, smell, hearing, nervous systems, and digestion all fine-tuned for living in nature without clocks, calendars, or technology. Someone mentioned that hypothetically, we could take a baby from 100,000 years ago, bring them into the modern world, and successfully raise them. I think that's a bit of a skewed perspective; the more accurate way to look at it might be that we could take a baby born today and drop them 100,000 years into the past, and that world would be the "default" setting for them. Not this one. Or, maybe if we took a baby and pulled a random millennium out of a box containing 100,000 years, or even a random century out of a box of 1,000 centuries, in 99.5% of cases, that baby would end up in a world we’d consider quite primitive. In 99.9% of cases, it would be at least partially primitive. We also have to remember that most parts of the world were considered primitive by Western standards until just a few decades ago.

I'm curious about your reasoning there. Could you elaborate on that thought process?

My point was that a baby born 100,000 years ago could be raised just like any child born today. Why? Because they are still *Homo sapiens*. Genetically speaking, they are identical to us. They possess all the biological predispositions required to integrate into our modern society—to use smartphones, computers, and so on. In the exact same way, a child born today possesses every genetic predisposition needed to thrive in the world of *Homo sapiens* from 100,000 years ago.

It works the same way whether you take a child born 4,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, or even just a century ago; we could raise them just like any modern infant born in an American hospital today.

The genetic blueprint remains the same. What a child ultimately becomes depends entirely on the environment in which they are raised.

Megan Gray32 said:Greetings—I originally opened this thread over in the "History" section, but I didn't have much luck there. Aside from a few dry facts, I wasn't particularly satisfied with the responses I received. The reality is that prehistory is essentially shrouded in mystery; because there is no written record to lean on, we are largely left with nothing but speculation. That is precisely what draws me in—the opportunity to exercise a bit of imagination within that context. Perhaps we might uncover some hidden, buried truth, much like stumbling upon a treasure chest. And it doesn't necessarily have to be gold; regardless, I would love to see it found.
__________________________________________________ ____________________:

Something has been weighing on my mind lately. I caught myself falling down a Google rabbit hole reading about *Homo erectus*, and I found myself intrigued by the fact that they lived 200,000 years ago before eventually going extinct.

It’s a lot to process. I studied history back in high school, though I wasn't truly grasping the sheer scale of it all at the time. If we are looking at 200,000 years ago, and considering we are now in 2022—plus perhaps another 5,600 years since the dawn of civilization—we have a massive gap. What happened during those other 192,000 years? Are there any historical facts or specific studies regarding that era? What other subspecies, similar to *Homo erectus*, existed and subsequently vanished?

I am not strictly looking for hard facts; I would actually like to allow ourselves some room for speculation. I am fascinated by questions like: how many times were we on the precipice of progress, only to regress as a species? How many times throughout history was fire sparked, only to flicker out again? What were our greatest obstacles—assuming we had met our basic needs for warmth and food—who was our most formidable enemy? And what was it like to face those predators hand-to-hand in the early days? Which animals were we actually fighting?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could it be argued that *Homo sapiens* were somewhat rational 50,000 years ago, or at least driven by emotion? To say that we existed for 300,000 years—the final link in an evolutionary chain stretching back two billion years—only to finally stumble upon agriculture and animal domestication in the last 10,000 years... it feels a bit demoralizing for humanity, doesn't it?

If we have been around for roughly 100,000 to 150,000 years, there must have been culture, cave paintings, and a distinct sense of aesthetics. There must have been emotion, but surely there was also rational behavior—especially if they were hunting effectively. I realize language wouldn't have been fully developed—meaning a limited vocabulary made communication difficult, even when dealing with tribal hostilities—and, unfortunately, cannibalism was likely a reality.

But as you all suggest, we and they were biologically and physically similar. Could we say we were mentally similar as well? At least on a fundamental level—enough to conclude, "this is good," "this is wrong," or "this is necessary." Given all these circumstances, I find it hard to accept the thesis that we only turned to agriculture and domestication in the last 10,000 years.

Regarding the use of fire, some sources suggest it was being used 300,000 years ago, while others claim even longer. Initially, it might have been accidental—occurring during elemental storms—but later, it became a deliberate effort. This is where meat began to be cooked, which undoubtedly relieved some of our primal savagery and provided a sense of peace.

