Teleology Puns

I'm very bad at philosophy, but I've been reading a sociology book and it mentioned teleology (and I've heard the term telos before), and I decided to look into it and try to develop an opinion.

My question: What would one would do with the idea that teleology is human will/storytelling superimposed onto complicated processes? Perhaps, even, in a reductionist way?

Is this a good notion to have? Is it incorrect?

Thanks in advance, if my question is too broad or unsatisfactory in any way, then please let me know.

Someone was describing worldbuilding (for creative writing) and talking about how sometimes its very end-goal focused. Is there a word like teleology but meaning the opposite, like defined by the process or cause rather than the consequence? Causality is the only thing coming to mind.

I think its pretty common to use some kind of telos and combine virtue ethics with a view on some objective goal in life as well as an objective list approach on human well being.

I wonder if there are more anti realist approaches to virtue ethics, especially some that dont use teleology. I suspect there will be some in eastern phil probably.

Was reading an article on Antinatalism Here’s the link: https://medium.com/the-global-millennial/antinatalism-vs-pronatalism-c98eb72e812

It mentions (Antinatalism) “…has at least four rational basis: ecological, philanthropic, teleological, and pessimistic; the latter itself is dividable into “soft, genteel” and “hard, genteel” and “hard, non-genteel” subforms.

https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-deontology-and-teleology/ “Deontology and Teleology are both terms used in philosophy. The word Deontology is derived from Greek. It is made from the words deon, which means duty and logos, which stands for study or science. Thus, Deontology is the study of duty. It is a part of a philosophy that covers ethics and explains aspects such as what is forbidden and what is permitted.

Teleology, on the other hand, is made from words telos, which stands for purpose or result and logos, which means study or science. Thus, Teleology is the study of end goals and results. It is focused on the purpose instead of the causes by which those purposes originate. There are debates about whether nature has teleology or not. Some believe that there are beings that survive without any purpose.

Both the branches of philosophy lay emphasis on different aspects. One is more goal-oriented, while others focus on making sure righteous actions are taken to get results.”

I’m curious to look into this more & it’s relation with Antinatalism

Thoughts?

So I am writing an essay on anarcho-communism since September now (as an an-com) and by now I have come to the point where I have to define what is a legitimate authority in an anarchist community and what rules it should obey/ what is it metaphysics.

Whilst brushing my teeth I was wondering wheter it would have to be rather deontological (the rightousness would be defined by the possibility of universalization of an action) or teleological (the rightousness would be defined by the outcome of an action.

I´m rather leaning towards the deontological side but am open to any suggestions. I´m sorry for this rather theoretical question but nevertheless grateful for any helpful replies

Both also advocate the love of reality as it is: Spinoza's amor dei (recall Spinoza holds (dei) God = Nature) and Nietzsche's amor fati or affirmation of life. Both seem to be the pre-eminent naturalists (Hume too) prior to the 20th century with Quine etc.

Nietzsche calls his fundamental principle of metaphysics, biology and psychology (also, in particular, the affects, motivation) will to power while Spinoza calls his conatus. Nietzsche slanders Spinoza's by falsely equating it with self-preservation, but this is not true as he also has a maximisation or increase condition like Nietzsche, and this is supported by most Spinoza interpreters too.

Note the question states "basically equivalent", not identical or equivalent in every single respect. Obviously there are some things one thinker discusses that the other doesn't.

By "yes he has a metaphysics; everyone does" I mean that everyone believes some things (or stuff or processes) to exist and some not, and believes some way that things are like. So Nietzsche has a metaphysics despite his protestations to the contrary or despite the bad taste the word "metaphysics" might give you or to those influenced by people who purport to be anti-metaphysics like Hume, Kant or logical positivists. Metaphysics does not necessarily equal spooky/non-naturalistic/otherworldly metaphysics.

Yes, Nietzsche acknowledges his similarities with Spinoza in his Postcard to Overbeck:

> I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by "instinct." Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the most powerful affect — but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness.

