Between Scholastics And Pragmatists: The Mddb Philosophy Debate

[mfbukowski]

From what I have gathered, and correct me if I am wrong, you don't think any such teleology exists.

It "exists" in the values we humans establish and adopt for ourselves based on what we call "natural laws" because such laws are:

1- in one manner of speech, given to Humans by God who is himself a Human, such laws being the same from "eternity to eternity".

Or, in another way of saying the same thing in slightly more scientific terms:

2- because such so-called "laws" evolved for the propagation of the species. Civilization cannot exist (and hence mankind as we know it cannot exist) without the belief, for example that we should "do unto others as we would have others do unto us".

Both statements are "saying the same thing" from different points of view- different language games in a Wittgensteinian sense.

All purpose and valuation is perceived according to human understanding or, put in spiritual language, given to man by God for human purposes.

Bottom line: Yep I hate teleology. No such thing.

Edited November 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Ahab, I like you but we just don't understand each other. Sorry.

[Seraphim32]

It "exists" in the values we humans establish and adopt for ourselves based on what we call "natural laws" because such laws are:

So the sea turtle I use in my example only comes ashore to lay eggs because human beings decide to see it in such a way, as if it wouldn't have been directed to unlees human beings decided to see it as so?

All purpose and valuation is perceived according to human understanding or, put in spiritual language, given to man by God for human purposes.

I don't understand how the bolded portion contradicts Aristotelian teleology.

[mfbukowski]

Seraphim:

Clearly animals do their thing. Mormons would say that animals can "fill the measure of their creation and have joy therein" as they do their "animally" thing. I suppose turtles could be said to have "purpose" in laying their eggs, but that is a human linguistic projection- those are the words we use for those behaviors.

We believe that animals have spirits and in some sense will be judged according to how well they have filled their "potential" whatever that means in each context. But that stuff is known only to God, it really has little to do with humans, except that we should be good stewards of animals and not kill unless it is necessary to eat etc.

So of course we should not disturb a turtle laying its eggs for example, because that turtle has as much a "right" to fill the measure of its creation as we have to reproduce in our way.

So you can interpret that in any way you like I suppose. If you see that as teleology then so be it. We also believe that the earth has a purpose and a destiny in the eternal plan as well but that is not to say such is to be "found in nature" like a force.

The plan is a human plan organized by the Man of Holiness and is not found in the "elements" of nature but in His purposes for nature. Nature is "matter unorganized" and is to be organized according to human purposes, and that applies even to God. That is what he does- and that is what we do individually in our own little "worlds".

[mfbukowski]

I don't understand how the bolded portion contradicts Aristotelian teleology.

Well ok then. The purposes are human purposes and nature is the matter upon which human purposes organize.

If that's Aristotle then perhaps we are close after all at least on this. It is not some Form causing matter to take shape then- it is humans giving shape to matter?

THAT is the difference. For Aristotle, the Forms give shape to matter, for Mormons AND postmodernists, man gives shape to everything (God also being Man)

"Man is the measure of all things" takes on a new meaning when one thinks of God as being a Man. Suddenly God becomes the measure of all things. To me that is the genius of Mormonism that most Mormons seem to miss for some reason.

[mfbukowski]

So the sea turtle I use in my example only comes ashore to lay eggs because human beings decide to see it in such a way, as if it wouldn't have been directed to unlees human beings decided to see it as so?

Nagel is directly relevant here.

Clearly there is some kind of consciousness involved in turtles coming ashore to lay eggs but the only way we can think about what that is, is to project our own experiences upon them and assume that it "what it's like to be a turtle" is a little bit of "what it's like to be human".

Of course we cannot know that for sure- but observing their behavior we see commonalities and project that their purposes must be like ours, but we cannot really ever prove that. To try would be impossible- we have no basis for communication with animals other than observing their behavior.

Where is Dr. Doolittle when we need him?