That is essentially what interests me: those small details, the nuances that helped us advance or caused us to regress as a species. Like a moment where fire might have spontaneously ignited, only to die out. One time, we cook meat and find peace, warmth, and protection from predators. But when the flame dies, do we simply return to the darkness?

Culture must have existed; I am curious about what propelled it forward or held it back. Animals—the larger ones certainly posed a problem. Especially the big cats. And which ones were the good ones—the ones we first befriended?

Anthropology is honestly one of the most fast-paced fields out there. If you pick up a book about human ancestors today, it might feel a bit dated in just ten years. New archaeological finds popping up all over the world seem to make our understanding of human history more complex by the day. Since some people don't really buy into evolution—and even those who do sometimes struggle to wrap their heads around it—the evolutionary path of *Homo sapiens* often gets oversimplified. People tend to view it as a straight line from *Australopithecus* through various *Homo* species, as if one species lived for 50,000 years and then was simply replaced by the next. It doesn't quite work like that. In reality, many different species and subspecies lived alongside each other. It’s a lot like how we look at big cats today; we call them all "cats," but we can clearly see the difference between a jaguar and a tiger, or a lion versus a bobcat. I guess science hasn't fully figured out why only *Homo sapiens* survived out of all those competing hominid branches. Just imagine traveling two million years into the future and seeing that only one type of cat exists—maybe a three-meter-long creature with spots and a mane. You'd probably remember that back in 2022, there were plenty of different big cat species on Earth, and you'd naturally wonder what happened to all the others and how just one single species managed to make it through.

Sam Martinez9 said:I'm curious about your reasoning there. Could you elaborate on that thought process?

My point was that a baby born 100,000 years ago could be raised just like any child born today. Why? Because they are still *Homo sapiens*. Genetically speaking, they are identical to us. They possess all the biological predispositions required to integrate into our modern society—to use smartphones, computers, and so on. In the exact same way, a child born today possesses every genetic predisposition needed to thrive in the world of *Homo sapiens* from 100,000 years ago.

It works the same way whether you take a child born 4,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, or even just a century ago; we could raise them just like any modern infant born in an American hospital today.

The genetic blueprint remains the same. What a child ultimately becomes depends entirely on the environment in which they are raised.

I think the perspective might be slightly off here. Your experiment seems to suggest that an ancient human could adapt to our modern world, whereas mine tries to flip that idea on its head. You want to see if a person from the past can function in our current society, while I want to place a modern person back into the setting where humans were actually biologically designed to live. Both ideas are interesting, though both are obviously impossible to test. But, I suppose humans were fundamentally built to be hunter-gatherers, and that’s our true default setting—even if it's a bit shocking to those of us who probably wouldn't last long in the woods without some tech to help us out.

This kind of reminds me of our discussion regarding OpenAI, which I believe we both touched upon. General OpenAI aims to decode the human brain to master things like chess or art, but at its core, that brain evolved to help humans survive as hunter-gatherers and pass on their genes. That's its primary purpose; being able to strategize over a chessboard is really just a byproduct of that evolution.

Sam Martinez9 said:I'm curious about your reasoning there. Could you elaborate on that thought process?

My point was that a baby born 100,000 years ago could be raised just like any child born today. Why? Because they are still *Homo sapiens*. Genetically speaking, they are identical to us. They possess all the biological predispositions required to integrate into our modern society—to use smartphones, computers, and so on. In the exact same way, a child born today possesses every genetic predisposition needed to thrive in the world of *Homo sapiens* from 100,000 years ago.

It works the same way whether you take a child born 4,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, or even just a century ago; we could raise them just like any modern infant born in an American hospital today.

The genetic blueprint remains the same. What a child ultimately becomes depends entirely on the environment in which they are raised.

I’m not so sure it would work quite like that, though. While you might be able to send a child back a couple thousand years without much trouble, I suspect the reverse wouldn't go so smoothly; a child brought from the ancient past into the modern US would likely succumb quite quickly to a disease we consider totally minor, simply because they might lack the specific genetic adaptations we've developed over time. 🤔

Jessica Gonzalez said:I think the perspective might be slightly off here. Your experiment seems to suggest that an ancient human could adapt to our modern world, whereas mine tries to flip that idea on its head. You want to see if a person from the past can function in our current society, while I want to place a modern person back into the setting where humans were actually biologically designed to live. Both ideas are interesting, though both are obviously impossible to test. But, I suppose humans were fundamentally built to be hunter-gatherers, and that’s our true default setting—even if it's a bit shocking to those of us who probably wouldn't last long in the woods without some tech to help us out.

