#teleological

[literallywhyamidoingthis]

Things heard in my philosophy a-level class:

"I've slammed Descartes like three times in this essay already..."

"I always imagine Hume coming in on a skateboard, wearing sunglasses."

"I was explaining intuition and deduction thesis to my mum and now she hates Descartes."

"I actually liked Aristotle until he said that only white, male philosophers can flourish."

"... the evil demon, a.k.a. Mr. Phillippou, ..." [an ex-philosophy teacher of our school]

The teacher: "left-handed people are superior. I tried to force my kids to be left-handed when they were learning to write..."

"Descartes pisses me the fuck off."

"... G. E. Moore, a.k.a. G. E. Awful, ..."

"I love error theory. It just says that everyone is wrong all the time."

"What's that guy in the Gettier example with the barns called?" "Barney." "No, no, it's Henry." "Wait, Henry? I thought it was Harry!"

"I always remember that name because my great aunt named her pet rabbit 'Carruthers'."

"But the concept of infinity doesn't make sense!" "Well, according to Georg Cantor's set theory, it does." "What even is set theory, then?" "Don't even go there. You don't need to know, so just don't ask."

"Onto and Teleo are okay, but I just can't with Cosmo. Don't even get me started on Aquinas' ways..."

"Eschatological verification is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. No offence to Hick or anything..."

"Do you think Richard Hare's friends ever called him 'Dick Hair'?"

"I don't understand how some people can even doubt qualia..."

"P-zombies freak me out."

"So you'd be willing to concede that if everyone in China had walkie-talkies, they'd be considered a mind?" "... I mean, yeah. Why not?" "You're not supposed to say yes!"

[rinkwrites]

Cosmological vs Teleological arguments, and their flaws

Hi I am so so sorry but for some reason Tumblr isn't letting me reply to asks, so for all the sweet people took me up on my offer, I really hope you see these and dont think I just ignored you.

So, this is for the person who asked me to explain the differences between the cosmological and teleological arguments, if you see this I hope this helps and best of luck with your test xx

cosmological argument

the cosmological argument was invented by a monk called Thomas Aquinas in the 12th century, it had five steps.

if we look around us we can see that everything has a cause

if we think about it we will realise that every cause has its own cause

however, this cannot go back forever, a concept called infinite regress

therefore there must be a first uncaused cause

this is God

There are a lot of flaws in this argument, firstly stages two and three contradict each other with not a lot of evidence to back this up, and secondly its a huge leap to go from 'there is an uncaused cause' to 'this is definitive proof of my God existing' this uncaused cause (if one even exists) could be the Big Bang, or another God, or something else entirely.

Fun fact - the word cosmological comes from the Ancient Greek words kosmos meaning world and logia meaning discourses

teleological argument

the teleological argument is the suggestion that the world is to beautiful and complex for it to have occurred by chance.

Believers say...

the Fibonacci sequence is found in lots of different natural curves and shapes, this is proof that one being designed them all

the solar system is too intricate for there not to have been a designer

the chances of our existence are to small for there not to have been some all powerful being controlling them e.g. perfect distance from the sun, perfect oxygen concentration, gravity is perfect for us

Non-Believers say...

the world isn't perfect for us, we are perfect for the world. We adapted to it through natural selection

science can explain the intricacies of the solar system

ok hope this helped, I'm sure you'll ace your test <3

[wordreview]

word review - 01/10/2023

word of the day: Teleological

hi, ho, it's been a while hasn't it? from my definitely planned Christmas break, i totally didn't forget to do one on Christmas and commit to it.

anyways, people don't really know how to describe this word, the word doesn't really have any meaning by itself anyways.

3/10 stars

[anglerflsh]

you know what's really funny just yesterday my contemporary history course went over the elections that brought the rise of nazism in germany and the march on Rome and violence that lead to fascism in italy. I'm really enjoying the historian experience of feeling like Cassandra from The Iliad

[arg0t]

why do bad things happen to good people? is god stupid?

[stoicmike]

All the problems of metaphysics can be reduced to the proposition “There’s a lot of shit that we will never know.” -- Michael Lipsey

[redheadedfailgirl]

From 'Dream of a woman' By Cacey Plett.

This sums up exactly how I feel about most transition timelines. As much as they reflect people's experiences, they are also a narrative. And the narratives that get shared the most tell a lot about what our values are. The timelines that get the most attention are the ones where people go from sad, loser, nothing boys into beautiful women.

But if you go to /r/transitiontimelines or a similar place, and sort by controversial or look at what has the least likes, its people who made timelines when they still don't 'pass' yet. Even if they're happy as can be, that's not what people are looking for.

I think it says a lot about what people expect from trans women, that they only want to see us be beautiful. In some cases, that they want to believe they can be beautiful. So there is no value in trans life if you're not beautiful.

