dc.contributor.author | Rusek, Damian | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-07-21T09:21:14Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-07-21T09:21:14Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1689-4286 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11089/38069 | |
dc.description.abstract | Since ‘The Selfish Gene’ by Richard Dawkins was published the notion
of evolving culture has become a matter of a growing concern which
appears to be especially intriguing from the perspective of biology (R.
Dawkins), psychology (R. Brodie) as well as philosophy (D. Dennett).
The essence of Darwin’s project is a natural selection within the sphere
of a natural science. From this standpoint, a human is considered to be
an effect of an evolutionary development. In the memetics approach, a
human being is perceived in a different manner. An unit of gene, which
task is to pass on the information in a process of a natural selection, has
been replaced by a notion of a meme that is an entirely new replicator
which, as opposed to a gene, may be applied to the various
environments, not only a biological one. The crucial factor that
determines the uniqueness of every man would be culture. From this
point of view, the transfer of culture, which is developing in a specific
procedure, is emphasized. What can be included in the evolutionary
processes in the vast area of culture? What is the discrepancy between
the Dawkins’s biological position and the grounded on a philosophy of
mind the position of Dennett? The above mentioned attitudes result in
various definitions of meme as well as the further implications that
result from these definitions. Does the Theory of Cultural Selection fully
explain a matter of the origin and evolution of languages, societies and
religions? | pl_PL |
dc.language.iso | pl | pl_PL |
dc.publisher | Instytut Filozofii Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego | pl_PL |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Internetowy Magazyn Filozoficzny HYBRIS;28 | |
dc.subject | meme | pl_PL |
dc.subject | replicator | pl_PL |
dc.subject | New Atheism | pl_PL |
dc.subject | cultural selection | pl_PL |
dc.subject | imitation | pl_PL |
dc.title | Ewolucja religii w memetyce (dawkins, dennett). Teoria doboru kulturowego w wyjaśnianiu zjawisk powstania, rozwoju i ewolucji kultury | pl_PL |
dc.title.alternative | Evolution of Religion in Memetics (Dawkins, Dennett) | pl_PL |
dc.type | Article | pl_PL |
dc.page.number | 158-173 | pl_PL |
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation | Uniwersytet Łódzki | pl_PL |
dc.references | Biedrzycki, Mariusz, 1998, Genetyka Kultury, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prószyński i S-ka. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Blackmore, Susan, 2002, Maszyna Memowa, przeł. Norbert Radomski, Poznań: Dom Wydawniczy Rebis. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Boroch, Robert, 2011, Przeciw memetyce, „Hybris”, nr 15, s. 62–99, http://magazynhybris.com/images/teksty/15/05.Boroch%2 0[62-99].pdf (03.09.2013) | pl_PL |
dc.references | Brodie, Richard, 1997, Wirus umysłu, przeł. Piotr Turski, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Ravi. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Dawkins, Richard, 2007, Bóg Urojony, przeł. Piotr J. Szwajcer, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo CiS (The God Delusion, New York: Bantam Books 2006). | pl_PL |
dc.references | Dawkins, Richard, 2003, Fenotyp Rozszerzony. Dalekosiężny gen, przeł. Joanna Gliwicz, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Prószyński i S-ka (The Extended Phenotype. The Long Reach of the gene, Oxford, W.H. Freeman, 1982). | pl_PL |
dc.references | Dawkins, Richard, 1996, Samolubny Gen, przeł. Marek Skoneczny Warszawa: Prószyński (Selfish Gene, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1989). | pl_PL |
dc.references | Dawkins, Richard, 1994, Ślepy zegarmistrz, przeł. A. Hoffman, Warszawa: PIW (The Blind Watchmaker, London: Norton 1986). | pl_PL |
dc.references | Dennett, Daniel, 2008, Odczarowanie. Religia jako zjawisko naturalne, przeł. Barbara Skarga, Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Kozłowski, Tomasz, 2012, O metodach racjonalnej argumentacji wiary religijnej — David Hume, William James, Daniel Dennett, Łódź (praca magisterska). | pl_PL |
dc.references | Załuski Wojciech, 2012, O teorii kulturowego doboru grupowego na przykładzie chrześcijaństwa w Cesarstwie Rzymskim, „Logos i Ethos”, nr 1 (32), s. 63–79. | pl_PL |
dc.relation.volume | 1 | pl_PL |
dc.discipline | filozofia | pl_PL |