This kind of reminds me of our discussion regarding OpenAI, which I believe we both touched upon. General OpenAI aims to decode the human brain to master things like chess or art, but at its core, that brain evolved to help humans survive as hunter-gatherers and pass on their genes. That's its primary purpose; being able to strategize over a chessboard is really just a byproduct of that evolution.

Fair enough. But how then do you account for modern humans navigating a high-tech society so seamlessly? What is the actual mechanism at play here? Why is today's individual capable of this when our ancestors weren't?

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I’m not so sure it would work quite like that, though. While you might be able to send a child back a couple thousand years without much trouble, I suspect the reverse wouldn't go so smoothly; a child brought from the ancient past into the modern US would likely succumb quite quickly to a disease we consider totally minor, simply because they might lack the specific genetic adaptations we've developed over time. 🤔

I agree with you there. It’s the same reason smallpox was so devastating to Native Americans. However, my point is specifically about cognitive capacity—about the brain and our reasoning abilities. We have largely neglected that aspect of the evolution.

Megan Gray32 said:Greetings—I originally opened this thread over in the "History" section, but I didn't have much luck there. Aside from a few dry facts, I wasn't particularly satisfied with the responses I received. The reality is that prehistory is essentially shrouded in mystery; because there is no written record to lean on, we are largely left with nothing but speculation. That is precisely what draws me in—the opportunity to exercise a bit of imagination within that context. Perhaps we might uncover some hidden, buried truth, much like stumbling upon a treasure chest. And it doesn't necessarily have to be gold; regardless, I would love to see it found.
__________________________________________________ ____________________:

Something has been weighing on my mind lately. I caught myself falling down a Google rabbit hole reading about *Homo erectus*, and I found myself intrigued by the fact that they lived 200,000 years ago before eventually going extinct.

It’s a lot to process. I studied history back in high school, though I wasn't truly grasping the sheer scale of it all at the time. If we are looking at 200,000 years ago, and considering we are now in 2022—plus perhaps another 5,600 years since the dawn of civilization—we have a massive gap. What happened during those other 192,000 years? Are there any historical facts or specific studies regarding that era? What other subspecies, similar to *Homo erectus*, existed and subsequently vanished?

I am not strictly looking for hard facts; I would actually like to allow ourselves some room for speculation. I am fascinated by questions like: how many times were we on the precipice of progress, only to regress as a species? How many times throughout history was fire sparked, only to flicker out again? What were our greatest obstacles—assuming we had met our basic needs for warmth and food—who was our most formidable enemy? And what was it like to face those predators hand-to-hand in the early days? Which animals were we actually fighting?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could it be argued that *Homo sapiens* were somewhat rational 50,000 years ago, or at least driven by emotion? To say that we existed for 300,000 years—the final link in an evolutionary chain stretching back two billion years—only to finally stumble upon agriculture and animal domestication in the last 10,000 years... it feels a bit demoralizing for humanity, doesn't it?

If we have been around for roughly 100,000 to 150,000 years, there must have been culture, cave paintings, and a distinct sense of aesthetics. There must have been emotion, but surely there was also rational behavior—especially if they were hunting effectively. I realize language wouldn't have been fully developed—meaning a limited vocabulary made communication difficult, even when dealing with tribal hostilities—and, unfortunately, cannibalism was likely a reality.

But as you all suggest, we and they were biologically and physically similar. Could we say we were mentally similar as well? At least on a fundamental level—enough to conclude, "this is good," "this is wrong," or "this is necessary." Given all these circumstances, I find it hard to accept the thesis that we only turned to agriculture and domestication in the last 10,000 years.

Regarding the use of fire, some sources suggest it was being used 300,000 years ago, while others claim even longer. Initially, it might have been accidental—occurring during elemental storms—but later, it became a deliberate effort. This is where meat began to be cooked, which undoubtedly relieved some of our primal savagery and provided a sense of peace.

That is essentially what interests me: those small details, the nuances that helped us advance or caused us to regress as a species. Like a moment where fire might have spontaneously ignited, only to die out. One time, we cook meat and find peace, warmth, and protection from predators. But when the flame dies, do we simply return to the darkness?

