The human race and the earth will end, then eventually the universe.
Is it localised and particular perhaps? So it doesn’t need to be ultimate wisdom or any such thing, there is instead a constant flow of new and relative wisdoms. I agree.
Why? Wisdom does not necessarily need a purpose. “The Wise” can exist without purpose in their wisdom.
You said: “It all ends.” So I thought you meant the whole world, thus the universe. Therefore I replied: “Who told you that?”. Now you are saying: that “the universe” will “eventually” end. But that is different from what you said before: “It all ends”.
Often people choose models and ontologies that fit their temperments. Then they forget or are not aware of the intuitive reason they gratitated toward a worldview. They see then as self-evident certain truths - here, that all things end - and these seem self-evident given the models they have in their minds, models chosen for non-reasoned reasons, but post-hoc justified via the model itself. (just mulling here)
In some of the supposedly more rational models - say current consensus ‘scientific’ models - the believers think that they are braver than those with other models, not realizing how painful hope can be and how soothing cutting losses in advance can be. AS one example of how what seems the brave option may well be the fear/feelings of devastation option. They have a very simplified model of the human mind.
DNA construction of a viable organism seems to include teleology. A viable organism is one that could adapt to given environments in order to survive. In that sense survival is the purpose of DNA constructions.
Fair enough, I can’t say why there would be an ultimate end to everything. I can say that ‘all + things’ ~ the entire set of things one can conceive of, will each end. That doesn’t mean there wont always be something to follow, that indeed those former things which came to an end don’t necessarily form the potential for something else to be manifest.
Agreed, but what teleology exists outside the system ~ making genes be genes. At most nature is again using maths in an abstract fashion like earthquake aftershocks, but with purpose?
Fair enough, I can’t say why there would be an ultimate end to everything. I can say that ‘all + things’ ~ the entire set of things one can conceive of, will each end. That doesn’t mean there wont always be something to follow, that indeed those former things which came to an end don’t necessarily form the potential for something else to be manifest.[/quote]
Generally the idea that things end means that there are things for periods of time. Either they stay the same or they change during that time of their existence (or perhaps a combination of the two). If we allow for change, why could not things continue, but change. Why need their be an end? Could they not also fluctuate between dormant and active states?
The genes are, if they are, controlling changes at a specific juncture. From organism A to its progeny. Why can there not be teleology all around that juncture?
Someone chooses that mate. And then the progeny develop also goals and move towards those between the junctures. We could have potential teleology in the formation of the various tools for change, then what happens when organisms choose between the reproduction juncture,w hich is most of life.
Wisdom is a metalevel evaluation. I have these goals so I choose these heuristics. Teleology seems implicit in the idea of wisdom. We should use another word if we think there is no intention.
The purpose of acquiring wisdom is to become wise.
On the gene issue–genetic processes smack of sheer determinism, which appears to be purposeful activity.
Without a sense of purpose life appears hollow. There is wisdom in wanting life to have purpose. In that sense purpose signifies meaning.
wis·dom/ˈwizdəm/
noun
the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the quality of being wise.
I would also go with the ability or capacity to know the right thing to do under different sets of circumstances and situations.
I suppose that that would go under good judgment. Also, like the great chess player, having the ability to “see” five or six (?) jumps ahead.
I think what you said is kind of putting the cart before the horse. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily require purpose though I believe that a wise person would intuit or discern that purpose gives meaning to a life — but having a purpose which leads to benefits or to optimal advantages does require wisdom - in other words, knowing the path to go to achieve that purpose (wisdom), having the ability to see the pitfalls along the way (wisdom), knowing that it will require discipline and endurance to follow that path (wisdom) and also understanding why you desire to achieve a particular purpose and what gain could come from it (wisdom)…among other factors along the way.
Wisdom needed teleology and purpose as a starting point, when connections were in the process being constructed as a world view. But, as the connections became especially as they evolved and became available, wide spread, after Guttenberg, the connections, the causative links, purpose and teleology, became matters of public adherence, the links became mute, and dynamically emptied out, and again the whole unavoidable cycle re-booted.
Wisdom at one turn does need a teleology, and yet given a purpose, it looses that need, because belief replaces that need. Loosing that, again, seeks a new purpose , resulting in the search for a new teleology.
The anthropic principle–teleology or fortuity? Are we humans just an accident of nature?
If the latter question is answered yes, all religions amount to wishful thinking.