End of Philosopy? Oh Really

Here's David Brooks playing armchair cultural anthropologist again.

The comments are interesting too. Mine is toward the end of them.

He plays fast and loose in his argument. At one point in the piece he includes both competition and cooperation as behaviors favored by evolution. But gradually he reveals his bias toward cooperation.

Toward the end he writes, "The evolutionary approach leads some scientists to neglect --". Note that he has moved from questioning the competitive approach to the evolutionary approach in general. What would he substitute for the "evolutionary approach"? Is this a nod to the Religionists who contend that morals come from God? Would he substitute Creationism?

In his enthusiasm for the value of cooperation he conveniently avoids the reality that cooperation is a group form of competition, on behalf of a family, tribe, religion or secular institution intended for the survival of one's group.

In his panning of reasoning as a positive behavior he reveals his own sloppy example of it.

Leanderthal