Culture must have existed; I am curious about what propelled it forward or held it back. Animals—the larger ones certainly posed a problem. Especially the big cats. And which ones were the good ones—the ones we first befriended?

What you’re saying hits home because I've always found this part of human evolution absolutely mind-blowing. If you look at the current timeline, it feels like it took us millions of years just to realize we should climb down from the trees and start living on the ground. Then, we spent another 190,000 years just figuring out how to write things down about ourselves... yet, in just ten thousand years since then, we've managed to master nuclear energy and launch ourselves into space. It honestly sounds completely unrealistic... there's definitely something broken in that timeline!

Sam Martinez9 said:I'm curious about your reasoning there. Could you elaborate on that thought process?

My point was that a baby born 100,000 years ago could be raised just like any child born today. Why? Because they are still *Homo sapiens*. Genetically speaking, they are identical to us. They possess all the biological predispositions required to integrate into our modern society—to use smartphones, computers, and so on. In the exact same way, a child born today possesses every genetic predisposition needed to thrive in the world of *Homo sapiens* from 100,000 years ago.

It works the same way whether you take a child born 4,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, or even just a century ago; we could raise them just like any modern infant born in an American hospital today.

The genetic blueprint remains the same. What a child ultimately becomes depends entirely on the environment in which they are raised.

In terms of the core blueprint, sure. But I think it's more complicated than that.

There’s this relatively new, fast-growing field in science called epigenetics. It basically looks at how behavior and environment can trigger changes that affect how genes actually function. We aren't talking about changing the DNA sequence itself here; epigenetic changes are reversible and don't alter the underlying DNA code, but they can totally change how the body reads that sequence.
Because of that, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance can influence an offspring's traits without ever touching the actual DNA structure.

These variations can be endogenous (like cell-to-cell during early development) or exogenous (how cells react to environmental factors).
So, I guess there's a chance that multi-generational epigenetics could be another layer of evolution and adaptation. Some people even go as far as calling epigenetics a form of heredity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans...ic_inheritance

Sam Martinez9 said:Fair enough. But how then do you account for modern humans navigating a high-tech society so seamlessly? What is the actual mechanism at play here? Why is today's individual capable of this when our ancestors weren't?

I agree with you there. It’s the same reason smallpox was so devastating to Native Americans. However, my point is specifically about cognitive capacity—about the brain and our reasoning abilities. We have largely neglected that aspect of the evolution.

Well, who's saying they couldn't? It wasn't because they lacked the intellectual or physical capacity; it was simply because the technology didn't exist yet. 😁 If you took a baby born today and dropped them on a deserted island where they were raised by some imaginary "Peterson," how would that child ever learn to use technology from, say, modern USA? Would that question even make sense?

I suppose there is a valid point in asking how humans, living as hunter-gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years, developed the intellect necessary to build today's high-tech societies. That’s a fair question, and it's essentially what I was getting at in my first post. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of years across various Homo species, and maybe 100-150 thousand years for Homo sapiens, during which countless generations lived all over the world. Since they survived and spread globally, it's safe to assume they understood their environment incredibly well. However, I think we tend to use a modern bias when we define "understanding the world," assuming that only our current knowledge counts as advanced. We have engineering, medicine, and various sciences that allow us to build machines, communication networks, and transport systems. But a society from, say, 75,000 years ago probably possessed an equally vast knowledge of nature and survival. The challenges facing an average person back then might have been just as intellectually demanding as ours, especially since the average person today doesn't actually understand most of the tech they use. Most people can drive a car, but they don't really know what's happening under the hood. They know a plane flies and the pilot has a bunch of buttons, but they don't grasp the intricate details that make a commercial jet work. If you break down the daily routine of a typical modern person, the tasks aren't necessarily incredibly complex. They might not be much more difficult than the life of someone 75,000 years ago who had to physically survive through hunting and battling the elements every single day. I guess I'm trying to say that surviving back then was a much harder task than it is now, when we have an entire society and a massive technological safety net to catch us. Back then, natural selection was relentless; those who were more skillful, healthier, and better at providing food and protecting their group were the ones who made it. Intelligence played a huge role in that.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Anthropology is honestly one of the most fast-paced fields out there. If you pick up a book about human ancestors today, it might feel a bit dated in just ten years. New archaeological finds popping up all over the world seem to make our understanding of human history more complex by the day. Since some people don't really buy into evolution—and even those who do sometimes struggle to wrap their heads around it—the evolutionary path of *Homo sapiens* often gets oversimplified. People tend to view it as a straight line from *Australopithecus* through various *Homo* species, as if one species lived for 50,000 years and then was simply replaced by the next. It doesn't quite work like that. In reality, many different species and subspecies lived alongside each other. It’s a lot like how we look at big cats today; we call them all "cats," but we can clearly see the difference between a jaguar and a tiger, or a lion versus a bobcat. I guess science hasn't fully figured out why only *Homo sapiens* survived out of all those competing hominid branches. Just imagine traveling two million years into the future and seeing that only one type of cat exists—maybe a three-meter-long creature with spots and a mane. You'd probably remember that back in 2022, there were plenty of different big cat species on Earth, and you'd naturally wonder what happened to all the others and how just one single species managed to make it through.