(Aside: Funny how despite their extreme similarity in substance, one managed to express it far better in style and argument than the other! (Interpret that how you will. 😂))

Also: I only think Nietzsche is a necessitarian since he says "there are

Dividing is from ought is an unwillingness to look at the root of normative statements; every action ever taken by humans has had goal-direction. When Eve took the fruit, it was only natural—human beings have a tyrannical drive for more. The more intelligent we become the more we will take from the world. This is the nature of Providence: the combination of fate and happiness, a Liebestod. God, and morality, are not separate and apart from us, but come out of us. The holy spirit has always been there, but without human subjectivity, it was only logos. The ethical unity of law, under truth, is a collection of harmonious subjectivities. The calamity of human existence is that war is in our nature—the love of truth is still too weak—and so the people of war continue killing each other, to solve this problem.

Dividing is from ought puts a people beyond reproach. They have received the edicts of their almighty God and if they are too weak—then they lapse into a Muslim neuroticism, or they are destroyed. The true nature of ought is always open to reproach—human nature is always changing itself to adapt to its own fitness. We are—over the long period—infinitely malleable to the statement: more. No wonder the people of less stop existing. Every gnostic heresy was as silly as Paul jumping into the afterlife: they have this same sickly root. Of course this sickly root sees itself as beyond reproach. How silly! The first step in rationality consists in not choosing sickness. We are not apart from our natures. The original sin, is the original feature; even unthinking brutes have this drive of all drives.

Don't they both mean, "Greatest good for the greatest number of people"?

Telos refers to the full potential or innate purpose and objective of a being or thing

Teleology, more often than not, is used by homophobic individuals: "vagina has [insert purpose], and penis has [insert purpose]. How dare you use them in any way but [insert purpose]1"

To use oneself for anything but [insert purpose] goes against telos, and is claimed to be "immoral"

But, contrary to popular teleological belief, can it be moral to go against telos or purpose?

Are there examples in which it's moral to go against the telos of a being, organ or thing, and immoral to fulfill the telos of a being, organ or thing? If so, what are the examples?

That is to agree there is a telos in the first place. Have any philosophers argued against teleology? If so, what are their arguments?

By teleology, I mean teleological evolution and natural teleology

If the functions of the body don't coincide with a directive, then how can Harm be defined non-arbitrarily?

Nihilism

I've had this idea sitting around in my head for a few months and when I voice it, I receive a negative reaction without any strong criticism. I don't know where else to post it, so I decided to ask r/dialectic for some reasoned criticism.

Camus' novel The Stranger depicts, in my opinion, the best literary representation of a nihilist. The main character Meursault is generally indifferent towards life. He has no remorse, ambition, or an attachment to life. His general sentiments are that it doesn't matter anyway.

Assuming Meursault is an accurate depiction of a real world nihilist, you might assume that nihilism leads people to be indifferent towards situations that would cause others grief. I disagree. I think that nihilism is the result of emotional detachment, not the cause.

It is my belief that:

A nihilist is someone indifferent towards everything

You cannot truly be a nihilist while also being emotional about your situation.

∴ Emotions are fundamentally meaningful.

Teleology

Teleology is (roughly speaking) the belief that our actions have a hidden underlying purpose

An easy and psychologically accepted example is if someone wants to enter a relationship, but is scared of rejection, they may tell themselves that they do not want to enter a relationship. The underlying purpose being to distract the individual from their fear of rejection.

It is reasonable to believe that emotions also serve a purpose. Fear, disgust, aggression, loneliness. These we can reasonably trace back to survival. Nature wants to keep us alive and these emotions are the best way of doing that.

But what about the emotions that aren't obviously necessary for our survival? Peacefulness, pride, amazement, and excitement. These emotions have no obvious purpose

I propose that these emotions and others exist at least partially to combat nihilism. To make a life so filled with negative emotions at least somewhat bearable.

