Work Text:
[ 8:34 PM ]
@finch_lover (Charles Darwin) began a chat with @k.a.r.l_m.a.r.x (Karl Marx)
@finch_lover: Hello, I hope you do not mind me messaging you out of the blue like this but it was the only method I had to contact you. I was working in the British library yesterday and stumbled across your notes on the topic of Estranged Labor. I found myself fascinated by the overlap in our writings and wish to share some of my thoughts with you.
@finch_lover: I particularly wanted to comment on your use of the word “species” in relation to your conception of what you call the “species being.” Although I am by no means the only knowledgeable naturalist on the subject, I have spent some time considering and understanding the nature of the species. You may have read my publication On the Origin of Species that came out rather recently (if you have not please let me know, I shall forward you a copy.)
@finch_lover: Anyways, reading through your notes I believe the two of us may have differing understandings of what “species” means. I am writing this message to you in hopes that we may both reach clarification on the term.
@k.a.r.l_m.a.r.x: [Read message at 8:51 PM ]
[ 9:46 PM]
@finch_lover: I would like to begin by commending you on your statements regarding man as a part of nature. Although your work is far more focused on the concerns of man, you do not entirely disregard all other elements of nature, and the interconnectedness of all life. If I may quote your journal, you write: “That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.” Here you have caught on to a very crucial idea that I explore in my own work: that man is a part of nature. I have spent much time grappling with the belief that man was born of special creation. Even when readers are susceptible to the idea that animals have evolved through a process of natural selection, many still have trouble with the application to the human. In the passage I pointed to, you are on the right track to understanding how my work relates to the human species. However, there are elements of your use of “species” as it applies to humans that I must address, for I believe that you may not understand the word in the way I use it.
@k.a.r.l_m.a.r.x: [Read message at 10:30 PM ]
[ 11:58 PM ]
@finch_lover: As a naturalist, I believe it is my responsibility to clarify the nature of the term “species”. As I discuss in my book (again, please let me know if you have not read it because I can get you a copy), the scientific community has no one definition for what a species is. Each naturalist has some sense of what it is but it is a difficult constraint to articulate without example, which is why even I am not qualified to give the exact rules for what distinguishes a species, a subspecies, or a variant from the other. In your text you attempt to give an explanation of your understanding of “species” which I shall quote here for your convenience. You write: “The whole character of a species—its species character—is contained in the character of its life-activity; and free, conscious activity is man’s species character.” Although I greatly commend your attempt at a concrete definition of the “species character” you forget that the entire distinction of species from one another is arbitrarily decided! If your notion of the defining characteristic being the life-activity, or in man's case the relationship to the life-activity, then how do we create the distinction between two beings that have a very similar life-activity? What criteria do we have to distinguish this? This is where naturalists tend to decide that is the “amount of difference” that distinguishes one species from another. But this again only points to the arbitrary distinction between species! It is this exact misconception that demonstrates the necessity of understanding my idea of evolution by natural selection when discussing “species''. What we may call a “species” can change over time through the process of natural selection, with varieties splitting off and developing into what we understand today as distinctly separate species. What we are left with is beings in nature that may appear now to be each a distinctly different species, but in fact are each evolved variations from a common ancestor. To try to understand the idea of an essence of the human species misses the point in there being no exactly defined species to assign that essence to!
@k.a.r.l_m.a.r.x: [Read message at 6:30 AM ]
[ 10:03 AM]
@finch_lover: I would like to apologize for the intensity of my previous message and the disregard from the work you have done. I sent it quite late last night and have since had time to ponder your ideas further. I have once again thought back to your notes and I believe your interest in understanding the essence of man in order to understand the impact of labor is a respectable one, although it is not an interest I claim to share. However, you have fallen into the trap of attempting to distinguish man from all other species by identifying the essence of man in comparison to all other species. You define man as a species-being through his relationship to his own species, that is: man is characterized by his understanding of himself as a part of the human species. And yet, I am here to tell you that the idea of species is still arbitrarily defined. If man has the understanding of his own species as the object of his being, and the exact definition of species remains arbitrary, then where does that put us?
@k.a.r.l_m.a.r.x: [Read message at 11:04 AM ]
[ 11:38 AM ]
@finch_lover: I feel the need to reassure that I do not air these objections with the intent to blatantly disregard your ideas of estranged labor and alienation as a whole, only to question what exactly we are alienated from, on a scientific level. Because of your repeated use of the term “species”, as a naturalist I feel obligated to weigh in on the discussion, even though I have far less knowledge of economics and labor than you do. I hope that I have not offended you in any of my messages.
@k.a.r.l_m.a.r.x: [Read message at 11:42 AM ]
[ 12:41 PM ]
@finch_lover: Looking back I have come to the conclusion that we may be talking about different things when we say “species”. As I am approaching your text from the perspective of a naturalist, perhaps I have missed the core of what you are trying to get across. That it is because we see ourselves in relation to other members of our “species” as you put it, we are a “species-being”. Which you use to mean that we are individuals who see ourselves universally in all other human beings. And if I follow your (potentially questionable) definition of a “species” as being defined by its life-activity, that would indicate that humans understand ourselves as individuals and as a “species” in relation to what we do: our life-activity. Alienation then would be the separation of man from what he does; and if man is defined by what he does, if he is separated from that he is then alienated from both himself and his “species” or “species being”. Am I understanding you correctly here?
[ 1:10 PM ]
@finch_lover: I appreciate your tolerance for the numerous messages I have sent in the past day. I do have respect for you and your work as I hope you do for mine. I would consider discussing the language you use with a member of the scientific community if it concerns a complex topic such as “species” before the publication of any of these texts. Be well, Darwin 🐤
@k.a.r.l_m.a.r.x: [Read message at 1:37 PM]
[ 2:30 PM]
@k.a.r.l_m.a.r.x: Thank you for your input. I have in fact read On the Origin of Species and do not need to be provided with a copy. 🛠️