Reply to comment

Thinking back to the conversation we had in class on Thursday, I could never quite get the idea of Darwin's approach to convincing people of the validity of his story out of my head. I think it is interesting that he choose to portray himself as a trustworthy figure who is modest in his findings. I wonder how true to his own character he was actually staying? By that I mean was he really as unsure of all of his findings being so disputable and subject to interpreation as he seemed to indicate in his writing? I think it would be interesting to think about that.

 I was intriuged by Pr. Grobstein's story that humans are defined by their ancestry. It isn't something that had occured to me before though it does make since when considering that there really is no one universal characteristic that seems to ba able to create a better definition, except possibly the existencialist claim that Pr. Dalke described in class on Thursday. I am not sure that I can say that I buy one claim or the other because I beleive they both have a valid argument. I kind of like the idea that people are defined by the past, but I feel that it isn't quite a complete definition of what humans are since it really seems to indicate what we have been.