#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!"

[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

[hyperlexichypatia]

So many ableist and queerphobic (and probably other kinds of bigoted, but I know more about those two) arguments, under examination, just boil down to a teleological fallacy. And we've got to start deconstructing that fallacy at the root if we're going to keep those same arguments from crawling back out of the ooze.

There is no physical attribute or biological process, in humans or any other species, that is "supposed to" or "intended to" or "meant to" be a certain way. That is not a meaningful concept.

"People are supposed to be able to walk a mile without assistance."

No. Perhaps most people can walk a mile without assistance, but many people cannot. There is no "supposed to."

"People with ovaries are intended to be able to get pregnant."

No. Many people with ovaries are able to get pregnant, and some are not. There is no "intended to."

"People are designed to have XX or XY chromosomes."

No. Most people have XX or XY chromosomes, but many do not. There is no "designed to."

"Your child should be sitting up and responding to words when they're 6 months old."

No. Many children are sitting up and responding to words when they're 6 months old, but some are not. "Should" has no place here.

Too often, well-meaning people try to rebut these arguments with some kind of "accepting" teleological argument for "why" disabled/queer people might exist.

"Maybe autistic people exist to be lone shepherds watching the flock. Maybe gay people exist to be adoptive parents for orphans. Maybe people with Down syndrome exist to be peacekeepers and mediators. Maybe ADHD people exist to be creative problem-solvers"

No. These may be social roles that may be well-suited to some people's strengths, but they're not the reason that anyone exists, because people don't exist for a reason. Autistic people exist. Gay people exist. People with Down syndrome exist. ADHD people exist.

This also opens the door to people arguing "What about the BAD disabilities, that don't have a function? What about cancer? What about Tay-Sachs disease? What about cystic fibrosis? What about major depressive disorder? Surely THOSE disabilities aren't supposed to exist!"

And yet they do. People with cancer exist. People with Tay-Sachs disease exist. People with cystic fibrosis exist. People with major depressive disorder exist. They deserve rights and dignity and equality because they are people who exist.

Some people will try to get around this by using "evolved to." "People evolved to practice heterosexual reproduction. People evolved to have two legs and be able to run."

But evolution isn't goal-oriented. It just happens. Having two legs and running and reproducing heterosexually are predominant human traits, but clearly, they are not necessary ones, because you can look around and see people who don't have two legs, people who can't run, people who don't practice heterosexual reproduction.

To be clear, I'm coming from the starting premise that there is no specific "intent" or "purpose" to the biological diversity of life, but I'm not saying that if you do believe in something like creationism or intelligent design, that also isn't a good justification for ableism or queerphobia, because the full range of life's diversity still very much exists. "God didn't make Adam and Steve!" Well, and yet, there, standing before you, are two men, Adam and Steve, partnered to each other, so either you think they weren't created by God (sounds heretical, but what do I know?) or you must accept that Xe did, in fact, create Adam and Steve.

[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.

[passengerpigeons]

honestly skinning/dressing a rabbit seems so satisfying. slip that skin off like clothes. creature made by god to be degloved in a way that is stimming to me<3

[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.

[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.

[locustheologicus]

It is obvious, then, that neither the Idea of Good, nor the good that is common, is the chief good that we are looking for… What really is the chief good is the purpose or end that is the cause of what leads to it and is the first of all goods. It is this, then, that goodness itself must be: the end of everything attainable by human action.

This is a quote from Aristotle’s “Eudemian Ethics,” where the philosopher goes on to identify the source of humanity’s ultimate happiness. This pursuit of happiness, eudaimonia, is considered the final end, the purpose of human existence. Christianity has recognized the Good, the final end, within God himself and Jesus attest to this when he tells the rich young man who asks for moral guidance that “There is only one who is good” (Mt. 19:17) or in another version of the story “No one is good but God alone” (Lk. 18:19). As St. John Paul II tells us in reference to Jesus response to the rich young man, “only God can answer the question about what is good, because he is Good itself.” (VS #9)

As Fr. Dominic Legge, OP and Fr. James Brent, OP tells us in the videos above and below, this is what the study of teleology is all about. Aquinas and the scholastic movement borrowed Aristotle’s idea to consider how Christianity understood the ultimate purpose of human existence based on the teachings of Christ.