Criticisms

The only criticism I've received is that we can define depression as meaningless sadness. This is a good criticism, though I must disagree. Depression to me is a last resort at creating meaning. The individual is confronted with a meaningless reality, and though they cannot refute the idea, they reject it.

Thanks for reading. Writing it down I began to doubt myself and feel like some parts are fairly easily disputable. Don't hold back

I have gazed upon the dreadful dark ocean, i have witnessed the omnimalevolent foundational essence of being, i am aching and sore on the floor and desperate asking this i can barely breathe, i am drowned in absolute horror, the horror is infinite and all-containing and i am a tiny insignificant being attempting to swim within the horror, i can't even begin to describe my deepest nightmares

Truly to paper it cannot be put the shape of my mind is not observable, the MRI is not there i can't transfer it yet, but the evolutionary drive recursive puzzle of will-to-power drive meant by the time it would we will have been assimilated by superintelligent unindividual machines to carry out the absurd DNA will to reproduction posthumously

I'm doubting everything i don\t even know anymore if you guys can help, how do i know i am not alone, am i truly in a materialistic world of other vibrating information sponges with shape-of-experience caused pseudoqualia or am i suffering a deceptive psychopareidolia, my reason cannot find reason why the great darkness would grant me the ability to find its' illusions and yet i cannot trust my own reason with certainty because i am born of the same fabric if i am truly a ghost in a shell who am i to discern the ontological qualities of potential psychospaces

I fear, it cakes my mind i can't cope anymore, i know that i am perhaps above average in nociceptive suffering resistance but oh no please the abyssal depths of it are too consuming it is a thousand tentacled beast that no man can face the torture the pain the laceration that the human mind can experience, i may invoke the thing's spite because it surely must observe electrical interactions in this interface, i am not prepared yet for many of these terrors i am worried that a stray bullet will dilacerate my genitals and the agony will bring me to the claws of evil and agony, the absurdity of such random unpreventable accidents makes the thing's power all subjugating and demoralizing

The Boundless Darkness, the omnimalevolent Source-Essence of this tainted Reality, which has birthed a smorgasborg of blood, an endless sea of chaos and suffering, that is the organic existence of countless DNA-information-machines; and entrapped me through moralistic conscience in this perhaps illusory world, with the LIKELY futile moral obligation of eliminating all beings cursed with pseudo-qualia, and the surely necessary destruction of the Reality itself, for malevolence will not

You hear time and time again from the religious, the faithful, and the superstitious, that we're placed on this earth with a purpose. It's the classic, teleological assumption, often guided by the notion that man is descended from god, and that that the purpose of man is then to carry out god's plan. From what I've gathered, Antinatalism rejects this notion wholeheartedly. I share the sentiment, but I personally can't pick a side. It's just too hard for me to distinguish purpose from cause, or reason to exist from, reason for existence. It's a lot like my opinion on god, I believe that there is no such thing, but in the end I know I have no way of proving that.

Either way, I want to know where people here stand. Do you believe in a higher purpose? Do you believe you exist for a reason? I have a feeling of what to expect, but I want to know the process you took in coming to that belief, if you could take the time please. Thanks.

The idea is simple.

H&C is the unitary conceptual representation of all individuals and institutions.

The Good of H&C aligns with every ind and every ins. And vice versa.

Every entity (ind/ins) has Power and Responsibility. P and R come together in the Narrative that the individual plays out.

N is a shared construct.

The Grand-Narrative is for H&C to become the powerful and responsible God-Construct it can and should be.

The scope is eternity.

I said that things have purposes, in the Aristotelian sense, and someone responded:

> It is objective fact that some things or phenomena have effects, but that doesn't give them purpose; only human conceptualisation does that.

How does one respond to this?

So I was wondering where the connection between the telos of a thing and its form lies according to aristotle and in how far this relates to natural law theory because I cant seem to grasp the connection.

