Erasmus Darwin’s ideas represent a rejection
of the Chain of Being idea popularized by his naturalist predecessors. Their
arguments rested upon the assertion that God created organisms in hierarchical structure.
Such a system relies on the innate superiority of certain life forms over
others. Darwin’s writing on reproduction goes to some lengths to dispel such
ideas.
The idea of a common beginning to
organic life is embedded in Darwin’s work. In The Temple of Nature, Darwin writes that
the Oak, Whale, Lion, Eagle, and “imperious man…/ arose from rudiments of form
and sense, / An embryon point, or microscopic ens!” (Darwin 32). Such organisms
represent links from all over the Chain of Being. Naturally the Oak would be
lowest and Man the highest, with the other animals falling between, but the
idea that each arises from a microscopic organization of cells in the same
manner muddies the hierarchy. How can these organisms be so different from one
another as to hold different links on the chain if they begin life in much the
same way?
The extent
of beings’ similarity can be seen in the beginning of his Generation chapter of
Zoonomia. Darwin writes of “the
female parent” and “the male parent” copulating to produce life. These labels
are generic, referring to such diverse organisms as birds, vegetables, fish,
and humans. If the same reproductive ideas apply to such a wide variety of
life, how can the Chain of Being exist?
I thought this was an interesting concept. The Chain of Being is entirely a manmade creation, created for our own convenience and to satisfy our desire to organize and classify everything. Animals do not think of things as "male" or "female" they simply exist and do what they need to do to survive.
ReplyDeleteIn documentary "Life," there is a section on garter snakes wherein a male who comes out of hibernation late will confuse the other competing males who think he is female. (I have attached a video) Gender does not matter to the snakes, they do just what comes naturally. I agree with your point, by creating these vague terms that we come to use for every sort of animal, whether plants, reptiles, or humans, we destroy the so called "Chain of Being" because everything essentially operates on the same level and their soul purpose is standard animalistic tendencies; to survive and reproduce.
Here is the video, be cautious if you dislike snakes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksxrXRtpO6k
I agree that "The Chain of Being" was created purely to allow man to create "order" in the world, with man of course being at the top. I also agree that it is somewhat naive and illogical because "The Chain of Being" created a false "order" that had no basis and only pertained to man himself and man's place in the world. In this day and age, we have a greater understanding of the complexity of evolution and ecological processes and we understand that there is no set "order" of animals. In the days before Erasmus Darwin and evolutionary concepts, man was simply attempting to get a grasp on the diverse world around him, albeit a loose one, with the one concept that held strong in that era; anthropocentrism; a concept that set man apart from and above the rest of the animal kingdom.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that "the chain of being" is made by man, but I think that although the chain as a hierarchy of evolution has long since been debunked, the chain itself serves as more than a classification of life. "The chain of being" is a way for man to validate his existence and his desire to know more. The chain is the golden ladder. By discovering the truth of each rung of the ladder, man can get closer to understanding Erasmus's first cause, God. God is unknowable, but "the chain of being" or the golden ladder gives humanity the ability to come closer to God.
ReplyDelete