[renegade-hierophant]

The Four Encompassing Vows Masses of creatures, without bounds, I vow to save. Anxiety and hate, delusive desires inexhaustible, I vow to break. Dharma gates beyond measure, I vow to learn. Buddha’s Way, unsurpassable, I vow to accomplish.

[girderednerve]

i talked to my friend who is a librarian in florida recently, & she is having a very bad time for a lot of reasons but one of the main ones is that everyone who works in her library system is under some level of pressure to avoid right-wing political repercussions against the library, so they're doing a lot of self-censorship in a culture of fear, and the stress has made managers who are more disengaged from daily work, less supportive of their staff, and less able to articulate any organizing vision for the library. it's very bad. she was like "i always assumed that there would be libraries for as long as i was willing to work in them, but now i'm worried that the field will be done with me before i'm done with it," and i struggled with this, at least as much as i sympathized with it! i struggled with it, because i have been freaking the fuck out about the revanchist turn against libraries since 2020, when it began to be clear what was coming: as a field, we aren't organized and we don't have a robust defense; while most librarians are broadly attached to the idea of intellectual freedom, many of them have little idea about its contents or the nature of the attacks on it, so we can't even articulate the problem clearly or consistently; our commitment to an outmoded idea of political neutrality no longer serves, if it ever did. but it's also hard to see a way out of it, and i often feel very bleak about the present and future of the public library, especially youth services. it's hard not to feel bleak. and my friend said that to me, that she felt this despair, maybe not for all of human history, but for our present moment. i share that despair, to be honest; it's hard not to, when you're looking around and the ascendant political vision is genocide, nationalism, exploitation, even the bare shreds of social support stripped away. and the only thing i could think of was a post on here i read years ago, about how little hope the bolsheviks had; they expected to lose, they expected to die, but they tried anyway. and they won! & obviously i am not holding up the entirety of soviet history as some kind of shining light to the world, okay, i don't want to argue about it, but i was moved by the idea that a social order which had been rigidly oppressive for a millennium cracked, and the reminder that the people inside that moment, making that change, couldn't see the path forward either, even though we know a way did open. i feel the same way thinking about the french and haitian revolutions. it must have seemed impossible then too.

[thebirdandhersong]

Y'all the midterm went pear shaped BUT i got my review back for my presentation and the prof said my teaching bit was excellent 😎 a win is a win

[philosophybitmaps]

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Evolution

The philosophy of evolution explores the implications of evolutionary theory for understanding life, human nature, morality, and knowledge. It intersects with various philosophical disciplines, including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and the philosophy of science. By examining evolution through a philosophical lens, thinkers address questions about purpose, progress, morality, and the role of chance in shaping the natural world.

1. Metaphysics and Evolution

Naturalism: Evolution supports a naturalistic worldview where life and its complexity arise from natural processes without invoking supernatural explanations. It suggests that life evolves according to the laws of nature, without inherent design or purpose, challenging traditional metaphysical views of teleology (the belief that nature has intrinsic purposes or goals).

Reductionism vs. Holism: A key metaphysical question concerns whether evolution can be fully explained through reductionism (breaking down biological phenomena into smaller parts, like genes and molecules) or whether a more holistic approach, considering whole systems or species, is required to understand evolutionary processes.

Emergence: Evolution also brings up the idea of emergence, where new properties (such as consciousness) arise from complex systems that cannot be predicted by studying individual components. Evolution highlights how simple processes can lead to the development of more complex structures, such as life and intelligence.

2. Epistemology and Evolution

Evolutionary Epistemology: This branch of philosophy examines how evolutionary theory influences our understanding of knowledge itself. It suggests that human cognitive faculties evolved to help us survive rather than to discover absolute truth, which raises questions about the reliability and limits of human knowledge. Charles Darwin himself pondered whether human reason, evolved for survival, could fully grasp the ultimate truths of the universe.

Adaptive Knowledge: Some evolutionary epistemologists argue that knowledge is adaptive, meaning that our beliefs and perceptions are shaped by natural selection to be useful for survival, even if they are not necessarily "true" in an objective sense. This leads to debates about truth versus usefulness in our understanding of the world.

Problem of Skepticism: If our cognitive faculties evolved for survival rather than truth, this raises the problem of skepticism: How can we trust that our beliefs about the world, especially abstract scientific or philosophical beliefs, are reliable? This remains a significant philosophical issue related to evolution.

3. Ethics and Evolution

Evolutionary Ethics: Evolutionary theory has influenced the development of evolutionary ethics, which seeks to explain the origins of moral behavior in terms of evolutionary processes. According to this view, human morality and altruism may have evolved because they were beneficial for social cooperation and group survival.

Moral Relativism vs. Objectivism: Evolutionary ethics raises questions about whether morality is relative (based on adaptive needs that change over time) or objective (based on unchanging moral truths). Some philosophers argue that if morality is a product of evolution, it may lack objective grounding, while others suggest that evolution reveals fundamental moral principles that enhance survival.

