On the relationship between memes and genes: A critique of Dennett [Book Review]

Biology and Philosophy 13 (2):187-204 (1998)
Dennett (1995) argues that memes or cultural replicators are largely autonomous of genes, and that they are fairly efficacious in determining who we are and what we do. I argue that Dennett's arguments are wrong in several aspects, which we can see by analyzing processes at appropriate levels. Specifically, I argue that it is not true that we as persons are created largely by memes, that our memes are not largely independent of our genes, and that we can use the universality of memes to make inferences about genetic predispositions. Finally, by suggesting an innate psychological mechanism for morality, I argue that morality may be largely the effect of genetic predispositions rather than autonomous.
Keywords evolution  meme  gene  morality  culture  psychological predisposition
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,357
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA
    Christopher B. Gray (2009). The Semiotics of Memes in the Law: Jack Balkin's Promise of Legal Semiotics. [REVIEW] International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 22 (4):411-424.
    Similar books and articles

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index


    Total downloads

    11 ( #112,960 of 1,088,400 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,400 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature

    Start a new thread
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.