Nietzsche, despite being a student of the scientism of Oscar Lange, was strangely fluid in his thinking, and scored a direct hit at Darwinism with a criticism that to this day hasn’t sunk in and it also scores against the scientism of the rising scientific ideology of the nineteenth century on to our own times. It is a brilliant insight, utterly simple yet beyond the capacity
of those who think physics is the model for the whole of science. Scientific ideology? Let’s simplify the issue by exempting physics and the related ‘hard sciences’ for the moment. The question of ideology arises as the attempt at science rises above the hard sciences and attempts to move into the social sciences. And there the question of evolution is in a middle position. Evolution is taken as a blind process beyond the fact/value distinction, but that is hardly the case. In evolutionary theory the problem is obvious: social darwinism: the mechanism of the theory, natural selection, becomes a belief system for a (confused) human agent who applies ‘natural selection’ to culture as a (often violent) way to ‘evolve’ something. That is stark ideology indeed, and the result is not evolution because the mechanism isn’t science in any case..
As we examine the eonic effect, which essentially shows the macro aspect of the ‘evolution’ of civilization it becomes drastically obvious that a value-free science of history (and its evolution) is not the case.
Study WHEE at any level you want: it becomes clear that art, for example, is directly entangled with this ‘evolution’, which compounds the mystery of mechanism. The other thinker who realized this was Kant, whose third critique in fact correlates the ‘aesthetic’ and the ‘teleological’.
World History and the Eonic Effect