Scientific consensus moves fast, and the old assumption that there was a single, definitive branching where only our line survived is outdated. These splits weren't always permanent; groups that separated thousands of years ago often drifted back together and interbred. It happened with Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus, and plenty of other branches we don't even know about yet. Because of this subsequent mixing, strictly speaking, those branches didn't go extinct—they live on within us. This merging into a single stream isn't some ancient phenomenon either. It's the result of larger migrations, increased mixing, higher population densities, or simply put: civilization. In a civilized society—especially a global one—you can't really have more than one branch.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Well, who's saying they couldn't? It wasn't because they lacked the intellectual or physical capacity; it was simply because the technology didn't exist yet. 😁 If you took a baby born today and dropped them on a deserted island where they were raised by some imaginary "Peterson," how would that child ever learn to use technology from, say, modern USA? Would that question even make sense?

I suppose there is a valid point in asking how humans, living as hunter-gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years, developed the intellect necessary to build today's high-tech societies. That’s a fair question, and it's essentially what I was getting at in my first post. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of years across various Homo species, and maybe 100-150 thousand years for Homo sapiens, during which countless generations lived all over the world. Since they survived and spread globally, it's safe to assume they understood their environment incredibly well. However, I think we tend to use a modern bias when we define "understanding the world," assuming that only our current knowledge counts as advanced. We have engineering, medicine, and various sciences that allow us to build machines, communication networks, and transport systems. But a society from, say, 75,000 years ago probably possessed an equally vast knowledge of nature and survival. The challenges facing an average person back then might have been just as intellectually demanding as ours, especially since the average person today doesn't actually understand most of the tech they use. Most people can drive a car, but they don't really know what's happening under the hood. They know a plane flies and the pilot has a bunch of buttons, but they don't grasp the intricate details that make a commercial jet work. If you break down the daily routine of a typical modern person, the tasks aren't necessarily incredibly complex. They might not be much more difficult than the life of someone 75,000 years ago who had to physically survive through hunting and battling the elements every single day. I guess I'm trying to say that surviving back then was a much harder task than it is now, when we have an entire society and a massive technological safety net to catch us. Back then, natural selection was relentless; those who were more skillful, healthier, and better at providing food and protecting their group were the ones who made it. Intelligence played a huge role in that.

But if you took that same baby, brought them back to the present day, and raised them in a typical 21st-century American household, wouldn't that child grow up speaking English, reading, writing, and navigating a smartphone just like the rest of us?

I was just thinking about some reading I did regarding modern hunter-gatherers (you still see them in certain parts of the US). One defining trait of that lifestyle is how much people are constantly on the move. Since they carry everything they own—clothes, portable shelters, tools, weapons, even domesticated animals—it’s pretty logical that they had to keep their load as light as possible. Because of that, I guess it wouldn't have been practical to develop anything beyond oral traditions for passing down knowledge. Even if they had stumbled upon a form of writing at some point in history, once you write or draw something down, how do you actually transport it if it's etched into a heavy slab? Anything complex, like a long manuscript, would require a massive stone, and I imagine it wasn't exactly easy for nomadic groups to lug around something as heavy as the Mayflower Compact. So, I don't think it's that they weren't capable of writing; it's more likely that their circumstances just didn't allow those ideas to evolve into something that could survive for decades or centuries to fuel further progress. Knowledge stayed oral, passed from one generation to the next, where their way of life shaped their behavior, and vice versa. It feels like that same dynamic exists today, though our circumstances have changed quite a bit.