[Seraphim32]

Seraphim:

Clearly animals do their thing. Mormons would say that animals can "fill the measure of their creation and have joy therein" as they do their "animally" thing. I suppose turtles could be said to have "purpose" in laying their eggs, but that is a human linguistic projection- those are the words we use for those behaviors.

You keep making this appeal to language, but I don't see how it does anything to refute teleology. It doesn't matter how we talk about the phenomenon; when a turtle goes ashore to lay eggs it has the aim of laying eggs that is built into its very genetic make-up. We can call it an aim, purpose, objective, or any other term, but it doesn't change the fact that there is something directed that is actually happening. The turtle's going ashore to lay eggs is not some random collision and iteraction of matter that just happens to occur by chance. The idea that the order only exists because the human mind manipulates it as such seems absurd, and even if this was the case how would one account for the apparent reality that all human minds that are also accidental project the same understanding of events upon the world?

[mfbukowski]

You keep making this appeal to language, but I don't see how it does anything to refute teleology. It doesn't matter how we talk about the phenomenon; when a turtle goes ashore to lay eggs it has the aim of laying eggs that is built into its very genetic make-up. We can call it an aim, purpose, objective, or any other term, but it doesn't change the fact that there is something directed that is actually happening. The turtle's going ashore to lay eggs is not some random collision and iteraction of matter that just happens to occur by chance. The idea that the order only exists because the human mind manipulates it as such seems absurd, and even if this was the case how would one account for the apparent reality that all human minds that are also accidental project the same understanding of events upon the world?

It's not a question of "what is actually happening" that we cannot know about- the issue is what we can and do know and how we know it.

All of that data of something called a "turtle" "coming ashore" to do an activity we call "laying its eggs" ALL of that is filtered through a human mind/brain and it must be or humans would not have seen it.

Science tells us (and you are free to ignore science if you like) that on some level what all those "events" are is light hitting our retinas and our retinas and brain turning that into "pictures" of what our brain then calls a "turtle "laying its eggs" and therefore project our purposes onto that image.

I think anything else is unarguable. Are you disputing that what we see is light entering our retinas and being formed into pictures by our brain/ mind whatever?

And where did you get the idea of "genetic makeup" That ain't no Aristotle!

Edited November 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And who said human minds were accidental? They were planned by God- in his Human Purpose.

[Ahab]

Ahab, I like you but we just don't understand each other. Sorry.

Heh, lol. That's what communication is for, mski. With that people can understand each other, if they really want to.

I'm not shutting you out. Are you shutting me out? If not keep communicating with me and we'll keep learning learn more and more about each other.

I'm not done yet.

[mfbukowski]

That is what really turns Aristotle on his head I think. He was so interested in getting away from the Geek gods that his whole philosophy is an attempt to get rid of anthropomorphic gods.

Unfortunately he went down the wrong path.

[Ahab]

So of course we should not disturb a turtle laying its eggs for example, because that turtle has as much a "right" to fill the measure of its creation as we have to reproduce in our way.

Turtles are food to some people. By not disturbing a turtle laying its eggs do you mean we shouldn't eat them before they lay their eggs? Does that mean we need to keep track of them to make sure they lay their eggs before we eat them, to make sure we don't eat any before they lay eggs? Or what if they want to lay some more eggs after they lay their eggs once? Does that mean we should no longer eat turtles because, as you said, we should not disturb a turtle laying its eggs?

Who made you the boss of me, telling me and everyone else we shouldn't disturb a turtle laying its eggs?

So you can interpret that in any way you like I suppose.

Okay, I did, and I have some more thoughts about what you said that I didn't share with you.

[Seraphim32]

It's not a question of "what is actually happening" that we cannot know about- the issue is what we can and do know and how we know it.

Agreed.

All of that data of something called a "turtle" "coming ashore" to do an activity we call "laying its eggs" ALL of that is filtered through a human mind/brain and it must be or humans would not have seen it.

