This is, as far as I can see, Richard Dawkins’s memoriam for his pal Dan Dennett. Like many academics, I had my differences with Dan, but they didn’t get in the way of my affection for him, for he was never angry, vindictive, or irrational. Yes, we differed about free will (he was a compatibilist who argued that we really did have “the kind of free will worth wanting”, largely ignoring the fact that most people are libertarians and hold to a justice system based largely on libertarian free will and maintaining that without some kind of formal affirmation of free will, society would disintegrate). But that was an academic difference, though one with social consequences. Despite that, I miss the man and think the world is a poorer place without him. But if you read his autobiography I’ve Been Thinking, you’ll see he had a good run.
If you click on this tweet and then expand the video, you’ll hear an 18-minute disquisition on Dan, beginning with a elegy in which Richard quotes the poem “Heraclitus” by William Johnson Cory. Then about two minutes in there’s a filmed conversation between Dan and Richard explicitly on death—Dan had just recovered from an operation. Both men agree that, as Dan says, “the best consolation is just that. . . they had a chance: they got to be on this stupendous planet and live for a while. . “. That, of course, echoes Richard’s famous paean to existence in Unweaving the Rainbow that begins, “We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.” Richard gains special consolation by understanding the progress that gave rise to him and all life: evolution, mostly propelled by natural selection. Both men agree that a collection of such passages, perhaps named “Hymns to the Universe”, would be a worthwhile addition to the literature of humanism.
Both men show a gusto for life, even with its suffering, and I wish I shared that this morning! Once you’ve been to the party, as Hitchens used to say, you regret leaving it, especially knowing that the party will go on.
I filmed a conversation about death shortly after @danieldennett recovered from a life-threatening condition. In addition to discussing personal mortality, we talked about bereavement. I thought this time it would be appropriate to listen again to his wisdom—the wisdom of a great… pic.twitter.com/Wn5wWraizb
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) April 26, 2024
Pure Silenus. A touch on the optimistic side, maybe, but pretty close to reality.
Another, more contemporary and pop cultural piece of wisdom comes to my mind:
“You get what everyone gets. You get a lifetime.” – the character Death from the Sandman comic series by Neail Gaiman
(Which I *think* is suggesting to utilize your lifetime to its fullest however long or short it may be.)
Sounds like a close cousin of Pratchett’s Death (in small caps, sounding like tombstones falling).
Maybe, with the distinctive distinction that Gaiman’s Death looks like a cute young Gothic girl. 🙂
Susan?
Sorry, watching T.CrB, to see if it has gone “bang”.
Here is one of Dan’s TED talks I often shared with my behavioral science classes. The response was consistently very positive: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_dangerous_memes
This is well worth the 15 minutes required to view it.
I’ve also have used his essay “Where am I?” (from Brainstorms) in first year composition and critical thinking courses.
He was a genius…
Thanks for posting. I hadn’t seen this.
In “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” Dennett suggests that Darwinism is like a “Universal Acid” that eats through and changes every human thought process. Where I would disagree with what he is saying in this talk is that this “acid” is far more potent than even he thinks it is. All animal species have what I’ve called a “Deep Nature” a particular way of thinking about and responding to the world in which it finds itself which underpins the particular behavioural repertoire that the species exhibits. The human species inevitably must have its own Deep Nature. What Dennett seems to be saying in this TED talk ignores the underpinning that Deep Nature provides, although, of course, he might be fully aware of such influence. Our species seems to be predisposed to be susceptible to religious and ideological conditioning, for evolutionary reasons that there isn’t room to discuss here. It is this biological conditioning that provides the substrate on which memes are built. I think we need a deeper understanding of what it is to be members of this species and to think about how genetic influence might support and drive the memes, especially the more extreme varieties, that he worried about in the talk.
The conversation between Dawkins and Dennett regarding death is priceless.
Thank you for this post. I was thinking how my life had been a little different if I could have read books by Dawkins Dennett or Coyne when I was younger. I read so many science books and articles by Asimov — he was a talented essayist like Steven Jay Gould, but I don’t remember Asimov touching this religion topic.(or maybe it just didn’t sink in until I was older).
That’s odd because I think my first exposure to atheism was through Asimov. I can’t remember which piece of writing it was (I would have encountered it in the early 1980s) but I remember at first being shocked at someone who I admired saying it openly.
“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.”
Like many others, I’ve found this this quote from Unweaving the Rainbow to be quite moving, at least as long as one is careful not to take too literally the idea of existence being a form of lottery. For instance, I don’t consider it much of a victory that I should be here today and not my non-existent identical twin brother Jim, whose existential failing was that the zygote at which I began life never managed to split in two.
[ reverence ]
Speaking about life running out, just want say how much I appreciate your post and while I don’t agree with some of your thoughts I di agree with most. Dan, Richard, Sam and Hitch and you, Jerry, have been a blessing for me. You guys anchored me in rthe religious storm that was my upbringing and I am at peace as a result. Thanks for your regular blog, for your great grounding in evolution,
I especially liked Dennett’s description of evolution as the “universal solvent”, in that it interacts with everything in human life. Dobzhansky said the same thing differently: Nothing in biology means anything except in the light of evolution.
As someone who was brought up in a devout Roman Catholic household the realisation that there is no god, gives deep resonance to questions about life and its end. Seems to me that this is as wise and humanistic an answer to the problem as it is possible to give.
With respect to having differences, I have accepted over the years that trying to make everyone agree with me is fruitless and probably wrong: after all, I am probably wrong in some of my opinions, but just don’t know it yet. I try to relish the variety, but it is hardest with those you are close to. When someone you love is wrong about something important it tends to alter your opinion of them, so it is necessary to keep reminding yourself that you may be the one that is wrong. I suppose there is another defense against that kind of devaluation of someone else: become a determinist and say to yourself they had no choice….
Re. the improbability of our existence, which Dawkins and Dennett mention several times: reminded me (and i’m sure a number of other readers here) of Monty Python/Eric Idle’s The Galaxy Song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk (which would make a nice contribution to their proposed anthology), from The Meaning of Life.
Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea changed the way I thought about many things and gave me perhaps the strongest argument against the existence of God. Things are the way they are because they got that way from what wasn’t that way. It’s actually a shocking idea which goes against our intuitions.