Home » Academics » Nerds' Corner

Darwin and the Difference Between Nikes and Reeboks, Part 2

In Part 1 of this series, I argued that Transformers are more than meets the eye; they're actually robots in disguise. Then I explained the difference between essential and accidental features, and hinted at some of the interesting metaphysical implications of Darwinism. (In case you've forgotten what essential and accidental features are — or forgotten how stylish I am — click on footnote 1. Here.¹) I hinted at these metaphysical implications via the following Reader's Digest anecdote, so let's read it again.

I was waiting on some costumers at the shoe store where I work when I was interrupted by a very determined woman. Pointing to a sneaker made by Reebok, she asked, "Do you have this in Nike?" (Readers Digest. August, 2003. p. 40.)

What a Stupid Question!

Imaginary person with less tact and reflective ability than you, the reader: What a stupid question! Ha ha ha! Doesn't Sharon know that, if a shoe's made by Reebok, it is a Reebok — its being a Reebok is among its essential features?² And doesn't she know that, if being a Reebok is one of its essential features, then "isn't a Nike" is also one of its essential features? What an IDIOT!

You, the reader: But what if Sharon wasn't pointing to "a sneaker made by Reebok"? What if (in her mind, at least) she was pointing only to a white sneaker or a size 11 sneaker?

Imaginary tactless person: Her question's still a stupid one. She asked, "Do you have this in Nike?" But what is "this"? It's a Reebok! The thing she's referring to as "this" is a Reebok. Sure, it happens to be white and a size 11, but these are among its accidental features. This is why it's strange to walk up to a white, size 11 sneaker made by Reebok and ask, "Do you have this in Nike?" And this is also why it's not strange to walk up to a white, size 11 sneaker made by Reebok and ask, "Do you have this in size 9?"

Sharon's question is funny because, by some remarkable lack of intellect, she either failed to see that one of the sneaker's essential features was its being a Reebok, or failed to see that an essential feature of any Reebok is its not being a Nike.

You, the reader: I see your point, but what if, from some perspective, it makes sense to ask for a Reebok in Nike, and what if Sharon was looking at the world from this perspective? For instance, what if Sharon's question wasn't rooted in a lack of smarts, but Darwinian anti-essentialism in combination with an individualistic, nonconformist spirit regarding sneakers?

Imaginary, tactless person asking sensible question that will be answered in section below: What on earth are you talking about?

The Origin of Nikes™

For real. Maybe her question was rooted in a combination of individualism and Darwinian anti-essentialism.

According to philosopher Daniel Dennett, Darwinism amounts to an "overthrow of essentialism" — essentialism being the idea that things have real essences, essences that aren't dependent on the names or labels we happen to use, essences that aren't formed by the divisions we find convenient to impose on the world.³

According to Darwinism (or at least Dennett's understanding of Darwinism), we see an essential difference between humans and gorillas (for instance) for two reasons.

First, as a result of our evolutionary history, we have unique bodies; and as a result of these bodies, we have unique needs and values. These needs and values, moreover, make it convenient for us to divide the world according to one set of criteria rather than another. Thus, our evolutionary history has brought us to divide the world according to one set of criteria rather than another.

Second, we've assumed that these divisions — which are also products of our evolutionary history — "carve nature at the joints."⁴ That is, we've assumed that these divisions correspond to essential divisions in nature, divisions that exist regardless of human convention.

But suppose we followed a different evolutionary path, one that made different criteria convenient, and suppose we'd used these criteria for our divisions. Suppose that, for some reason, "has a tail" and "doesn't have a tail" were the only criteria we found convenient for dividing the class mammalia. Had we employed these criteria rather than the ones we actually employ, the characteristics that strike us as essential differences between humans and gorillas would have seemed to be only accidental differences — like the differences between a size 9 Reebok and a size 11 Reebok.

(Click image to expand.)

In other words, if we'd divided up the world this way and continued to call our species "human," then gorillas would have seemed human to us. (They would have seemed like a different variety of human, no doubt, but they would have seemed human nonetheless.) It would have looked as if we shared our essence with gorillas.

As Darwin says on pages 107 and 108 of The Origin of Species:

No clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species . . . or, again, between sub-species and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences . . . I look at the term species, as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms.⁵

But what does this have to do with Sharon's request for a Reebok made by Nike?

Little Green Men

At the end of Sharon's enormous wrestling finger was something with the following characteristics:

• White
• Size 11
• Sneaker
• Made by Reebok

Tom assumed that Sharon was pointing to "a sneaker made by Reebok" rather than a white sneaker or a size 11 sneaker because he believed that the object at the end of her finger was essentially a Reebok sneaker and only accidentally a white, size 11. And we agreed with him. This is why we thought Sharon's question — "Do you have this in Nike?" — was funny, and it's why we thought scenarios 1 and 2 were different than scenarios 3 and 4.

But suppose that in some foreign country (Texas, for instance) the only criteria used to divide clothing and accessories are "is made by either Reebok or Nike" and "is made by neither Reebok nor Nike." Also, suppose that, in this country, the group of clothing and accessories made by either Reebok or Nike is called "Reenike." In this country, "Reenike" names the equivalent of a species, and "Nike" and "Reebok" name varieties of "Reenike." And had we divided clothing and accessories by these criteria rather than the criteria we actually use, everything in the Reenike group would have appeared to us to share an essence, and the differences between Nikes and Reeboks would have appeared to be only accidental differences — like the differences between size 9 Reeboks and size 11 Reeboks.

Or suppose aliens are presently studying human culture through a high-powered telescope in outer space, and suppose these aliens have evolved such that the only conceptual division they find convenient to impose on human clothing is "clothes made by either Reebok or Nike vs. clothes made by neither Reebok nor Nike." These aliens thus think there's such a thing as a Reenike, and, because they naively take their divisions to carve nature at its joints, they think every Reebok has the same essence as every Nike. Moreover, they think the differences between Nikes and Reeboks are only accidental differences — like the differences between size 9 Reeboks and size 11 Reeboks. These aliens think "Reenike" names the equivalent of a species, and they think "Nike" and "Reebok" name varieties of "Reenike."

(Click image to expand.)

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

Are the differences between humans and non-humans arbitrary or not?

Join the discussion!

But in both of these Reenike scenarios, Sharon's question — "Do you have this in Nike?" — is no funnier, and no more worthy of being published in Readers Digest, than the question "Do you have this in size 9?" And this is important. If you haven't already figured out why, then read my next article. It'll be like a life-sized Jack-in-the-box — titillating for up to six hours.