Even you are subject Aristotelian-type language here. Light hits the eye and is processed in order to relay a visual message to the brain. We can't even speak about anything with relying on Aristotle.

Science tells us (and you are free to ignore science if you like) that on some level what all those "events" are is light hitting our retinas and our retinas and brain turning that into "pictures" of what our brain then calls a "turtle "laying its eggs" and therefore project our purposes onto that image.

I agree that without teleology this is indeed all science can tell us. What is interesting is most scientists want to go beyond this, and they to want to talk about why things happen the way they do in nature.

Are you disputing that what we see is light entering our retinas and being formed into pictures by our brain/ mind whatever?

Absolutely not. I would simply add that the light entering our retinas and being formed into pictures by our brain/ mid/ whatever is an accurate depiction of the world an individual, except in extreme cases, has no reason to doubt.

I suppose that is the question that continues to arise as we have this discussion. Is it more reasonable for me to believe I am observing actual, objective chains of cause, or is it more reasonable for me to believe this order I perceive might not exist, and could simply be the result of my mental projections and understanding of language? I think it is clearly the case that an individual is able to understand cause and effect without knowing the words "cause" and "effect," or their equivalents in other languages.

[Seraphim32]

And who said human minds were accidental? They were planned by God- in his Human Purpose.

What exactly is it that leads you to reach such a conclusion?

[Ahab]

... when a turtle goes ashore to lay eggs it has the aim of laying eggs that is built into its very genetic make-up.

What makes you think that supports teleology? (I'm using the #2 definition you cited... thanks for those).

... (the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose)

I know you're "attributing" that fact to what you call a "natural" process directing the turtle to go ashore to lay eggs, if it needs to, but how do you know it's a "natural" process? Or what do you mean by "natural"? Just that it occurs in nature? What do you mean by "nature"? The word nature can be understood in many different ways, so I need your help to know a little more about what you mean here.

I'm considering the idea that creatures in "nature" do what they do because they "choose" to do what they do, if they want to. Who knows, maybe they get inspiration and revelation from God to help them know what to do, similar to how we do, and then they choose whether or not to do what God tells them, usually choosing to do what God tells them to do, instead of rebelling against God like we often do. If that's the case they should get some credit for choosing to be obedient to God, similar to how we get credit when we are obedient, rather than figuring it's just an "automatic" thing they do, whatever they do.

We can call it an aim, purpose, objective, or any other term, but it doesn't change the fact that there is something directed that is actually happening.

You're using the term "directed". In what sense do you believe turtles are directed to do that?

The turtle's going ashore to lay eggs is not some random collision and iteraction of matter that just happens to occur by chance.

I agree, but how does it happen? What is the turtle thinking? Or is it? We believe they have spirits within them, turtle spirits, so even if they don't have much of a brain to control their body they could still be capable of intelligent thought. I believe they are intelligent, even though not as intelligent as our kind of being.

The idea that the order only exists because the human mind manipulates it as such seems absurd, and even if this was the case how would one account for the apparent reality that all human minds that are also accidental project the same understanding of events upon the world?

I think you're off a little in what you think mski means here. He can clarify what he means better than I can, but I don't think he means what you think he means.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Ahab

[Seraphim32]

What makes you think that supports teleology? (I'm using the #2 definition you cited... thanks for those).

... (the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose)

I suppose because that is the only way I can make sense of the turtle's actions. If I doubt the turtle isn't acting for some purpose, as it appears to be, then it seems that I in turn must doubt everything that seems to be directed in life. How is one to make sense of the world if they can't order their perceptions in such a way?

I know you're "attributing" that fact to what you call a "natural" process directing the turtle to go ashore to lay eggs, if it needs to, but how do you know it's a "natural" process? Or what do you mean by "natural"? I mean nature Just that it occurs in nature? What do you mean by "nature"? The word nature can be understood in many different ways, so I need your help to know a little more about what you mean here.

