You are probably correct. Yet, I still have difficulty overcoming the “seeming” dichotomy of having a personal transaction with impersonal forces. Something in me still wants to believe that subjective access to objective phenomena may amount to more than teleology.
What if teleology as a pejorative concept merely represents the exasperation some philosophers feel when other philosophers pose subjective and objective absolutes? Human experience seems to encompass this and that interactions and cause and effect motions, both denials of absolutism.
In the West Greeks gave us the idea of some indivisable stuff (atoms), which could not be reduced to anything else. Physics has proved this idea is wrong, but the proof was possible only when the idea was considered relevant. The idea of cause and effect appears to be a mainstay of empirical science.
Getting beyond the chicken and egg assessment of cause and effect, one still wonders why how-so stories have been popular since humans first learned to write on materials that outlasted their lifespans. One wonders why a child would think to ask, “What made that happen?”
I think that the complete rejection of teleology is as great a mistake as embracing everything as being teleological. Things do move and change and while oftentimes the notion of changing into something else becomes unnecessarily teleological, that change has occurred is unchanged by this fact. It is a construct that does often model the situation quite well.
Likewise, I think it is good to ask these questions, but I don’t think we are breaking new ground here. The origin of the universe is a topic that is being investigated by people with not only greater access to information but also people with a better understanding of the information. By the time the Big Bang Theory has been broken down and rendered in terms I can understand, I am sure it has lost a great deal of its subtlety. It is the blind having a discussion with the blind about the Mona Lisa in Colorado somewhere when there are actually sighted people looking at the painting as they speak.
In the leeway between absolutist definitions of teleology one may find what humans really think and are.
And the problem with models is that everyone takes it to mean X, the explanation is actually U, and after each group of teleological misfits gets their hands on it, it becomes A, the man behind the curtain.
Models blow, outside of pure empiricism, and that is their failure.
Is there no subject/object complementation that allows deconstruction of the supposed personal/ impersonal dichotomy?
It would follow that there is, but the problem remains that the personal takes precedence over the impersonal, and then the deconstruction becomes offensive to some group, who then decides to rework the model with definitions that the model isn’t intended to house.
Then we end up with teleology, and the myth of the “man behind the curtain” continues. Once models are handled by the opinionated, and not the empirically informed, “god of the gaps” becomes the explanation, almost invariably. I’ve even seen this with economic/marketing models, and it makes me laugh my … well, you know the rest.
???
Xunzian is right here. Either exteme definition of teleology obscures realizations of human meaninings and values.
My apologies Ierrellus, but intrinsic finality is not edifying.
Meaning is assigned via social consensus, and any value derived losses its defined assessment position when taken outside of the individual.
There is so such animal as intrinsic finality.
Questioning the source is merely another human method for dealing with flux. Sooner or later one learns that the journey is its own end, which makes its beginning meaningless. (Hesse). Not many humans can get to that realization. The why not is important.
Outside the context of the individual, the journey is meaningless. A posteriori is all there is, and any attachment of agency, in any form, is a manner of fallacy to support the comfort habituation of those who cannot surmise the absurdity of existence.
No individual actually ever gets to an outside that does not include him/her.
No, but they sure like to talk like they do!!!
Which is why I have difficulty discussing anything with fudies–philosophical, religious, political and all others.
BTW,
Thanks for still considering me worthy of addressing.
Did I at some point indicate that because we disagree in some fashions you weren’t “worthy” of response?
Okay, just because school is back in session, let’s have a bit of a refresher.
This, (object A), is not the same
As this, (object B)
One more time: Object A is different from object B. Object A will not give you super pizza pie eating powers, nor will you undergo sudden enlightenment from object A. Object A will also inadvertently make you the object of scorn and infamy from socialists.
The jury is still out at the Hostess factory deliberating on the qualities of object B. Object B will stop people from becoming socialists, that much is clear, in that fuzzy “I can’t get off the floor” kind of way.
Hopefully, I have helped my esteemed poster friend alleviate any further confusions regarding this topic, and clarified which inhalant is more proper for discussions during ILP time.
The intrinsic fallacy, it always seemed to me, is predicated on the concept of “Tabula Rasa”. If one were to reject that concept, I see no reason why one would have to recognize the intrinsic fallacy.
How does one avoid arriving at the conclusion that teleology is fallacious as a proposition, in totality?
What happens when one is given to viewing the process of the Universe through empirical eyes, and finds no cause or significant data towards agency of any form?
Ist response attempt.