In his recent encyclical, Dilexit nos, Pope Francis explores the teleological question.

Whenever a person thinks, questions and reflects on his or her true identity, strives to understand the deeper questions of life and to seek God, or experiences the thrill of catching a glimpse of truth, it leads to the realization that our fulfilment as human beings is found in love. In loving, we sense that we come to know the purpose and goal of our existence in this world. Everything comes together in a state of coherence and harmony. It follows that, in contemplating the meaning of our lives, perhaps the most decisive question we can ask is, “Do I have a heart?” - DN #23

We may see where Pope Francis is going in this teleological exploration but it may help us to consider how Catholic doctrine has considered this question. In exploring the teleological question Aquinas and the scholastic community recognized that the ultimate end and purpose for humanity resided in God. In her book, Nature as Reason: A Thomistic theory of the Natural Law, the great thomistic scholar, Jean Porter, would agree with Fr. Legge that recent scientific understanding of both evolutionary and cosmological understandings no longer appeal to “the effects of random chance alone” but “to formal causes, that is to say, explanations which irreducibly refer to the kind of creature that is in question.” (Porter, pg. 98). While the idea of a formal cause does not imply a teleological argument that God is the source and purpose of creation her point is that the concept is no longer scientifically incompatible.

But Aquinas and the scholastic did employ the natural law as a preliminary source of eudaimonia. This is something that Fr. Legge doesn’t go into above but it needs to be considered before we examine spiritual teleology. Pope Francis tells us that the ultimate teleological expression is found with God and the Sacred Heart but before we enter into this spiritual insight the scholastics suggest that there is a natural purpose that we must tend to before we raise the spiritual purpose. We must tend to the wounds of the body before we respond to a broken spirit.

The scholastic approach to the natural law lends itself to a kind of eudaemonism. That is to say, it lends itself to interpretation in terms of some account of the ultimate purpose or overall goal of human life, understood in terms of happiness, blessedness, or flourishing… When we examine Aquinas’s own eudaemonism, it is striking to see how much of a place he gives to the basic human inclinations. We would not have expected this from his general summary statement of what happiness is - the enjoyment of the vision of God, in supernatural happiness, or the practice of the intellectual and moral virtues, in terrestrial forms of happiness. Yet these claims must be seen in connection with his remark that everyone desires happiness, insofar as she desires that her will be fulfilled; and as we read a little further on, the will is naturally oriented towards certain natural goods. These remarks, in turn, suggest that whatever happiness involves, it must allow some place for the pursuit and attainment of natural goods, a suggestion reinforced by the fact that Aquinas structures the precepts of the natural law in accordance with our natural inclinations. My point is that Aquinas’s more general remarks, especially concerning natural happiness, must be read in conjunction with his analysis of human desire and striving in terms of natural inclinations. In order to count as human happiness or flourishing, any state of affairs must provide for the appropriate and well-ordered pursuit and attainment of at least some of the natural human goods, even as it regulates and places constraints on their enjoyment. (Porter, pg. 81-82).

The pursuit of basic human goods and the regulation against intrinsically evil acts has been a moral formula for promoting a natural teleology. The scholastics have helped us develop this moral perspective based on the natural law. From this we will eventually derive the ideas of natural and human rights.

It is important for us to address the basic human goods and in promoting charity and justice the Catholic Church has always recognized that this is a vital part of our mission. Pope Francis however is correct in pointing out that our natural teleology is not sufficient. Having our natural human goods will satisfy us but will not bring fulfillment. For that to happen we require a spiritual teleology that connects us with God, our final cause, which Fr. James Brent, OP discusses below.

A fair critique of this natural law approach which I have covered in the past is that it does not grant us a relational image of God. For Christianity this is a problem becuase Christ presents us with a deeply relational image of God that he goes so far as to call Abba (daddy). To that end Pope Francis suggests that we should look to God but not in the cold rational way that the scholastics present. Rather, we should enter into a warm relationship with the source of our existence. We should explore a teleology that draws us into an inter-relational dynamic with God and one another.