I am using an Aristotelian sense of nature: "Aristotle defines a nature as "a source or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily".^[1] In other words, a nature is the principle within a natural raw material that is the source of tendencies to change or rest in a particular way unless stopped. For example a rock would fall unless stopped. Natural things stand in contrast to artifacts, which are formed by human artifice, not because of an innate tendency. (The raw materials of a bed have no tendency to become a bed.) In terms of Aristotle's theory of four causes, the word natural is applied both to the innate potential of matter cause and the forms which the matter tends to become naturally.^[" (from wiki)

I'm considering the idea that creatures in "nature" do what they do because they "choose" to do what they do, if they want to. Who knows, maybe they get inspiration and revelation from God to help them know what to do, similar to how we do, and then they choose whether or not to do what God tells them, usually choosing to do what God tells them to do, instead of rebelling against God like we often do. If that's the case they should get some credit for choosing to be obedient to God, similar to how we get credit when we are obedient, rather than figuring it's just an "automatic" thing they do, whatever they do.

Interesting take.

You're using the term "directed". In what sense do you believe turtles are directed to do thatI agree, but how does it happen? What is the turtle thinking? Or is it? We believe they have spirits within them, turtle spirits, so even if they don't have much of a brain to control their body they could still be capable of intelligent thought. I believe they are intelligent, even though not as intelligent as our kind of being.?

I don't believe turtles are rational, conscious beings in the way humans are. They can't intend to do things. Like robots they are pre-programmed to act in a certain way, but make no choice to act in such a way as a human might.

[mfbukowski]

Even you are subject Aristotelian-type language here. Light hits the eye and is processed in order to relay a visual message to the brain. We can't even speak about anything with relying on Aristotle.

Yes and I was aware of that too. You caught me. But that is the problem with translation- one must always use the idioms of those being instructed when teaching new concepts. If I had said "Only what we experience is real" you would have looked at me blankly and it would not have conveyed the correct idea. Aristotle has become "common sense" which is why we are having all this confusion about science and religion. Some terms you can translate and some you can't - like the words I used earlier- zeitgeist and milieu. But the concept I was conveying does not have any word but "experience" and so I had to express the sense of "experience I was using in the other vocabulary to communicate.

But in fact you cannot get outside of human experience to some world "where that experience comes from". I am not a solipsist- obviously the world is "given". Heidegger does a much better job of this but he is terribly hard to read. He uses the word "Dasein" to refer to what is given in experience in the sense I am using the term "experience" but if I said "Dasein" here NO ONE would have a clue.

Unfortunate but necessary. But you are definitely right about that. Aristotle, like Penny Lane is in our ears and in our eyes.

Absolutely not. I would simply add that the light entering our retinas and being formed into pictures by our brain/ mid/ whatever is an accurate depiction of the world an individual, except in extreme cases, has no reason to doubt.

That's fine but you cannot know that by your own admission. If you have no reason to doubt it, then don't. If you really don't doubt it, then where is your unobservable "mental realm"? Is the world what you can see or isn't it?

How does that world out there get from out there into your mysterious "mental realm"? How do you cram a real chair into your thoughts? Clearly it must be "represented" somehow.

But if it is "represented" how do you know it is represented correctly? What is the relationship between real chairs and the little pictures in your mental world then?

I suppose that is the question that continues to arise as we have this discussion. Is it more reasonable for me to believe I am observing actual, objective chains of cause, or is it more reasonable for me to believe this order I perceive might not exist, and could simply be the result of my mental projections and understanding of language? I think it is clearly the case that an individual is able to understand cause and effect without knowing the words "cause" and "effect," or their equivalents in other languages.

Disagree.

There is no way Helen Keller had any idea of "cause". You can read her books to establish that. It was just all immediate experience, one thing "after" another.