Amy Howard18 said:What you’re saying hits home because I've always found this part of human evolution absolutely mind-blowing. If you look at the current timeline, it feels like it took us millions of years just to realize we should climb down from the trees and start living on the ground. Then, we spent another 190,000 years just figuring out how to write things down about ourselves... yet, in just ten thousand years since then, we've managed to master nuclear energy and launch ourselves into space. It honestly sounds completely unrealistic... there's definitely something broken in that timeline!

It's off.

The whole thing comes down to dynamic circumstances.
If you're living in abundance and everything is peaceful, there's zero incentive to change.
Someone once wrote—and I'm paraphrasing here—that evolution races down mountain streams but crawls through river valleys.
We didn't just wake up one day and decide to innovate; circumstances forced our hands.
In sports terms: you don't mess with a winning roster.
Our ancestors had to get off those trees because they had to. They had to stand upright, they had to harness fire, they had to invent calendars, they had to build atomic bombs... Hegel and his followers would call that historical necessity.

Harold Doyle3 said:It's off.

The whole thing comes down to dynamic circumstances.
If you're living in abundance and everything is peaceful, there's zero incentive to change.
Someone once wrote—and I'm paraphrasing here—that evolution races down mountain streams but crawls through river valleys.
We didn't just wake up one day and decide to innovate; circumstances forced our hands.
In sports terms: you don't mess with a winning roster.
Our ancestors had to get off those trees because they had to. They had to stand upright, they had to harness fire, they had to invent calendars, they had to build atomic bombs... Hegel and his followers would call that historical necessity.

That’s a massive stretch.

Harold Doyle3 said:It's off.

The whole thing comes down to dynamic circumstances.
If you're living in abundance and everything is peaceful, there's zero incentive to change.
Someone once wrote—and I'm paraphrasing here—that evolution races down mountain streams but crawls through river valleys.
We didn't just wake up one day and decide to innovate; circumstances forced our hands.
In sports terms: you don't mess with a winning roster.
Our ancestors had to get off those trees because they had to. They had to stand upright, they had to harness fire, they had to invent calendars, they had to build atomic bombs... Hegel and his followers would call that historical necessity.

Hegel wouldn't have said it that way.

Sam Martinez9 said:But if you took that same baby, brought them back to the present day, and raised them in a typical 21st-century American household, wouldn't that child grow up speaking English, reading, writing, and navigating a smartphone just like the rest of us?

Yeah, I suppose that's true. But I think it’s more interesting to imagine taking a modern baby and dropping them into a tribe of hunter-gatherers. That kid might actually turn out to be a really successful member of the clan, probably with a completely different skillset than kids have today. At any rate, they definitely wouldn't be struggling with short-sightedness from staring at screens all day...

ruggedraven36 said:That’s a massive stretch.

Hegel wouldn't have said it that way.

No.

ruggedraven36 said:That’s a massive stretch.

Hegel wouldn't have said it that way.

Does the Absolute Spirit Wandering Around just wander aimlessly through its own development? What about historical necessity? Are you actually suggesting there's some chaotic element at play here?

Harold Doyle3 said:No.

Does the Absolute Spirit Wandering Around just wander aimlessly through its own development? What about historical necessity? Are you actually suggesting there's some chaotic element at play here?

Look, Hegel defines history as this steady march toward a greater consciousness of freedom. In his view, freedom is the only real necessity in history.

ruggedraven36 said:Look, Hegel defines history as this steady march toward a greater consciousness of freedom. In his view, freedom is the only real necessity in history.

Better a grave than a slave!

Which means wars are just part of that inevitable process.

Harold Doyle3 said:Better a grave than a slave!

Which means wars are just part of that inevitable process.

Not necessarily. Liberation wars are just one possible scenario for how an awareness of freedom evolves. Even if we hadn't fought those specific wars, that drive for liberty would have surfaced eventually—just through a different set of circumstances.

ruggedraven36 said:Not necessarily. Liberation wars are just one possible scenario for how an awareness of freedom evolves. Even if we hadn't fought those specific wars, that drive for liberty would have surfaced eventually—just through a different set of circumstances.

How, though?

Harold Doyle3 said:How, though?

There's no way to know for sure.