Altruism and Self-Interest: Evolutionary biology also explores the tension between self-interest and altruism. Theories like kin selection and reciprocal altruism attempt to explain how seemingly selfless behaviors can evolve in organisms by benefiting related individuals or by fostering cooperation that indirectly benefits the actor.

4. Teleology and Progress

Non-Teleological Evolution: One of the key shifts brought about by Darwin’s theory of evolution was the rejection of teleology (the idea that nature has an intrinsic purpose or end goal). In contrast to earlier philosophical views, such as those of Aristotle, Darwinian evolution is non-teleological, meaning that life evolves through natural selection without any predetermined direction or final purpose.

Evolution and Progress: Philosophers debate whether evolution implies progress. While evolution leads to the development of more complex life forms, it is driven by random mutations and environmental pressures rather than an inherent drive toward improvement. Some argue that the notion of progress in evolution is a cultural projection rather than a scientific reality.

5. Human Nature and Evolution

Determinism and Free Will: Evolutionary theory raises questions about free will and determinism. If human behavior is shaped by genetic and environmental factors, to what extent do individuals have control over their actions? This leads to debates about the role of biology in determining human behavior and the possibility of moral responsibility.

Human Exceptionalism: Traditional views of human nature often emphasize the unique status of humans in the natural world. Evolution challenges this by placing humans within the continuum of animal life, suggesting that our traits, including language, intelligence, and culture, evolved from earlier species. This perspective calls into question notions of human exceptionalism and anthropocentrism (the belief that humans are the central or most important species).

Consciousness and Evolution: Philosophers also explore how evolution accounts for consciousness and subjective experience. The emergence of conscious awareness in humans and other animals presents a major challenge to evolutionary explanations, as it is not yet clear how conscious experience enhances survival in a way that can be selected for by natural processes.

6. Philosophy of Science and Evolution

Evolution as a Scientific Paradigm: The philosophy of science examines how evolutionary theory functions as a scientific paradigm. Since Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, evolution has become the dominant framework for understanding biology, but philosophers explore how this paradigm influences scientific methodology, the interpretation of data, and the nature of scientific explanation.

Falsifiability: Evolutionary theory has been scrutinized by philosophers like Karl Popper, who initially questioned its falsifiability (whether it can be empirically tested and potentially disproved). While Popper later revised his view, debates continue over how evolutionary theory fits within the framework of scientific inquiry.

Intelligent Design and Evolution: The debate between evolution and intelligent design continues in philosophical and public discourse. Proponents of intelligent design argue that certain features of the natural world exhibit complexity that cannot be explained by evolution alone and must involve a guiding intelligence. Philosophers examine whether this critique holds scientific validity or if it relies on unscientific assumptions.

7. Existential Implications of Evolution

Evolution and Meaning: For some philosophers, evolution challenges traditional notions of meaning and purpose in life. If humans are the product of random mutations and natural selection, rather than divine or purposeful creation, then what is the basis for human meaning? This existential question leads to varying responses, from nihilism (the belief that life lacks inherent meaning) to humanism (the belief that humans can create meaning through their actions and relationships).

Existential Anxiety: The idea that life evolved through a blind, purposeless process can evoke existential anxiety, as it challenges comforting beliefs about human significance and destiny. This leads to philosophical exploration of how individuals and societies can find meaning and value in a world shaped by evolutionary processes.

8. Social and Cultural Evolution

Cultural Evolution: Beyond biological evolution, philosophers explore how cultural practices, languages, and social norms evolve over time. Cultural evolution operates through different mechanisms than biological evolution, such as imitation, learning, and social transmission. Philosophers debate whether cultural evolution follows Darwinian principles or whether it requires a separate framework.

Social Darwinism: The misuse of evolutionary theory to justify social hierarchies and inequalities is known as Social Darwinism. This ideology applies the concept of "survival of the fittest" to human societies, often in a distorted way. Philosophers critically analyze the ethical and social implications of applying evolutionary ideas to human behavior and society, rejecting these misinterpretations in favor of a more nuanced understanding of evolution’s influence on culture.

The philosophy of evolution engages with profound questions about life, knowledge, morality, and human nature, arising from the theory of evolution. It examines the role of natural processes in shaping not only biological entities but also our understanding of knowledge, ethics, and meaning. By challenging traditional metaphysical and teleological views, evolution encourages a naturalistic and dynamic view of the world, while also raising new philosophical challenges, particularly regarding the nature of humanity, morality, and knowledge.

[puttingmetainmetaphysics]

Shame Hume died before Paley released his argument. I would have paid to hear that diss track.

RIP Hume. You would’ve loved writing “womp womp” under Twitter arguments.

[aphroditeslover11]

I swear to God, why are there so many teleological arguments?! 😭

[deceased-madam]

Superfluous

Did a little task on the Teleological Argument, this is my art for the Superfluous topic

[benchowmein]

I am sat next to like. Engineers or something. Who are CREATIONISTS