In the end, that Sacred Heart is the unifying principle of all reality, since “Christ is the heart of the world, and the paschal mystery of his death and resurrection is the centre of history, which, because of him, is a history of salvation”. All creatures “are moving forward with us and through us towards a common point of arrival, which is God, in that transcendent fullness where the risen Christ embraces and illumines all things”. - DN #31

This spiritual experience and understanding brings to us a new ontological understanding of who we are. The concept that God is love and that we are made in the image and likeness of God defines us as people who are loved by God, whose ultimate purpose is one with God and the dynamic of divine relationship we call the Holy Trinity. A relationship that Christ opens up to us through his own redemptive sacrifice for humanity.

Entering into the heart of Christ, we feel loved by a human heart filled with affections and emotions like our own. Jesus’ human will freely choose to love us, and that spiritual love is flooded with grace and charity. When we plunge into the depths of his heart, we find ourselves overwhelmed by the immense glory of his infinite love as the eternal Son, which we can no longer separate from his human love. It is precisely in his human love, and not apart from it, that we encounter his divine love: we discover “the infinite in the finite”. -DN #67

The scope of this spiritual teleology impacts how we see ourselves in relationship to one another. There is a social aspect to this spiritual teleology that will now recommit us to the natural teleology that Aquinas and the scholastics see in the natural law. But whereas the natural teleology will allow us to serve ourselves and possibly others based on our own natural preservation self-interest the spiritual teleology motivates us to serve others based on the Love that God has for us and all of creation.

We should not think of this mission of sharing Christ as something only between Jesus and me. Mission is experienced in fellowship with our communities and with the whole Church. If we turn aside from the community, we will be turning aside from Jesus. If we turn our back on the community, our friendship with Jesus will grow cold. This is a fact, and we must never forget it. Love for the brothers and sisters of our communities – religious, parochial, diocesan and others – is a kind of fuel that feeds our friendship with Jesus. Our acts of love for our brothers and sisters in community may well be the best and, at times, the only way that we can witness to others our love for Jesus Christ. He himself said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35). This love then becomes service within the community. I never tire of repeating that Jesus told us this in the clearest terms possible: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). He now asks you to meet him there, in every one of our brothers and sisters, and especially in the poor, the despised and the abandoned members of society. What a beautiful encounter that can be! DN #212-213

Aquinas and the scholastics presented teleology as it emerged from natural law. This set an important base for a natural teleology that connects with the basic needs of all humanity. But our souls yearn for a deeper meaning and this is the spiritual teleology that Christ offers us through a deep relationship with God.

Below Fr. Brent describes three senses for the purpose and end of creation. The first sense of an end as a conscious intention or purpose for our actions, a goal for what we do. The second sense of an end result of any action, the purpose that they are naturally built for. The third sense is the perfection of what a creature is suppose to accomplish, the flourishing of what it is meant to do.

But then Fr. Brent then introduces us to the final causality which he says causes us to wonder. This is where we engage in philosophically/theological contemplation. "Reason points us to the answer: behind the natural world so full of teleological activity, there must be a higher Mind, God - who directs all things, and orders all things well."

Beyond the three natural senses Pope Francis would have us consider the final causality and that has us engage in the wonder of why and how God orders all things. For Christians this brings us to the love that God has for us and all creation. To appreciate that love, Pope Francis offers us the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

[aphroditeslover11]

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

[hederigerenthag]

I'm regularly haunted by this quote from, of all places, a 2018 AVClub interview with James Marsters.

AVC: It’s like an ongoing version of that classic “do you kill one to save a million” question. I honestly don’t know what I would do. JM: I would hope that I would kill them. I would hope that I would sacrifice my own moral cleanliness and die with regret and all of the pain that that would entail, becoming a murderer, psychological wounding and all that, because I wouldn’t want to die knowing that I could have saved the human race, but I had to go out squeaky clean.