But I suppose now we are in the realm of psychology and have left Aristotle. I suppose the question could be settled by asking an expert in child psychology about when a child acquires the idea of "cause", but that's not philosophy.

But philosophically we are now back to Hume's argument, and you have already conceded that there is no need to discuss that further.

In case there really is anyone who is reading this, Hume argued, to put it very succinctly, that you could never really know what the single "cause" of any event was- all you could see is what you wanted to call a "cause", going back in an infinite regress. So the perception of a "cause" was something ascribed by the human mind, not something "real".http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

Edited November 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I found a great page about Helen Keller, and strongly suggest you read it.

Here is a tiny excerpt:

"It was the third of March, 1887, three months before I was seven years old. The morning after my teacher came she gave me a doll. The little blind children at the Perkins Institution had sent it and Laura Bridgman had dressed it; but I did not know this until afterward. When I had played with it a little while, Miss Sullivan slowly spelled into my hand the word "d-o-l-l." I was at once interested in this finger play and tried to imitate it. Running downstairs to my mother I held up my hand and made the letter for doll. I did not know that I was spelling a word or even that words existed; I was simply making my fingers go in monkey-like imitation. One day [a month later],while I was playing with my new doll, Miss Sullivan put my big rag doll into my lap also, spelled "d-o-l-l" and tried to make me understand that "d-o-l-l" applied to both. I became impatient at her repeated attempts and, seizing the new doll, I dashed it upon the floor. She brought me my hat, and I knew I was going out into the warm sunshine. We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered. Some one was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten--a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that "w-a-t-e-r" meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. On entering the door I remembered the doll I had broken. I felt my way to the hearth and picked up the pieces. I tried vainly to put them together. Then my eyes filled with tears; for I realized what I had done, and for the first time I felt repentance and sorrow.

There is much there about language and cognitive development as well. But of course this is science not philosophy.

http://www.percepp.com/hkeller.htm

[MiserereNobis]

But of course this is science not philosophy.

Hey, don't forget that philosophy is the queen of the sciences

[mfbukowski]

What exactly is it that leads you to reach such a conclusion?

Good question.

My direct subjective experience of God confirming that this is true. We call it a "testimony".

[mfbukowski]

Hey, don't forget that philosophy is the queen of the sciences

Yeah, we know that but physicists sometimes forget it and then get all confused when they discover something like the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Oh wait- did I say that? Am I bad or what? Of course I didn't mention it just because it supports my position or anything.....

So what is light "really"? It depends on how you measure it!

You mean that man is the measure of all things? Oh golly it couldn't mean that could it?...

Edited November 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

Yeah, we know that but physicists sometimes forget it and then get all confused when they discover something like the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Oh wait- did I say that? Am I bad or what? Of course I didn't mention it just because it supports my position or anything.....

So what is light "really"? It depends on how you measure it!

You mean that man is the measure of all things? Oh golly it couldn't mean that could it?...

Well, technically then the instrument detecting light would be the measure of all things, not man....

[Ahab]

I don't believe turtles are rational, conscious beings in the way humans are. They can't intend to do things. Like robots they are pre-programmed to act in a certain way, but make no choice to act in such a way as a human might.

Heh, what is your basis for believing that? I think you're presuming you know what it's like to be a turtle.

[Seraphim32]

In case there really is anyone who is reading this, Hume argued, to put it very succinctly, that you could never really know what the single "cause" of any event was- all you could see is what you wanted to call a "cause", going back in an infinite regress. So the perception of a "cause" was something ascribed by the human mind, not something "real".http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

Which all begs the question of why Hume was writing in the first place, if all he was really doing was sharing a personal, subjective experience that at several points undermines itself.

[Ahab]

Which all begs the question of why Hume was writing in the first place, if all he was really doing was sharing a personal, subjective experience that at several points undermines itself.

People do that all the time. Most people like to share what they think because they think others might benefit from their thoughts, and most of us are wrong at least once in a while.