Have any philosophers taken up human hive-like behaviour and its implications?

EO Wilson and others have outlined eusociality, a mode of group selection acting in addition to selection at the individual level https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4850877/ though this is not without critics https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-dawkins-edward-o-_b_1588510 This seems to suggest that aspects of being human, like tool use, clothing and cooking, may have reinforced the benefits of social behaviour supporting group fitness, over individual success. This can be extended all the way to the success in science of the Allies over Axis powers (nuclear weapons), and later Soviet's (profound misconceptions about agronomy).

In philosophy (from the Wikipedia page on the Private Language Argument):

If the idea of a private language is inconsistent, then a logical conclusion would be that all language serves a social function. This would have profound implications for other areas of philosophical and psychological study. For example, if one cannot have a private language, it might not make any sense to talk of private experiences or of private mental states.

Science extends sensory faculties, through collective development of tools from vacuum pumps to CERN, and regulation of the quality of reported results through peer review and academic prestige. The cultural whole of science is not only greater than the parts, but seems to be creating deeper global integration and allocating technology and access to resources in return for that, creating a positive feedback loop.

Has anyone since Wittgenstein taken up the philosophical implications of this? Has anyone taken up the ideas of Kuhn & Popper and applied them like this? What do our eusociality and non-private aspects of language tell us about complex brains and how we know things?

  • 1
    I think this book is good: Title: The way we are, Author: Wheelis, Allen, 1915- Publisher:Norton,Pub date:c2006. And Elias too, e.g. Title: The history of manners, Author Elias, Norbert, 1897-1990. Publisher:Pantheon Books,Pub date:c1978. and his other books. To live in close proximity there is a price to be paid with repressed aggression, which is usually sent upwards to the leader: unhealthy types of patriotism, aggression on the world stage. – Gordon Apr 4 '18 at 16:20
  • 1
    Btw Habermas took into account Wittgenstein and Peter Winch because he knew he had to understand man himself. Social man. Just how reasonable and cooperative can we humans actually be? Habermas was relatively optimistic that a process for reasonableness could be worked out, I think; I don't know Habermas' later thought. Freud would have said what he always did: humans to be anything must have civilization but they will never be entirely happy in it. Wheelis follows in line with Freud. – Gordon Apr 4 '18 at 18:03
  • 1
    Btw we do not see a "happy", cooperative beehive in Europe and America today, to put it mildly. (When we speak of evolution we are talking many, many years, but I'm not a specialist.) I have the utmost respect for Habermas' modern, enlightened project, but it too will be like a message in a bottle for the future if we can get there. As far as globalization, it's a super-rational Form of production and distribution, but the Content can be lousy. We may not have the best goods and services being distributed at all, for various reasons; and I think people sense that. – Gordon Apr 4 '18 at 18:35
  • 1
    @Bread You raise an interesting theory for hive analysis: The measure of conformity among individuals, impacts the developmental ease of a hive. That is, when conformity is high, like with ants, hive formation is easy; and when individuals are highly variable, like with humans, hive formation is impeded. This begs the question: Would more conforment societies gain socioeconomic advantage through quicker hive-like 'adaptation'. – christo183 Dec 10 '18 at 12:49
  • 1
    "What do our eusociality and non-private aspects of language tell us about complex brains and how we know things?" ... Nothing.whatsoever. The former is neuroscience and the latter is epistemology. – PeterJ Dec 11 '18 at 10:05

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.