[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, after reading The Selfish Gene a few times in my undergrad, it certainly sounds like the basis of a philosophy on how knowledge is obtained, what knowledge is, and why humanity exists.

Sure, except for the why humanity exists part though. How it exists, but not the why.

But again, knowing how something grew doesn't make its existence invalid somehow. We can see the roots of altruistic behaviour in other primates, and seeing how that could have fallen out of the process of evolution doesn't mean that altruism is somehow false, or is no longer a topic for philosophical thought.

Originally Posted by peter12

Liberalism certainly impacted Darwin's interpretation of his data and further served to bolster theoretical interpretations of liberalism, see Herbert Spencer or Steven Pinker.

I'll try to check those out, thought I know Spencer's view on evolution was flawed, so his conclusions (in ethics anyway, what I've seen before) are flawed IMO.

Pinker looks interesting, maybe a specific book or piece by him that could illustrate the problem you have with his views?

Originally Posted by peter12

I personally think it's more like the ultimate human story where we sort out the most important questions about politics, ethics, morality etc...

Sure, I can see that. One can look at various religions and follow the progression of humanity.

But I don't think religion is necessary for the task, wouldn't it be easier if philosophy could just do that work unconstrained by religion?

Originally Posted by peter12

I wonder how people thought about death before coronary bypasses?

For the person dying probably the same way they think about it after coronary bypasses, just a few fewer of them have to deal with it right away. For those around them, there's probably some differences. My point is that philosophy has had to expand to account for changes in science and technology, and will have to in the future.