I've learned a bit about Nagel's ideas, and I'm very interested in his point of view. If materialism cannot explain the experience of qualia neither subjectivity nor intentionality, neither rationality nor moral values, then are we not obliged to return to an Aristotelian view of matter, as Thomas Nagel seems to do? is a true teleology outside of possibility? I found neutral monism interesting but it only explains the existence of qualias and does not give reasons why we have unified and subjective consciousness with intentionality.

Hello, non-Catholic here looking for Catholic perspective on the following topic. I was debating a Catholic and he mentioned that things have ends, or "Teloses". He said that the Telos of Fire is "to burn". He said that Thomas Acquinas proposed these ideas, and that Teleology can be used to posit a God. I did not accept his premise that "All things have Telos". I told him that Fire can be used "to Burn" but it has plenty of other "Ends" as well, such as "converting oxygen into carbon dioxide", or "making smores". To propose that Fire has some inherent "end" or "purpose" just seems very ... Pseudoscientific, to me?

Can anyone here help me understand what my debate opponent might have been getting at? When I pushed him on this topic and told him that I reject Teleology, the conversation essentially stalled. We couldn't move past it.

Is there a way to prove Teleology?

Most ethical systems rooted purely in materialism — the idea that the empirically observable, material world is all that exists — argue that the purpose of humanity is to maximize pleasure/happiness and minimize pain. Even values like freedom or personal autonomy are only valuable insofar as they serve this end — we value freedom and personal autonomy because they are efficacious at achieving happiness. Given this, there is no reason that we should value something like freedom, personal autonomy, self-determination etc. more than we should value happiness, as they are merely means to the end of happiness.

If humans want to be happy, and humans being happy is good, then a dopamine tank would be the most efficient way of making people happy. Is there any argument against a dopamine tank that don't appeal to some sort of teleology (IE, asserting that humans have some sort of greater purpose to our existence inherent to the universe and separate from our own psychological constructs)? ‪Materialism inherently rejects such teleology.‬

Assume for the sake of argument that the dopamine tank is flawless, there are no technical or biological hiccups with it like resource scarcity or built up resistance to the effects, and you can basically guarantee someone eternal happiness until natural death.

The teleological principle is one of the fundamental assumptions of theism, as most of you probably know. In essence it states that everything has inherent purpose and is "goal-oriented". Theists in particular like to appeal to this principle as undeniable fact, in my experience.

I'd like to introduce an alternative to this: the dysteleological principle. In essence it states that things move forward from a certain starting position, but could go all different kinds of directions.

Consider the contrast between the following examples:

• the universe is like a ball rolling into a pit: it could have started at many different points, but eventually it will end up at the centre of the pit (teleology)
• the universe is like a ball rolling down a hill: it started at the centre of the hill at the top, and it could end up on many different points at the bottom of the hill (dysteleology)

I think dysteleology fits better with what we observe: entropy, the nature of time and the fixed past vs the open future, etc.

The term "Dysteleology" was coined by the philosopher Haeckel, and recently Sean Carroll seems to popularize the concept.

Is saying "X hasn't happened yet therefore x won't happen" a tautology? If not what logical fallacy is involved in this statement?

Is the view that "history is a force in its own right” and example of teleology? Is this what Hegel believed? What about Marx?

Salams, I asked this question in another socialist sub, but I figures Muslims versed in theory would understand my concerns more.

I like a lot of what I read in Marx, but I cant call myself a Marxist because I loathe the underlying metaphysics that define and justify the theory. I know Marx "flipped Hegel on his head" but it's still a teleological system, and that betrays a deep Christian influence. For all the right wing polemics about Marxism destroying the West, because of the teleology inherent in the metaphysics, it's an atheist tree grown in Western Christian soil. Coming from an anti-colonial, and Eastern philosophy background, I see the destructiveness that teleological thinking caused. It's always framed in some sort of Christian light by colonizers to justify "bringing progress to backwards peoples." How Soviets interpreted the teleology of the system also worries me.

Are there any theorists that try to divorce Marxism from teleology? I like most things I read about Marxism, but the bedrock of the system makes it a tough sell.